December 3, 2007

Even Low Lead Levels Lower IQ

Kids with lead levels within the high end of currently acceptable standards have lower IQ scores than kids with even lower levels. Cynthia Graber reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly

Apple | Spotify | YouTube | RSS

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Toy companies and parents reacted quickly this year when some toys made in China were found to contain lead. Because lead is known to affect kids’ cognitive development. In 1991, the Centers for Disease Control set a federal standard of 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. So the eight percent of US kids five and younger who have lead levels between 5 and 10 micrograms are considered safe. But recent Cornell University research in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives supports a stricter standard.

The research team had previously followed kids from birth through age five. The current study looked again at the children at age six. The kids were divided into two groups: one with blood lead levels between 0 and 5, and the other with 5 to 10—again, currently considered okay. Turned out that those in the 5-10 group had IQ scores about five points lower than those with the lowest lead levels. Scientists say this could affect educational performance later in life. They recommend reconsidering federal standards for lead in consumer products and reevaluating the acceptable blood lead levels in children.

—Cynthia Graber

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American