> When people are suffering physically from the effects of lack of iodine, isn't it rather Western to consider raised intelligence the most talkworthy improveme

> When people are suffering physically from the effects of lack of iodine, isn't it rather Western to consider raised intelligence the most talkworthy improvement!? Iodized water should be used to make people's lives better and reduce their pain - not to increase their intelligence by some token amount If it was just a "token amount" I'd agree with you. But it isn't. Half a billion people in India suffer from Iodine deficiency (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_deficiency#Local_impact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_deficiency#Local_impact ) If half a country's population have reduced intelligence of about 10 IQ points because of this, then obviously that country's economy will suffer. If India had had no iodine deficiency since independence in 1948 it might be as rich as South Korea today -- it would certainly be richer than it is. People in poor countries have IQ scores (as callibrated using Western norms) of 70 or so. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_race#Worldwide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_race#Worldwide ) Partly this is due to social differences, i.e. growing up in an environment where there are less problems like IQ tests. But partly also it is genuinely due to lower intelligence. If in those countries you ended chronic undernutrition, ended lack of micronutrients, ended cousin marriages, improved sewers, hygeine and basic healthcare, these people would grow up with IQs similar to those in the western world. This would lead to their economies becoming richer. So it isn't just a "token amount" it's a big fucking deal.