Association of Childhood Blood Lead Levels With Criminal Offending

Abstract

Importance Lead is a neurotoxin with well-documented effects on health. Research suggests lead may be associated with criminal behavior. This association is difficult to disentangle from low socioeconomic status, a factor in both lead exposure and offending. Objective To test the hypothesis that higher childhood blood-lead level (BLL) is associated with greater risk of (1) criminal conviction, (2) recidivism (repeat conviction), (3) violent conviction, and (4) variety of self-reported criminal offending, in a setting where BLL was not associated with low socioeconomic status (SES). Design Prospective cohort study based on a population-representative 1972–73 birth cohort; the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study observed participants to age 38 years. Setting Dunedin, New Zealand Participants 553 lead-tested members of the Dunedin Study Exposure BLL measured at age 11 years. Main Outcomes and Measures Official criminal conviction cumulative to age 38 years (data collected in 2013). Single conviction or recidivism. Nonviolent or violent crime conviction. Self-reported variety of crime types at ages 15, 18, 21, 26, 32, and 38 years. Results Participants included 553 individuals who had been lead-tested at age 11 years (54% male). Mean (SD) BLL at age 11 years was 11.01 (4.62) μg/dL. Outcome prevalence was: criminal conviction, 28%; recidivism, 16%; violent conviction, 10%. Self-reported offending variety ranged from 0–10 at each assessment and followed the well-established age-crime curve. BLL was a poor predictor of criminal conviction (AUC .58). Overall, associations between BLL and conviction outcomes were weak. Estimated effect of BLL was lower for recidivism than for single conviction and lower for violent offending than nonviolent offending. Sex-adjusted associations between BLL reached statistical significance for only one of the six self-reported offending outcomes, at age 15 years (r=0.10; 95%CI, 0.01, 0.18; P = .023). Conclusions and Relevance This study overcomes past limitations of studies of BLL and crime by studying the association in a place and time where the relation was not confounded by childhood socioeconomic status. Findings failed to support a dose-response association between BLL and consequential criminal offending.

Environmental Inequality: The Social Causes and Consequences of Lead Exposure

“…These studies document a positive correlation between lead exposure and various indicators of delinquency www.annualreviews.org • Environmental Inequality 271 (Amato et al 2013, Dietrich et al 2001, Reyes 2015a, Wright et al 2008. One recent study based on a 1972 birth cohort in Dunedin, New Zealand, with lead levels ranging from 4 to 31 µg/dL, reports that lead exposure in childhood, measured at age 11 years, had a weak relationship with official criminal convictions and self-reported offending from ages 15 to 38 years (Beckley et al 2018). 7 Four recent studies use different sources of exogenous variation in lead exposure to identify its effect on crime.…”

Timescales of developmental toxicity impacting on research and needs for intervention

“…1 Elevated early-life exposure to inorganic lead had long-term consequences that much later were found to include psychopathies, delinquency and increased risk of cardiovascular disease in adulthood. [2][3][4] In the late 1950s, a Japanese fishing town was plagued by a mysterious illness that was at first thought to be infectious. Of note, a pregnant woman who ate seafood heavily contaminated with methylmercury might be unscathed herself but would give birth to a poisoned child with spastic paresis and intellectual disability.…”

A neurodevelopmental perspective on male violence

“…Among these, the "silent epidemic" of lead exposure is a particularly well-replicated risk factor for violent and antisocial behavior (Glenn & Raine, 2014). More recent research, however, has observed only a weak association between high lead and antisocial behavior in New Zealand, where blood lead levels were not confounded with socioeconomic status (Beckley et al, 2018).…”