I do think it's also important to differentiate between suffocation and SIDS...they aren't the same. SIDS is really such a sad sad mystery and back to sleep is certainly one of the main theories they have at the moment. It's really best to put your baby to sleep on their back if you can. This is what the current recommendation is. However, your baby can still suffocate if he/she is on her back and manages to get his/her face covered to the point they cannot breathe.
There is no standard approach to classifying crib death, what one coroner rules suffocation another might rule SIDS, thus they cannot 100% confirm that the statistics they are pushing (like 50% decline in rates from back to sleep) are in fact entirely accurate. There is much question about these statistics in the medical communities. Although it is a risk factor, all other things being equal, if you put your baby on their back they can still die from SIDS.
Plus the 50% does not apply to everyone either:
Although the overall rate of SIDS in the United States has declined by more than 50% since 1990, rates for non-Hispanic black and American Indian/Alaska Native infants remain disproportionately higher than the rest of the population.
They simply do not know why that is nor can they say unequivocally that those groups are not putting their kids on their back. They may be.
Back to sleep started in 1992 and there has not been another recommendation since really. It's only a matter of time before they sort this incredibly sad issue (I hope) and have verifiable recommendations with some validity to back it up. It does not mean they need to do unethical testing on babies. There are other ways for them to standardize the best practices and put that data to some better use.
Here's some of the initiatives they are working on:
http://www.cdc.gov/sids/SUIDAbout.htmAnd a thought-provoking article I read recently:
http://www.parenting.com/article/sids-and-babies
