Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
IODISED SALT IS so common that we barely notice it. Few people know why it even exists.
Iodine deficiency can hinder the brain’s development. According to a new study, its introduction to American diets in 1924 had an effect so profound that it raised the country’s IQ.
Iodine is currently not always found in table salt in Ireland. A study published in the Irish Journal of Medical Science found that low level of iodine consumption by pregnant women in Ireland was a “cause for concern”.
A new working paper by James Feyrer, Dimitra Politi, and David N. Weilby from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), an American research organisation, finds that the population in iodine-deficient areas saw IQs rise by a full standard deviation, which is 15 points, after iodised salt was introduced.
Since one quarter of the population lived in those areas, that corresponds to a 3.5 point increase nationwide. IQs have risen by about 3 points every decade, something called the Flynn effect, so iodisation of salt may be responsible for a full decade’s worth of increasing IQ in the U.S.
If a mother is iodine deficient while she’s pregnant, the cognitive development of the foetus is impeded, and the effects are irreversible. To this day, the World Health Organization estimates that nearly 50 million people suffer some kind of mental impairment related to iodine deficiency.
Before iodised salt, people were deficient based almost entirely on geography, whether the water and soil in their area had enough of the micronutrient. Diseases resulting from the deficiency, most commonly goiter, or swelling of the thyroid, were extremely common.
The differences by geography were vast, making the effects easy to isolate. Seawater, for example, is rich in iodine, but glaciers depleted iodine rich soil in places like Michigan:
(Image Credit: Feyrer, Politi, and Weil)
The mental impacts were unknown, the program was started to fight goiter, so these effects were an extremely fortunate unintended side effect.
To figure out the effects, the researchers used the data from the Army General Classication Test (AGCT) given to people who enlisted during World War 2. That covers a wide group of men born precisely at the time iodised salt was introduced (1920-1927), which allowed comparison of low and high iodine areas.
The Air Force received enlistees who scored significantly higher on the AGCT, and the number of men who scored well and went to the Air Force from low iodine areas dramatically increased after iodised salt was introduced. The estimates of intelligence increases are based on that data.
Here’s the author’s chart that shows the boost in Air Force enlistment rates:
(Image Credit: NBER)
Despite these positive effects, there were some negative side effects as well. People who suffer long-term iodine deficiency can actually end up with from hyperthyroidism when it’s introduced to their diet, so deaths spiked for a few years. However, the aggregate effect has been extremely positive.
Max Nisen
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Should be a requirement that one parent is working
Talk about throwing equality out the window. Like all things that’s for the betterment of womankind, it’s too slow, it’s too few and it comes with too many restrictions. Time for the women of Ireland to speak up on this matter. God forbid a woman can build a career first then only have 1 shot at IVF. FFG making more hurdles for the next government.
@Peter: women are having a families far too late in life. Thats a biological fact. There needs to be a societal shift into having families earlier in life. This is a step in the right direction and should help a lot of people who are struggling and should be commended. More to do yes
@Peter: so why don’t you run for election and change the system?
Why don’t you start a lobby group and advocate for change?
It’s a lot easier to just moan about “FFG” and do nothing, ain’t that right Pete?!?!
The scheme is a joke for sound bites only and when you look at the conditions it restricts too many women to make any benifit. Families having less kids and at an older age is a direct result of policies promoting such.
Security of a home, well we will punish and reduce your lending amount. Maturnity leave over, Time to return to work, well your baby is too young for creche and when of age we will charge a fortune. Shortage of schools in your area amongst new housing, well that land was given away free. Your child is on Austism spectrum. Well wait 2 years to be accessed and receive no help.
@Barney: kind of makes you wonder why people have children at all!
Definitely should be free. But I feel the age cut off should be 35.
The scheme is a joke! Basing it on having a BMI is ridiculous! If the government want to help people doing IVF they should regulate the IVF clinics so they stop falsifying their “success rates” to make more money from vulnerable people trying to realise their dreams!!
Perhaps we also need to change the societal narrative that there is something wrong with being childless? (Or even single, for that matter.) Everybody’s contribution to society is important, and life can be just as fulfilling for those who don’t follow the well-trodden path.
If you want children, pay for them yourself, or even do a good thing and adopt?
Don’t expect others to finance your choices!
@Alison Hughes: Assume you are against child support?
have your say