Background Lead poisoning prevention efforts include preparing and disseminating informational materials such as brochures and pamphlets to increase awareness of lead poisoning, lead exposures and lead poisoning prevention. However, studies have demonstrated that patient education materials for diseases and health conditions are prepared at a reading level that is higher than the recommended 7th–8th grade reading level. This study, therefore, aims to assess the reading levels of lead poisoning informational materials. Methods Lead poisoning materials (N = 31) were accessed from three states; Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania. The readability levels of the materials were assessed using the Flesh Kincaid Grade Level readability test. The Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to determine if the readability levels differed between the materials obtained from the different states. Thematic content analyses were carried out to assess the inclusion of four themes; definition of lead poisoning, risk factors and exposures, testing and referral and prevention covering 12 subtopics. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to examine if there was a difference in the number of subtopics by readability level (dichotomized to >8th grade and < 8th grade). Results The median readability level of the informational materials was 6.7 (IQR: 5.1–8.1). However, there was variability in the readability levels of the materials (range 3.5 to 10.6); materials obtained from Michigan had the highest median reading level of 8.1 (IQR: 6.9–9.0) followed by Pennsylvania. Heterogeneity was observed in the content of the materials. Most of the materials (80%) from Michigan focused on water as a source of lead poisoning, whereas materials from New York and Pennsylvania focused on lead-based paint and other sources. The materials prepared at >8th grade reading level contained fewer topics than materials prepared at <8th grade reading level. Conclusions We find that the materials were often prepared at reading levels lower than the recommended 8th grade reading level. However, there is variability in the reading levels and in the content of the materials. While the materials met the general readability guidelines, they did not necessarily meet the needs of specific groups, especially groups at risk.