The economics of childhood lead poisoning

Following on from my post on lead yesterday, I stumbled on the following article

Childhood Lead Poisoning: Conservative Estimates of the Social and Economic Benefits of Lead Hazard Control

Published on the Environmental Health Perspectives website.

The study involved undertaking a cost-benefit analysis which quantified the social and economic
benefits to households of lead paint hazard control balanced against the investments needed to minimize exposure to these hazards. The conclusions of the study are

"there are substantial returns to investing in lead hazard control, particularly targeted at early intervention in communities most likely at risk. Given the high societal costs of inaction, lead hazard control appears to be well worth the price."

The analysis is really only relevant to the USA as the economic factors, which include the costs of health care, costs of education, earnings, and taxes are only applicable there. Nevertheless I'm sure that a similar analysis undertaken in other developed countries would reach similar conclusions. Hopefully the findings are convincing enough to influence regulators. However, in the developing world different conclusions would probably be reached if the need to control lead was considered only from an economic perspective. Is the health of children there any less important even if the balance in the cost-benefit equation is different?

Health is not just an economic issue. Although economic arguments can help to persuade governments of a need to take action, the right to good health goes beyond that. Ethical considerations must surely carry more weight.