Does eating game taken with traditional ammunition pose a health risk?

The deer man

Well-Known Member
I've yet to see any evidence and I've also yet to see evidence of deer shot with lead jacketed bullets killing any bird species in the UK, I'd be very interested to see the scientific data?
 

Attachments

  • EatingGame_TradAmmo.pdf
    472.3 KB · Views: 40

Buchan

Well-Known Member
I thikn there have been a couple of captive raptors with lead poisoning, but I have no reports to hand. There is plenty of evidence for the role lead played in condor mortality in the States though. Googe Scholar should find it.
 

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
I've yet to see any evidence and I've also yet to see evidence of deer shot with lead jacketed bullets killing any bird species in the UK, I'd be very interested to see the scientific data?

If you want to see evidence you could start by looking at the the actual CDC North Dakota study that is largely misrepresented in the article you posted.


The NSSF article you posted is misleading about the CDC ND results...opposite spin at worst, cherry picking at best...one wonders why they would misrepresent something that is so easily checked...

This is the preamble but there is a lot more on the North Dakota Department of Health website linked above...

"Based on the results of the CDC blood lead level study and a Minnesota bullet study, the North Dakota Department of Health has developed the following recommendations to minimize the risk of harm to people who are most vulnerable to the effects of lead:

  • Pregnant women and children younger than 6 should not eat any venison harvested with lead bullets.
  • Older children and other adults should take steps to minimize their potential exposure to lead, and use their judgment about consuming game that was taken using lead-based ammunition.
  • The most certain way of avoiding lead bullet fragments in wild game is to hunt with non-lead bullets.
  • Hunters and processors should follow the processing recommendations developed by the North Dakota Department of Agriculture.
These are recommendations only; they are intended to help the citizens of North Dakota to make informed choices. Not every state will necessarily issue the same recommendations."

This from a link on the same site...


"In May 2008, 738 North Dakotans participated in a study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the North Dakota Department of Health designed to measure the risk of higher blood lead levels caused by consuming wild game harvested with lead bullets. On Nov. 5, 2008, the CDC released a preliminary analysis of the lead levels.
The study shows a link between eating wild game shot with lead bullets and higher blood lead levels.
Study Results
In the study, people who ate a lot of wild game tended to have higher lead levels than those who ate little or none. The study also showed that the more recent the consumption of wild game harvested with lead bullets, the higher the level of lead in the blood.
Wild game is not the only or most important risk factor for human lead exposure; however, the study findings suggest that it is one important risk factor."


Doesn't bear much resemblance to the claims made in the NSSF article does it?

Alan

ps edited to better represent that... Nathan Foster referred to that NSSF article as showing that "blood lead studies can and have been corrupted:"

Talk about corruption...bit of an own goal really.
 
Last edited:

borbal

Well-Known Member
If you want to see evidence you could start by looking at the the actual CDC North Dakota study....
Yes, but we do not actually see the "actual" study.

We see some heavily qualified "preliminary" conclusions from the study. But that was 13 years ago - where is a link to the actual study so we can see how it was actually conducted and how it was controlled for lead in humans from other sources, or lead in the deer from other sources?

From this "preliminary" conclusion that lead was found in the blood of people who ate venison, we are then told that lead in the blood is bad for you. And from that, there are recommendations that you quote above, without stating if the levels of lead in the blood they found was actually of a level where these symptoms was a danger.

Frankly, this is bad science. I mean, really bad science.
 

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
Yes, but we do not actually see the "actual" study.

We see some heavily qualified "preliminary" conclusions from the study. But that was 13 years ago - where is a link to the actual study so we can see how it was actually conducted and how it was controlled for lead in humans from other sources, or lead in the deer from other sources?

From this "preliminary" conclusion that lead was found in the blood of people who ate venison, we are then told that lead in the blood is bad for you. And from that, there are recommendations that you quote above, without stating if the levels of lead in the blood they found was actually of a level where these symptoms was a danger.

Frankly, this is bad science. I mean, really bad science.
I suggested going to the misreported ND study was only a start. But it is not my job to justify claims or provide information, I pointed out the misinformation in the NSSF article. You must do you own research.

Did you find the NSSF article that @The deer man posted was an accurate representation of the results of the CDC ND study that the NDDoH published?

I am surprised you consider it is really bad science even though you say you have not been able to find the actual study to analyse it. On what are you basing your "bad science" assumption then?

The NSSF were the ones who referred to it and described it as "the CDC science- based study" but they misrepresented all the rest of it so who knows?

Did you follow all the links on the left margin of North Dakota Department of Health website page I linked to?

Do you consider the WHO / CDC / EFSA finding that there is no safe level of lead to be based on bad science?

EFSA...
"Lead is absorbed more in children than in adults and accumulates in soft tissues and, over time, in bones. Half-lives of lead in blood and bone are approximately 30 days and 10 30 years, respectively, and excretion is primarily in urine and faeces. The Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM Panel) identified developmental neurotoxicity in young children and cardiovascular effects and nephrotoxicity in adults as the critical effects for the risk assessment. The respective BMDLs derived from blood lead levels in µg/L (corresponding dietary intake values in µg/kg b.w. per day) were: developmental neurotoxicity BMDL01, 12 (0.50); effects on systolic blood pressure BMDL01, 36 (1.50); effects on prevalence of chronic kidney disease BMDL10, 15 (0.63). The CONTAM Panel concluded that the current PTWI of 25 μg/kg b.w. is no longer appropriate as there is no evidence for a threshold for critical lead-induced effects. In adults, children and infants the margins of exposures were such that the possibility of an effect from lead in some consumers, particularly in children from 1-7 years of age, cannot be excluded. Protection of children against the potential risk of neurodevelopmental effects would be protective for all other adverse effects of lead, in all populations."

Have you looked at the WHO / EFSA statements? This one for instance:-


Lots of studies referred to there for you to follow up on.

Do you have evidence to the contrary? Evidence that supports your claim that there is a blood lead level that poses no danger?

Alan
 
Last edited:

enfieldspares

Well-Known Member
Lead is a poison. As I have said before and I have said again. So are many other things a risk to either health or to life. Motor cars be they petrol. diesel or electric each year kill more in the UK and the USA and about anywhere else than does eating lead shot game. Yet we accept the risk and minimise it as the benefits outweigh the cost or disadvantages of change. The risk from lead shot game can be minimised without using steel shot or copper bullets yet this doesn't fit the agenda of BASC and its British Game Alliance bedfellows. So there it is.
 

borbal

Well-Known Member
Do you have evidence to the contrary? Evidence that supports your claim that there is a blood lead level that poses no danger?
Where did I "claim" that...?

This is what I mean by really bad science - making conclusions on the basis of evidence that does not warrant that conclusion, or in the case of the 2008 CDC report, on the basis of no evidence at all because the report is not cited and so we cannot see it for ourselves.

Let me be clear, it does not matter to me whether deer are shot with lead bullets or not. When I eat venison, I do not ask whether it was shot with a lead bullet. I have nothing at all against lead free bullets - in fact, I am helping someone set up a business to make lead free bullets.

My view is the fact that organisations like the CDC are spending time and money (whose money?) looking for evidence that eating animals shot with lead bullets is harmful - after many hundreds of years of humans eating animals shot with lead bullets - means that if it is harmful, it is in the noise of things that might be harmful to us and I am simply not going to worry about it. There are many risks in life and we have to put these risks in context.

What does matter to me is that people are not misled into using lead free bullets simply on the basis that: lead is harmful if ingested = eating meat from an animal shot with a lead bullet must be harmful = ban bullets with lead in them. That kind of simplistic thinking is not only really bad science, it is dangerous.
 

andychas

Well-Known Member
There’s recent (published this year) research into the subject here.


And theres a video on the page below that explains the background to the paper

 

Heym SR20

Well-Known Member
Have a read of this article https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajh.25731

the article is by leading cancer specialists in the US. There is a clear causal link between elevated levels of lead and other heavy metals in your body and cancers - so much so that they are now developing treatments based on removing the metals. Early results are very promising.

in the base research lead levels were at 25 nmols per litre - which is really not very much at all.

And to save you having to follow the link here is the introduction:


1 INTRODUCTION​

Toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, arsenic, nickel, and chromium enter the body as contaminants and often substitute for essential metals,1-4thereby competing for ligands, disrupting biochemical reactions,3 and resulting in disease. Even brief exposure to toxic metals causes numerous gene expression and epigenetic changes that predispose cells to malignant transformation.5Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is associated with various toxic metal exposures. For example, in a case-control study in Spain, an excess risk of childhood leukemia was observed near industrial and urban sites processing arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and nickel.6 The participation of metals as effectors and modulators in cancer is not widely appreciated in clinical practice. Cadmium, lead, arsenic and other toxic metals are established carcinogens.5 Relative deficiencies of the essential metals calcium, magnesium,7 selenium, zinc,8 and rubidium9 are also associated with malignancies, as are elevations of the essential metals copper6 and iron.10

Animal experiments have shown chronic exposure to cadmium has cytotoxic and genotoxic effects on peripheral blood and bone marrow cells.11-15 Furthermore, exposure to cadmium and lead induces leukemia in mice16, 17 and accelerates leukemia cell proliferation in vitro.18 Toxic metals are also immuno-toxic, impair innate and adaptive immunity,19 and are associated with reduced natural killer (NK) cells.20

We hypothesized that there are imbalances of toxic and essential metals in patients with AML compared to healthy individuals, and that higher values of toxic and lower values of essential metals are associated with worse outcomes in AML patients. Thus, we compared serum metal values in patients with AML to those in healthy individuals and determined the extent to which metal values in AML patients correlated with clinical outcomes.
 

Heym SR20

Well-Known Member
And the UK Government’s advice via the food standards agency is not to eat lead shot game.

There is plenty of good evidence out there that lead is harmful and should not be in the food chain.

This is now accepted by most and the switch to non lead alternatives is happening. In both rifle and shotguns there are now perfectly via non toxic solutions for most applications and more are in development.
 

Heym SR20

Well-Known Member
If you want to see evidence you could start by looking at the the actual CDC North Dakota study that is largely misrepresented in the article you posted.


The NSSF article you posted is misleading about the CDC ND results...opposite spin at worst, cherry picking at best...one wonders why they would misrepresent something that is so easily checked...

This is the preamble but there is a lot more on the North Dakota Department of Health website linked above...

"Based on the results of the CDC blood lead level study and a Minnesota bullet study, the North Dakota Department of Health has developed the following recommendations to minimize the risk of harm to people who are most vulnerable to the effects of lead:

  • Pregnant women and children younger than 6 should not eat any venison harvested with lead bullets.
  • Older children and other adults should take steps to minimize their potential exposure to lead, and use their judgment about consuming game that was taken using lead-based ammunition.
  • The most certain way of avoiding lead bullet fragments in wild game is to hunt with non-lead bullets.
  • Hunters and processors should follow the processing recommendations developed by the North Dakota Department of Agriculture.
These are recommendations only; they are intended to help the citizens of North Dakota to make informed choices. Not every state will necessarily issue the same recommendations."

This from a link on the same site...


"In May 2008, 738 North Dakotans participated in a study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the North Dakota Department of Health designed to measure the risk of higher blood lead levels caused by consuming wild game harvested with lead bullets. On Nov. 5, 2008, the CDC released a preliminary analysis of the lead levels.
The study shows a link between eating wild game shot with lead bullets and higher blood lead levels.
Study Results
In the study, people who ate a lot of wild game tended to have higher lead levels than those who ate little or none. The study also showed that the more recent the consumption of wild game harvested with lead bullets, the higher the level of lead in the blood.
Wild game is not the only or most important risk factor for human lead exposure; however, the study findings suggest that it is one important risk factor."


Doesn't bear much resemblance to the claims made in the NSSF article does it?

Alan

ps edited to better represent that... Nathan Foster referred to that NSSF article as showing that "blood lead studies can and have been corrupted:"

Talk about corruption...bit of an own goal really.
Bear in mind these studies were 2008. There has been a lot of work since then. We used to think the Earth was flat.
 

Phil fox man

Well-Known Member
I have eaten lead shot game all my life,with the introduction of none toxic shot if I feel my blood lead levels are getting low I just drink some river water!
 

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
Where did I "claim" that...?
levels of lead in the blood they found was actually of a level where these symptoms was a danger.

You didn't answer any of the 6 queries I posed arising from your post.

It would be good if you would back up your contention with evidence in the same way that I showed that the NFFS document was a false representation the North Dakota Department of Health Statement.

If you believe the North Dakota Department of Health Statement was based on "really bad science" then please provide the evidence for this.

What does matter to me is that people are not misled into using lead free bullets simply on the basis that: lead is harmful if ingested = eating meat from an animal shot with a lead bullet must be harmful = ban bullets with lead in them. That kind of simplistic thinking is not only really bad science, it is dangerous.
But I agree it is the misleading with false information that is dangerous...it is why I thought it worth showing the claims made in the OP NSSF article to be false.

Did you look at the advice to hunters and venison processors that arose from the studies?

The very rational and down to earth advice that both the North Dakota Health Department and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources provided as a result of the studies is in a totally different guise to the deliberate and demonstrable misinformation given in the NSSF article.

They both amount to:- There is a hazard, but the low risks can be reduced further.


And yes it may be simplistic to say that you can reduce the risk of lead contamination by discarding the 6" of meat adjacent to the wound channel. But why waste Ø12" of meat when you can remove the hazard of lead contamination by using a lead free bullet?

If you didn't find the link to the Minnesota study that was mentioned on the NDDoH site it is here...


Alan
 
Last edited:

timbrayford

Well-Known Member
Lead is a poison. As I have said before and I have said again. So are many other things a risk to either health or to life. Motor cars be they petrol. diesel or electric each year kill more in the UK and the USA and about anywhere else than does eating lead shot game. Yet we accept the risk and minimise it as the benefits outweigh the cost or disadvantages of change. The risk from lead shot game can be minimised without using steel shot or copper bullets yet this doesn't fit the agenda of BASC and its British Game Alliance bedfellows. So there it is.
Please don't blame BASC & the BGA for the move away from lead bullets & shot, in essence they are merely the messengers. The real culprit is EU REACH & its' post Brexit successor here UK REACH.
 
Top