8. The History Behind the Myth
Where did the myth come from?
TV Personality Esther Rantzen's Softened Water – Cot Death Claim in the 1980's
In the mid-1980s, prominent BBC presenter Esther Rantzen – known for her satirical consumer affairs show 'That’s Life!' – raised concern about a possible link between home water softeners and cot death (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome).
Reports indicate that Esther (or at least her programme) suggested that babies in homes using softened tap water might face a higher SIDS risk. This claim drew wide attention, and so the myth began.
Many parents, understandably alarmed, stopped using softened water for drinking or preparing baby formula. As a precaution, parents who owned water softeners shut them off, and the industry saw a 40% decline in sales over the 18 months that followed - eventually a decision was made as to how to overcome the drop in sales, and it became common in the UK to install a separate hard-water tap for drinking.
At the time, SIDS was poorly understood, so Esther Rantzen’s theory – tying SIDS to something in the water – resonated with anxious families.
However, the water softening industry and medical experts maintain that this was a misleading claim, not backed by solid evidence.
No scientific study at the time confirmed any link between softened water and cot deaths, and the notion is now regarded as an unfortunate - but understandable - media-driven myth from that period.
British MP, Edwina Currie’s Statement in the House of Commons and Her Fluoridation Theory
Edwina Currie, a Conservative MP (and later a junior health minister), did not specifically single out home water softeners as a SIDS cause in the 1980s. She did, however, make a related public statement about water quality and cot deaths.
In a January 1985 House of Commons debate on water fluoridation, Edwina Currie argued that adding fluoride to water might have unforeseen health effects. She noted that Australia – a fully fluoridated country – had the world’s highest incidence of cot deaths, speculating that there might be a link.
Edwina noted that fluoride can inhibit certain enzymes, and suggested this might contribute to infant mortality (since one theory held that SIDS could stem from an “oxygen-carrying enzyme” deficiency).
Importantly, Edwina made clear that her comments were speculative: She admitted there was no proven evidence of harm, but felt such possibilities couldn’t be entirely ruled out yet.
In short: Edwina Currie’s remarks were about fluoridation, not softeners, and she was voicing cautious concern rather than making a definitive claim.
Medical and Official Reactions at the Time
Health professionals and authorities swiftly rebutted the water-related SIDS theories.
In response to Edwina Currie’s fluoridation remarks, another MP rose in the Commons to cite expert findings from Australia: "extensive research by Australia’s health council in 1979 had found no link between fluoridated water and cot deaths". He also noted that Sydney – which had fluoridated water since the 1960s – "actually enjoyed one of the lowest SIDS rates in Australia".
Edwina Currie acknowledged this correction on the record, conceding the point. Likewise, the mainstream medical consensus did not support the idea that soft water (whether naturally soft or artificially softened by a water softener) was causing infant deaths.
Paediatric specialists warned that focusing on unproven causes could distract from known risk factors. At the time, major SIDS organisations like the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths (FSID) emphasised the need for rigorous research. (Notably, FSID invited Esther Rantzen to serve as a patron for its research efforts, underscoring that her involvement was welcome in raising awareness, but any specific claims needed scientific validation.) Doctors writing in medical journals were openly skeptical of “unlikely explanations” for cot death – a 1985 letter in The Lancet, for example, took aim at several unsubstantiated theories circulating in the media.
In summary:
By the mid-to-late 1980s, medical authorities and researchers uniformly agreed that there was no reliable evidence linking softened water (or water fluoridation) to SIDS.
Media Coverage and Aftermath
The softened-water scare received considerable media coverage, in part due to Esther Rantzen’s high profile on television.
While her intentions were almost certainly good - aiming to help prevent SIDS - the claim about water softeners was eventually clarified as unfounded.
Some newspapers and medical correspondents at the time ran pieces quoting experts who debunked the idea.
In the late 1980s, public messaging around SIDS shifted toward evidence-based risk factors:
- Infant sleep position
- smoking in the home
- overheating – all of which were confirmed by research.
By 1990, the launch of the "Back to Sleep" campaign (based on solid evidence) led to a dramatic drop in SIDS cases, and earlier speculative theories faded into history.
Today, in retrospect, the softened-water scare is often cited as an example of how well-intentioned media attention — without strong scientific backing — can fuel public myths.
Corrections from medical authorities ultimately followed both Esther Rantzen’s and Edwina Currie’s incursion into SIDS causes. No formal retraction by Esther Rantzen is recorded, but the consensus on the issue became clear: water softening was not a culprit in SIDS, and parents could safely focus on proven risk-reduction measures instead.