Japan is already starting this. It's not banned yet, of course, but disincentives are beginning to be put into place.
There's weird theories about lead poisoning
Lead poisoning was a true problem for the Romans. They lined their baths with it. It was used for plumbing. They used lead acetate to sweeten wine. Et cetera.
Lead is what poisoned Beethoven, too. It took a long time for people to really take lead seriously. Remember leaded gasoline? Some countries still use it. Even today, I worked with a contractor who complained bitterly about what he considered (erroneously) to be ridiculous restrictions on lead. Lead continues to be a serious social problem. Lead dust from building demolition leads to brain damage in youth and crime later, in the inner city. That's just one example. People living near lead smelters have a higher crime rate. Lead has been found in elevated levels in cocoa powder and yet you don't see really anyone doing anything about that, today. The same goes for lead in fruit juices (lead arsenate was used heavily in orchards before DDT and later pesticides and contaminates the soil long-term). Lead is difficult to appreciate, in terms of its toxicity, by the casual observer because unless it is an acute poisoning (much less common), its symptoms look like a lot of other common problems. One of the things it does is make a person age more quickly, by causing cells to die. How does one go about proving that lead is causing their aging symptoms without careful modern science? Chronic poisoning by heavy metals and arsenic is tricky to diagnose even today. Van Gogh suffered badly from poisoning from arsenic and heavy metals (as well as VOCs), due to the paints he used and the environment he lived in. However, he is mainly remembered as being an example of the "artistic temperament" — not a victim of element toxicities.
As for homosexuality, that's utter rubbish in more than one way. For example, unlike the Greeks, the Romans were strongly against egalitarian homosexuality. (The Greeks were also against it but not to the same degree, particularly since older adolescents and their mentors were more commonly able to engage in intimacy). Roman men, especially those of status, were supposed to be dominant. The belief was that providing pleasure to someone else via acts that aren't seen as displays of dominance is demeaning and servile. This meant Roman men were expected to abandon the "passive" role once they reached adulthood (the time of shorn curls). I am not certain but I doubt that men of status/privilege were permitted to be the "curls" in such a relationship at all (e.g. a Hadrian and an Antinous with the roles reversed). This is in some contrast with the Greeks where such relationships (teacher and student) were more common among the elites. The Roman dominance obsession extended to heterosexual sex, with a list of things men weren't supposed to do for women, including acts commonly practiced today by heterosexuals. There are bathhouse paintings in Pompeii that depict some of the banned behaviors. Experts said the onlookers would have seen them as humorous as well as transgressive.
One of the most frequent ways to attack male politicians throughout most of history has been accusations of homosexuality and Rome was no different. Caesar, for example, was the target of such rumors — that he liked to be the "wife" of various men. Unlike most contemporary cultures, the Romans did not believe that simply engaging in homosexual activity is proof that a person is a homosexual or that it converts people. This confuses many contemporary people into falsely believing that Rome was not strongly heterosexist, despite the greater level of tolerance of dominant/submissive (based on age difference) relationships (e.g. Hadrian with Antinous until Antinous became a "real man" at the age of 21). Roman men were also free to have sex with slaves of either sex, provided they remained in the "dominant" role. By contrast, a wife could be executed by her husband for infidelity. Clearly, egalitarian relationships were at the bottom of the Roman agenda. Some (myself included) even think that elites murdered Antinous to prevent Hadrian from redefining the norm, as Hadrian wanted to continue their relationship past Antinous' 21st birthday and theoretically had the power to do so as emperor.
(I should mention that Sparta was a very different culture when looking at the Greeks. I am not an expert on it but what I understand is that it was about male dominance in a manner similar to that of Rome. However, the military — most able-bodied men basically — eschewed heterosexual relationships for the most part in favor of more drastic homosocial unity, unity brought about through things like torturous hazing. Their women, though, were also known for being tough. There is a fairly well-known example of a mother telling her son to either return home victorious or dead. My limited understanding is that Sparta was even more militarized than Rome – per capita– which is saying something.)
And of course a range of beneficial side effects to the normal economy as well.
