HSE lead ammo proposals - FAQs and updates

Lancaster

Well-Known Member
But it is... A basic search would tell you exactly that 🤦
Yep, for drinking water 1.5 ppm for copper, 15 parts per Billion of lead, so my reckoning is lead is a hundred times more toxic than copper.
It is also worth pointed out that , in most cases, copper goes through, retains most of it's weight and what is lost is in the form of petals, lead doesn't always go straight through, loses a lot of weight with cup and core bullets, and what is lost is in the form of very small fragments that is spread throughout the carcase.
 

hendrix's rifle

Well-Known Member
Yep, for drinking water 1.5 ppm for copper, 15 parts per Billion of lead, so my reckoning is lead is a thousand times more toxic than copper.
It is also worth pointed out that , in most cases, copper goes through, retains most of it's weight and what is lost is in the form of petals, lead doesn't always go straight through, loses a lot of weight with cup and core bullets, and what is lost is in the form of very small fragments that is spread throughout the carcase.
Not what I'm saying though is it. I'm clearly stating that it IS toxic as Stephen says it isn't and hasn't come down of his high horse yet... He will get knocked off it soon 🤫
 

StephenToast

Well-Known Member
Not what I'm saying though is it. I'm clearly stating that it IS toxic as Stephen says it isn't and hasn't come down of his high horse yet... He will get knocked off it soon 🤫
You still can't read obviously. I never mentioned the toxicity of copper. What you can't fathom, but Lancaster had elucidated is the difference in the way the bullets work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Norfolk Deer Search

Well-Known Member
Can we agree to disagree about this, because its all getting very boring now!

Obviously there are those clearly those who have solved the issue and are cracking on , there are those who are almost there but cant get what they meed because of calibres l, availability etc and there are those who still have their head in the sand and hoping for god to save lead!

I am in the firm belief there will be a 100% blanket ban with no give or take, fingers crossed i am wrong!

Im now on my 3rd cup of enthusiasm and then better get with some work, out for a grub round tonight with the 7x57 🙌
 

Sharpie

Well-Known Member
Your post is ignorant. Just read what I posted.
Copper is toxic, tin ain't. Just saying not praising lead. You copper zealots are worse than the lead men.
You are completely wrong about that. You have it backwards.

Let's knock this on the head once and for all in case this ignorance continues to be perpetuated.

In foods, tin is a poison. Copper is not considered so. And in the sort of fragments of elemental copper resulting from copper bullets, even less so. Though I also don't think we need worry too much about the fragments left in meat by tin bullets, nevertheless it is toxic. It's the amount in tinned food that is the main concern.

Specific to lead, this is regulated and monitored in foods where it is considered to be of concern at the moment, which does not as yet include wild game. Because it has been considered an inconsequential part of the diet of the general population. However, logically, it is not consistent to maintain that position, particularly when it can be a large part of the diet of some.

By analogy, the maximum allowed in the meat (excluding offal) of bovine animals, sheep, pig and poultry is 0.1 mg per kg. That's about 1.5 grains/kg, Apply that to lead shot game and it may be unachievable for some of it.

See https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/chemical-safety/contaminants/catalogue/lead_en

Specifically, if you study the the regulations for contaminants of every description, applicable to human consumption, and monitored, which you will find at Consolidated TEXT: 32006R1881 — EN — 21.05.2015 you will discover that both lead, and tin, are regulated. Tin is certainly not regarded as non-toxic. Quite the opposite.

As for copper, it gets no mention. Because it is not regarded as being of any significance to human health in food production.

Indeed it is essential for our bodies, The recommended daily allowance is 900 micrograms, which fortunately is similar to that in a normal balanced diet.

What are the symptoms of copper deficiency?
Signs of possible copper deficiency include anemia, low body temperature, bone fractures and osteoporosis, low white blood cell count, irregular heartbeat, loss of pigment from the skin, and thyroid problems.

What is copper supplement good for?
Copper is an essential nutrient for the body. Together with iron, it enables the body to form red blood cells. It helps maintain healthy bones, blood vessels, nerves, and immune function, and it contributes to iron absorption. Sufficient copper in the diet may help prevent cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis, too.


It's not just humans who need it, it's often a vital supplement for sheep and cattle farmers.

Copper deficiency in sheep and cattle | Agriculture and Food:

However one of the historical large uses was as a fungicide, "Bordeaux Mixture", which has largely, but not totally, been banned in EU and UK agriculture, not because of a concern for human health but because of its toxicity to fish, livestock and earthworms. And BTW this is not elemental copper, but it's sulphate, combined with lime.

Vast quantities of it used to be used in e.g. vineyards, fruit and nut farming etc. Still is in some places as an "organic" fungicide. I daresay quite a lot of it remained on the skins of the grapes and fruit, unless washed off. Doesn't seem to be much of a human health concern, expect maybe for the workers spraying it.

Lead and tin, (and several other metals), are not needed, and several of them are also very bad for us, so these are controlled and monitored in human food.

Some details of the allowable limits for lead in food:

Foodstuffs (3)Maximum levels
(mg/kg wet weight)
3.1Lead
3.1.1Raw milk (8), heat-treated milk and milk for the manufacture of milk-based products0,020
3.1.2Infant formulae and follow-on formulae (6) ►M3 (10)0,020
3.1.3Meat (excluding offal) of bovine animals, sheep, pig and poultry (8)0,10
3.1.4Offal of bovine animals, sheep, pig and poultry (8)0,50
3.1.5Muscle meat of fish (25) (26)0,30
▼M6
3.1.6Crustaceans (27): muscle meat from appendages and abdomen (44). In case of crabs and crab-like crustaceans (Brachyura and Anomura) muscle meat from appendages.0,50
▼B
3.1.7Bivalve molluscs (27)1,5
3.1.8Cephalopods (without viscera) (27)1,0
▼M6
3.1.9Legume vegetables (28), cereals and pulses0,20
3.1.10Vegetables, excluding brassica vegetables, leaf vegetables, fresh herbs, fungi and seaweed (28). For potatoes the maximum level applies to peeled potatoes.0,10
3.1.11Brassica vegetables, leaf vegetables (43) and the following fungi (28): Agaricus bisporus (common mushroom), Pleurotus ostreatus (Oyster mushroom), Lentinula edodes (Shiitake mushroom)0,30
▼B
3.1.12Fruit, excluding berries and small fruit (28)0,10
3.1.13Berries and small fruit (28)0,20
3.1.14Fats and oils, including milk fat0,10
3.1.15Fruit juices, concentrated fruit juices as reconstituted and fruit nectars (16)0,050
3.1.16Wine (including sparkling wine, excluding liqueur wine), cider, perry and fruit wine (13)0,20 (29)
3.1.17Aromatized wine, aromatized wine-based drinks and aromatized wine-product cocktails (15)0,20 (29)
▼M3
3.1.18Food supplements (39)3,0

As for tin, most exposure to that is from the tin plating of steel cans, hence why they are nowadays sometimes lacquered inside to reduce levels when used to package acidic contents:

3.4Tin (inorganic)
3.4.1Canned foods other than beverages200
3.4.2Canned beverages, including fruit juices and vegetable juices100
3.4.3Canned baby foods and processed cereal-based foods for infants and young children, excluding dried and powdered products (5) (30)50
3.4.4Canned infant formulae and follow-on formulae (including infant milk and follow-on milk), excluding dried and powdered products ►M3 (10)(30)50
3.4.5Canned dietary foods for special medical purposes (11) (30) intended specifically for infants, excluding dried and powdered products50



The other metals that are regulated are cadmium and mercury. Which are present in the environment, soil and seawater. Cadmium is a tricky one, in certain agriculture in some areas it is difficult to avoid contamination, so derogations have been made in some cases. Using ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) Doesn't mean it's a good idea to eat it though.

FYI, here are the limits for these:

Cadmium.

3.2Cadmium
3.2.1Vegetables and fruit, excluding root and tuber vegetables, leaf vegetables, fresh herbs, leafy brassica, stem vegetables, fungi and seaweed (28)0,050
3.2.2Root and tuber vegetables (excluding celeriac, parsnips, salsify and horseradish), stem vegetables (excluding celery) (28). For potatoes the maximum level applies to peeled potatoes0,10
3.2.3Leaf vegetables, fresh herbs, leafy brassica, celery, celeriac, parsnips, salsify, horseradish and the following fungi (28): Agaricus bisporus (common mushroom), Pleurotus ostreatus (Oyster mushroom), Lentinula edodes (Shiitake mushroom)0,20
3.2.4Fungi, excluding those listed in point 3.2.3 (28)1,0
3.2.5Cereal grains excluding wheat and rice0,10
3.2.6— Wheat grains, rice grains
— Wheat bran and wheat germ for direct consumption
— Soy beans
0,20
3.2.7Specific cocoa and chocolate products as listed below (49)
— Milk chocolate with < 30 % total dry cocoa solids0,10 as from 1 January 2019
— Chocolate with < 50 % total dry cocoa solids; milk chocolate with ≥ 30 % total dry cocoa solids0,30 as from 1 January 2019
— Chocolate with ≥ 50 % total dry cocoa solids0,80 as from 1 January 2019
— Cocoa powder sold to the final consumer or as an ingredient in sweetened cocoa powder sold to the final consumer (drinking chocolate)0,60 as from 1 January 2019
3.2.8Meat (excluding offal) of bovine animals, sheep, pig and poultry (8)0,050
3.2.9Horsemeat, excluding offal (8)0,20
3.2.10Liver of bovine animals, sheep, pig, poultry and horse (8)0,50
3.2.11Kidney of bovine animals, sheep, pig, poultry and horse (8)1,0
3.2.12Muscle meat of fish (25) (26), excluding species listed in points 3.2.13, 3.2.14 and 3.2.150,050
3.2.13Muscle meat of the following fish (25) (26):
mackerel (Scomber species), tuna (Thunnus species, Katsuwonus pelamis, Euthynnus species), bichique (Sicyopterus lagocephalus)
0,10
3.2.14Muscle meat of the following fish (25) (26):
bullet tuna (Auxis species)
0,15
3.2.15Muscle meat of the following fish (25) (26):
anchovy (Engraulis species)
swordfish (Xiphias gladius)
sardine (Sardina pilchardus)
0,25
3.2.16Crustaceans (27): muscle meat from appendages and abdomen (44). In case of crabs and crab-like crustaceans (Brachyura and Anomura) muscle meat from appendages0,50
3.2.17Bivalve molluscs (27)1,0
3.2.18Cephalopods (without viscera) (27)1,0
3.2.19Infant formulae and follow on-formulae (10) (30)
— powdered formulae manufac- tured from cows' milk proteins or protein hydrolysates0,010 as from 1 January 2015
— liquid formulae manufactured from cows' milk proteins or protein hydrolysates0,005 as from 1 January 2015
— powdered formulae manufac-tured from soya protein isolates, alone or in a mixture with cows' milk proteins0,020 as from 1 January 2015
— liquid formulae manufactured from soya protein isolates, alone or in a mixture with cows' milk proteins0,010 as from 1 January 2015
3.2.20Processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and young children (5) (30)0,040 as from 1 January 2015
3.2.21Food supplements (39) excl. food supplements listed in point 3.2.221,0
3.2.22Food supplements (39) consisting exclusively or mainly of dried seaweed, products derived from seaweed, or of dried bivalve molluscs

Mercury. A concern in seawater fishery. Indeed UK advice is to consider limiting your intake of certain fish if it is a large part of your diet.

Fish and shellfish

3.3Mercury
▼M6
3.3.1Fishery products (27) and muscle meat of fish (25) (26), excluding species listed in 3.3.2. The maximum level for crustaceans applies to muscle meat from appendages and abdomen (44). In case of crabs and crab-like crustaceans (Brachyura and Anomura) it applies to muscle meat from appendages.0,50
▼M3
3.3.2Muscle meat of the following fish (25) (26):
anglerfish (Lophius species)
Atlantic catfish (Anarhichas lupus)
bonito (Sarda sarda)
eel (Anguilla species)
emperor, orange roughy, rosy soldierfish (Hoplostethus species)
grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris)
halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus)
kingklip (Genypterus capensis)
marlin (Makaira species)
megrim (Lepidorhombus species)
mullet (Mullus species)
pink cusk eel (Genypterus blacodes)
pike (Esox lucius)
plain bonito (Orcynopsis unicolor)
poor cod (Tricopterus minutes)
Portuguese dogfish (Centroscymnus coelolepis)
rays (Raja species)
redfish (Sebastes marinus, S. mentella, S. viviparus)
sail fish (Istiophorus platypterus)
scabbard fish (Lepidopus caudatus, Aphanopus carbo)
seabream, pandora (Pagellus species)
shark (all species)
snake mackerel or butterfish (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum, Ruvettus pretiosus, Gempylus serpens)
sturgeon (Acipenser species)
swordfish (Xiphias gladius)
tuna (Thunnus species, Euthynnus species, Katsuwonus pelamis)
1,0
 

timbrayford

Well-Known Member
I have read all the latest comments. I hope the following may help address most of the queries and apologies if I miss any - do shout! Thanks also for the emails - I am working through them and that is taking time so bear with me!

Why is the Health and Safety Executive looking at lead ammunition?

This is because it has been tasked by the government as the ‘agency’ under post-Brexit UK REACH regulations to produce a report that outlines the risks posed by lead ammunition. Where it believes those risks to be unacceptable, it has also been asked to propose restrictions to reduce those risks. This is the ‘restriction dossier’ that was published on 6 May and subject to a six-month public consultation. Click the link below for more info on this process and what happens next.


The same process is taking place in the EU.


The EU process is one year ahead of the UK process. BASC is challenging the proposals in the EU (with FACE) and the UK. The EU proposals could impact on Northern Ireland due to the NI protocol. The UK process could impact on England, Wales and Scotland.

BASC's initial position and FAQs on the Health and Safety Executive restriction proposals are here:


For those that perhaps do not read any information in the links provided in the numerous posts in this and other threads yet continue to spread misinformation about BASC's position a summary as follows:

BASC will challenge proposed restrictions where there are no viable alternatives to lead, where socio-economic factors mean a transition isn’t appropriate, and where lead can continue to be used in settings that present negligible or no risk.

BASC has significant concerns about the short timeframes outlined in the dossier for transition away from the use of lead ammunition, which could be as short as 18 months. This is particularly alarming in light of current global supply chain issues. We will fight for timelines that are realistic and guided by the sector to ensure that the range of lead-free products and their supply can meet market demands.

BASC will be engaging with the regulator to ensure that proposals are robustly scrutinised and that any future restrictions are based on evidence and proportionate to identified risks. We will not accept disproportionate restrictions that unfairly disadvantage shooting activities.

Several comments have been made that BASC is responsible for the Health and Safety Executive proposals. That is nonsense. There are EU proposals that have been taking place for years. There are various restrictions being proposed and implemented in Europe and worldwide.

Perhaps the opposite is true? See here:


To reiterate, BASC will continue to challenge lead restriction proposals as per the initial position summarised earlier.

There have been several mentions of arguing against lead restrictions using whataboutery on the potential toxicity of non-lead ammunition. Some research has been done into the potential impacts of non-lead ammunition. See for example two recent studies linked below.



Some will probably jump on these studies as 'scientific proof' whilst already dismissing the vast volume of studies on the impacts of lead ammunition as not scientific proof. That's white hat bias and understandable. Our bias and behaviour around this has been researched as well. See links below.



There were some comments about the government decision on the Lead Ammunition Group report in 2016 and what has changed since. The full response is here:


Note the following text from the response "As you know the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has been asked by the European Commission to gather information on the potential risks presented by metallic lead, to establish if there is a case for regulating its use within the European Union; we will keep the evidence presented by the ECHA under review."

Going back to the OP, many of the HSE restriction proposals are not evidence-based and go too far and will be challenged. This is especially the case for restrictions on the use of lead ammunition for target shooting.

Over the coming months there will be scientific scrutiny of the HSE findings and proposals through an independent panel of experts.

BASC has been approved as an accredited stakeholder by HSE and we will ensure that the proposals are robustly scrutinised and that any future restrictions are based on evidence and proportionate to identified risks. We will not accept disproportionate restrictions that unfairly disadvantage shooting activities.

A draft socio-economic opinion on the impact of the HSE proposals will follow later this year or early 2023, which will also be open to public consultation.

The review will culminate in recommendations being submitted no later than April 2023 to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for consideration.

A legislative proposal will be likely thereafter subject to parliamentary scrutiny and consultation with devolved administrations.

If we have concerns that the resulting legislative proposals are disproportionate and will damage shooting, we will lobby for them to be revised.
A serious question for you Conor.
The proposals comment on a possible buy back of lead ammunition but what about rifles? In particular the commonly used .22 & .17 rimfires have barrels designed around lead ammunition and users are reporting significant accuracy issues when using non-lead. If legislation is to render them obsolete it might be a good idea if we could get compensation to allow for purchasing a new centre fire substitute?
 

Norfolk Deer Search

Well-Known Member
I am only guessing here, but i don't think there will he any compensation for anything, i think it will be “this os whats going to happen, get on with it!”
 

Ratel

Well-Known Member
Can we agree to disagree about this, because its all getting very boring now!

Obviously there are those clearly those who have solved the issue and are cracking on , there are those who are almost there but cant get what they meed because of calibres l, availability etc and there are those who still have their head in the sand and hoping for god to save lead!

I am in the firm belief there will be a 100% blanket ban with no give or take, fingers crossed i am wrong!

Im now on my 3rd cup of enthusiasm and then better get with some work, out for a grub round tonight with the 7x57 🙌
Nice to see you have mellowed, must be that third cup. But lovely to see you have realised you have in your possession the alpha of all stalking calibres.🤔 I wish you great success, because you have now arrived.😇
 

Ratel

Well-Known Member
You are completely wrong about that. You have it backwards.

Let's knock this on the head once and for all in case this ignorance continues to be perpetuated.

In foods, tin is a poison. Copper is not considered so. And in the sort of fragments of elemental copper resulting from copper bullets, even less so. Though I also don't think we need worry too much about the fragments left in meat by tin bullets, nevertheless it is toxic. It's the amount in tinned food that is the main concern.

Specific to lead, this is regulated and monitored in foods where it is considered to be of concern at the moment, which does not as yet include wild game. Because it has been considered an inconsequential part of the diet of the general population. However, logically, it is not consistent to maintain that position, particularly when it can be a large part of the diet of some.

By analogy, the maximum allowed in the meat (excluding offal) of bovine animals, sheep, pig and poultry is 0.1 mg per kg. That's about 1.5 grains/kg, Apply that to lead shot game and it may be unachievable for some of it.

See Lead

Specifically, if you study the the regulations for contaminants of every description, applicable to human consumption, and monitored, which you will find at Consolidated TEXT: 32006R1881 — EN — 21.05.2015 you will discover that both lead, and tin, are regulated. Tin is certainly not regarded as non-toxic. Quite the opposite.

As for copper, it gets no mention. Because it is not regarded as being of any significance to human health in food production.

Indeed it is essential for our bodies, The recommended daily allowance is 900 micrograms, which fortunately is similar to that in a normal balanced diet.

What are the symptoms of copper deficiency?
Signs of possible copper deficiency include anemia, low body temperature, bone fractures and osteoporosis, low white blood cell count, irregular heartbeat, loss of pigment from the skin, and thyroid problems.

What is copper supplement good for?
Copper is an essential nutrient for the body. Together with iron, it enables the body to form red blood cells. It helps maintain healthy bones, blood vessels, nerves, and immune function, and it contributes to iron absorption. Sufficient copper in the diet may help prevent cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis, too.


It's not just humans who need it, it's often a vital supplement for sheep and cattle farmers.

Copper deficiency in sheep and cattle | Agriculture and Food:

However one of the historical large uses was as a fungicide, "Bordeaux Mixture", which has largely, but not totally, been banned in EU and UK agriculture, not because of a concern for human health but because of its toxicity to fish, livestock and earthworms. And BTW this is not elemental copper, but it's sulphate, combined with lime.

Vast quantities of it used to be used in e.g. vineyards, fruit and nut farming etc. Still is in some places as an "organic" fungicide. I daresay quite a lot of it remained on the skins of the grapes and fruit, unless washed off. Doesn't seem to be much of a human health concern, expect maybe for the workers spraying it.

Lead and tin, (and several other metals), are not needed, and several of them are also very bad for us, so these are controlled and monitored in human food.

Some details of the allowable limits for lead in food:

Foodstuffs (3)Maximum levels
(mg/kg wet weight)
3.1Lead
3.1.1Raw milk (8), heat-treated milk and milk for the manufacture of milk-based products0,020
3.1.2Infant formulae and follow-on formulae (6) ►M3 (10)0,020
3.1.3Meat (excluding offal) of bovine animals, sheep, pig and poultry (8)0,10
3.1.4Offal of bovine animals, sheep, pig and poultry (8)0,50
3.1.5Muscle meat of fish (25) (26)0,30
▼M6
3.1.6Crustaceans (27): muscle meat from appendages and abdomen (44). In case of crabs and crab-like crustaceans (Brachyura and Anomura) muscle meat from appendages.0,50
▼B
3.1.7Bivalve molluscs (27)1,5
3.1.8Cephalopods (without viscera) (27)1,0
▼M6
3.1.9Legume vegetables (28), cereals and pulses0,20
3.1.10Vegetables, excluding brassica vegetables, leaf vegetables, fresh herbs, fungi and seaweed (28). For potatoes the maximum level applies to peeled potatoes.0,10
3.1.11Brassica vegetables, leaf vegetables (43) and the following fungi (28): Agaricus bisporus (common mushroom), Pleurotus ostreatus (Oyster mushroom), Lentinula edodes (Shiitake mushroom)0,30
▼B
3.1.12Fruit, excluding berries and small fruit (28)0,10
3.1.13Berries and small fruit (28)0,20
3.1.14Fats and oils, including milk fat0,10
3.1.15Fruit juices, concentrated fruit juices as reconstituted and fruit nectars (16)0,050
3.1.16Wine (including sparkling wine, excluding liqueur wine), cider, perry and fruit wine (13)0,20 (29)
3.1.17Aromatized wine, aromatized wine-based drinks and aromatized wine-product cocktails (15)0,20 (29)
▼M3
3.1.18Food supplements (39)3,0

As for tin, most exposure to that is from the tin plating of steel cans, hence why they are nowadays sometimes lacquered inside to reduce levels when used to package acidic contents:

3.4Tin (inorganic)
3.4.1Canned foods other than beverages200
3.4.2Canned beverages, including fruit juices and vegetable juices100
3.4.3Canned baby foods and processed cereal-based foods for infants and young children, excluding dried and powdered products (5) (30)50
3.4.4Canned infant formulae and follow-on formulae (including infant milk and follow-on milk), excluding dried and powdered products ►M3 (10)(30)50
3.4.5Canned dietary foods for special medical purposes (11) (30) intended specifically for infants, excluding dried and powdered products50



The other metals that are regulated are cadmium and mercury. Which are present in the environment, soil and seawater. Cadmium is a tricky one, in certain agriculture in some areas it is difficult to avoid contamination, so derogations have been made in some cases. Using ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) Doesn't mean it's a good idea to eat it though.

FYI, here are the limits for these:

Cadmium.

3.2Cadmium
3.2.1Vegetables and fruit, excluding root and tuber vegetables, leaf vegetables, fresh herbs, leafy brassica, stem vegetables, fungi and seaweed (28)0,050
3.2.2Root and tuber vegetables (excluding celeriac, parsnips, salsify and horseradish), stem vegetables (excluding celery) (28). For potatoes the maximum level applies to peeled potatoes0,10
3.2.3Leaf vegetables, fresh herbs, leafy brassica, celery, celeriac, parsnips, salsify, horseradish and the following fungi (28): Agaricus bisporus (common mushroom), Pleurotus ostreatus (Oyster mushroom), Lentinula edodes (Shiitake mushroom)0,20
3.2.4Fungi, excluding those listed in point 3.2.3 (28)1,0
3.2.5Cereal grains excluding wheat and rice0,10
3.2.6— Wheat grains, rice grains
— Wheat bran and wheat germ for direct consumption
— Soy beans
0,20
3.2.7Specific cocoa and chocolate products as listed below (49)
— Milk chocolate with < 30 % total dry cocoa solids0,10 as from 1 January 2019
— Chocolate with < 50 % total dry cocoa solids; milk chocolate with ≥ 30 % total dry cocoa solids0,30 as from 1 January 2019
— Chocolate with ≥ 50 % total dry cocoa solids0,80 as from 1 January 2019
— Cocoa powder sold to the final consumer or as an ingredient in sweetened cocoa powder sold to the final consumer (drinking chocolate)0,60 as from 1 January 2019
3.2.8Meat (excluding offal) of bovine animals, sheep, pig and poultry (8)0,050
3.2.9Horsemeat, excluding offal (8)0,20
3.2.10Liver of bovine animals, sheep, pig, poultry and horse (8)0,50
3.2.11Kidney of bovine animals, sheep, pig, poultry and horse (8)1,0
3.2.12Muscle meat of fish (25) (26), excluding species listed in points 3.2.13, 3.2.14 and 3.2.150,050
3.2.13Muscle meat of the following fish (25) (26):
mackerel (Scomber species), tuna (Thunnus species, Katsuwonus pelamis, Euthynnus species), bichique (Sicyopterus lagocephalus)
0,10
3.2.14Muscle meat of the following fish (25) (26):
bullet tuna (Auxis species)
0,15
3.2.15Muscle meat of the following fish (25) (26):
anchovy (Engraulis species)
swordfish (Xiphias gladius)
sardine (Sardina pilchardus)
0,25
3.2.16Crustaceans (27): muscle meat from appendages and abdomen (44). In case of crabs and crab-like crustaceans (Brachyura and Anomura) muscle meat from appendages0,50
3.2.17Bivalve molluscs (27)1,0
3.2.18Cephalopods (without viscera) (27)1,0
3.2.19Infant formulae and follow on-formulae (10) (30)
— powdered formulae manufac- tured from cows' milk proteins or protein hydrolysates0,010 as from 1 January 2015
— liquid formulae manufactured from cows' milk proteins or protein hydrolysates0,005 as from 1 January 2015
— powdered formulae manufac-tured from soya protein isolates, alone or in a mixture with cows' milk proteins0,020 as from 1 January 2015
— liquid formulae manufactured from soya protein isolates, alone or in a mixture with cows' milk proteins0,010 as from 1 January 2015
3.2.20Processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and young children (5) (30)0,040 as from 1 January 2015
3.2.21Food supplements (39) excl. food supplements listed in point 3.2.221,0
3.2.22Food supplements (39) consisting exclusively or mainly of dried seaweed, products derived from seaweed, or of dried bivalve molluscs

Mercury. A concern in seawater fishery. Indeed UK advice is to consider limiting your intake of certain fish if it is a large part of your diet.

Fish and shellfish

3.3Mercury
▼M6
3.3.1Fishery products (27) and muscle meat of fish (25) (26), excluding species listed in 3.3.2. The maximum level for crustaceans applies to muscle meat from appendages and abdomen (44). In case of crabs and crab-like crustaceans (Brachyura and Anomura) it applies to muscle meat from appendages.0,50
▼M3
3.3.2Muscle meat of the following fish (25) (26):
anglerfish (Lophius species)
Atlantic catfish (Anarhichas lupus)
bonito (Sarda sarda)
eel (Anguilla species)
emperor, orange roughy, rosy soldierfish (Hoplostethus species)
grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris)
halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus)
kingklip (Genypterus capensis)
marlin (Makaira species)
megrim (Lepidorhombus species)
mullet (Mullus species)
pink cusk eel (Genypterus blacodes)
pike (Esox lucius)
plain bonito (Orcynopsis unicolor)
poor cod (Tricopterus minutes)
Portuguese dogfish (Centroscymnus coelolepis)
rays (Raja species)
redfish (Sebastes marinus, S. mentella, S. viviparus)
sail fish (Istiophorus platypterus)
scabbard fish (Lepidopus caudatus, Aphanopus carbo)
seabream, pandora (Pagellus species)
shark (all species)
snake mackerel or butterfish (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum, Ruvettus pretiosus, Gempylus serpens)
sturgeon (Acipenser species)
swordfish (Xiphias gladius)
tuna (Thunnus species, Euthynnus species, Katsuwonus pelamis)
1,0
😱 I think I must be dead.😅
 

Sharpie

Well-Known Member
😱 I think I must be dead.😅
We can't realistically avoid eating food preserved in tins. At least the seams are not soldered together with lead nowadays.

Canned Food Sealed Icemen's Fate | History Today

Just to turn it around, being a bit cheffy I like to cook some dishes using tinned copper pans. I only have a modest selection (ahem, eight at last count, which is a bit excessive).

In which the tin lining provides the non-toxic coating for the copper. When it wears through, or is eaten away by acid foods, tomatoes, lemon juice, vinegar, wine etc, or some idiot who doesn't know how to use one overheats it dry so melts the tin, there comes a point where it must be repaired/re-tinned. Which is not inexpensive. Otherwise the exposed copper can potentially cause toxic levels when dissolved by acidic food. At least that is the theory.

But for other types of cookery plain copper is a benefit, e.g. for whipping up egg whites or fothing up a perfect omelette mix before poring into the pan, a plain copper bowl is the ultimate container. There is some subtle interaction that improves the process. And when used with non-acidic foods is pretty benign.

Why Whip Egg Whites in a Copper Bowl

One thing that I would caution, is if you have ever replaced a copper hot water cylinder and seen the bright blue sludge and liquid that stratifies at the bottom you would never dream of drinking water from the hot tap, or using it to fill your kettle, as we are all sternly advised against, for very good reasons. Pure poison. Which is why when I replaced mine went for a stainless steel one instead, which cost slightly more (not so nowadays, given the price of copper).
 

Ratel

Well-Known Member
We can't realistically avoid eating food preserved in tins. At least the seams are not soldered together with lead nowadays.

Canned Food Sealed Icemen's Fate | History Today

Just to turn it around, being a bit cheffy I like to cook some dishes using tinned copper pans. I only have a modest selection (ahem, eight at last count, which is a bit excessive).

In which the tin lining provides the non-toxic coating for the copper. When it wears through, or is eaten away by acid foods, tomatoes, lemon juice, vinegar, wine etc, or some idiot who doesn't know how to use one overheats it dry so melts the tin, there comes a point where it must be repaired/re-tinned. Which is not inexpensive. Otherwise the exposed copper can potentially cause toxic levels when dissolved by acidic food. At least that is the theory.

But for other types of cookery plain copper is a benefit, e.g. for whipping up egg whites or fothing up a perfect omelette mix before poring into the pan, a plain copper bowl is the ultimate container. There is some subtle interaction that improves the process. And when used with non-acidic foods is pretty benign.

Why Whip Egg Whites in a Copper Bowl

One thing that I would caution, is if you have ever replaced a copper hot water cylinder and seen the bright blue sludge and liquid that stratifies at the bottom you would never dream of drinking water from the hot tap, or using it to fill your kettle, as we are all sternly advised against, for very good reasons. Pure poison. Which is why when I replaced mine went for a stainless steel one instead, which cost slightly more (not so nowadays, given the price of copper).
Wow, you are the font of all knowledge. A mettalugist and a chef, stalker too, amazing.
 

C1CRM

Member
Having read this thread start to finish, I've learned a great deal about this matter as I'd hoped I would, some really excellent posts from some very smart and clued up critical thinkers out there, thank you all.

I read way more than I write, I prefer not to risk my head by sticking it above the parapet, please don't shoot!

All projectiles for hunting and pest/vermin control guns, what ever they are made from have to be able to fulfil their primarily function and that is to ensure a humane kill when used correctly. For all of us whether for stalking, game or pest control the object is a clean, humane kill at the end of every squeeze of the trigger, for the most part and with the excellent state of the art tools currently available we achieve that. Furthermore we do so in accordance with laws on the matter.

As I understand it the core of the argument is that some creatures endure a slow death due to the lead we shoot into the environment. My understanding is that lead poisoning due to regular and sustained ingestion does eventually lead to death, however the body does have the ability to discharge/cleanse itself of lead naturally over time so recovery from lead poisoning is the usual outcome and I believe the same is true for animals also. This lends itself to the understanding that most things are good (or at least not bad/terrible) in moderation.

So here is the thing, poor accuracy combined with less energy will almost certainly lead to more suffering for some of the very creatures the lead ban seeks to protect and many others that it does not. Not withstanding the environmental impact of some of the alternatives that may come to light in future. You never get something for nothing, there is always a trade off that must be taken into account before any decision is made.

Other important points to consider;

When subsonic shooting fails to be effective, the noise from shooting will increase quite dramatically as will its frequency. We choose silent/quiet shooting so that we can bag more quarry in a single outing but also in order to cause little or no alarm. The public will almost certainly become more alarmed more often by the sound of shooting, and the police will become even further stretched as a result.

The inexpensive and often free ratting service provided to farmers by enthusiastic air gunners (farmers are compelled to have effective pest control in place) could be lost overnight and we know just how fast rats breed unchecked. What impact this on food hygiene and human health I wonder.

I am reminded of the Chinese cultural revolution when millions starved due to poorly conceived measures to annihilate birds and rodents in order to save the 15% of crops lost to them, only to lose 100% of crops to the unchecked swarms of locusts that followed. Mao was to blame however I'm informed that the people who followed orders where most enthusiastic in its implementation that in turn lead to their own misery.

Summed up in a single sentence "All projectiles for hunting and pest/vermin control, what ever they are made from have to be able to fulfil their primarily function and that is to ensure a humane kill when used correctly" If a lead substitute for any given calibre cleared for any given species is unable to deliver the same result or better, then it is not progress and it is certainly not fit for purpose and furthermore conflicts with other existing legislation on the matter of animal cruelty if it is sold or authorised for that purpose. QED

In general it would appear that our world leaders are so far removed from real life that across the board on a wide range of issues monumental mistakes are being made on our behalf, and we just have to live with them.
 
Last edited:

Conor O'Gorman

Well-Known Member
Official Member
A serious question for you Conor.
The proposals comment on a possible buy back of lead ammunition but what about rifles? In particular the commonly used .22 & .17 rimfires have barrels designed around lead ammunition and users are reporting significant accuracy issues when using non-lead. If legislation is to render them obsolete it might be a good idea if we could get compensation to allow for purchasing a new centre fire substitute?
Thanks @timbrayford

The buy-back text in the restriction dossier is as follows:

2.4.1.1.9 RO9: Buy-back scheme for lead shot cartridges

Some gun owners may buy large quantities of lead ammunition at a time, which could remain unused for several years. In addition, hunters may import lead shot from abroad (e.g. as unused cartridges following a shooting holiday). To encourage a faster transition to lead alternatives, one option would be for either lead manufacturers or government to offer a buy-back scheme. This could also be implemented to support either a full or partial restriction, for example during or at the end of a transition period.

This option has not been fully explored or costed so no assessment of effectiveness, practicability, monitorability or enforceability has been made. This will be reviewed following analysis of information gathered during the consultation stage. This option could be used in conjunction with other options to enhance the overall reduction of lead releases.


Over the coming months I think we will get better clarity on this and other aspects of the proposals. As I see it the starting point is looking at the evidenced risks posed by the various types of lead ammunition. Does the use of ammo in .22 & .17 rimfires have 'nil or negligible' impacts with ref to the criteria in the proposals?

BASC has stated that it will challenge proposed restrictions where there are no viable alternatives to lead, where socio-economic factors mean a transition isn’t appropriate, and where lead can continue to be used in settings that present negligible or no risk.
 

enfieldspares

Well-Known Member
Thanks @timbrayford

The buy-back text in the restriction dossier is as follows:

2.4.1.1.9 RO9: Buy-back scheme for lead shot cartridges

Some gun owners may buy large quantities of lead ammunition at a time, which could remain unused for several years. In addition, hunters may import lead shot from abroad (e.g. as unused cartridges following a shooting holiday). To encourage a faster transition to lead alternatives, one option would be for either lead manufacturers or government to offer a buy-back scheme. This could also be implemented to support either a full or partial restriction, for example during or at the end of a transition period.

This option has not been fully explored or costed so no assessment of effectiveness, practicability, monitorability or enforceability has been made. This will be reviewed following analysis of information gathered during the consultation stage. This option could be used in conjunction with other options to enhance the overall reduction of lead releases.


Over the coming months I think we will get better clarity on this and other aspects of the proposals.

Why no comment about my input on bullet moulds, bullet moulds handles, lubrisizers, bullet sizing dies, copper jackets and "cups", gas checks, swaging equipment, bullet lubricant and all the rest used ONLY in the process of casting or swaging lead bullets?
 
Last edited:
Top