Lead - EU Reach Meeting/Proposal

Status
Not open for further replies.
If we want to put venison into the wide public food chain lead should not be anywhere near the carcass.

Lead has no known to science beneficial effects on the metabolism of any animal, bird or plant. There is no safe level of exposure.

The science has demonstrated that lead fragments down to nano particle level are widely spread throughout a carcass shot with a lead bullet.

And there is plenty of science clearly showing the link between even very low levels - nano gram level concentrations - of lead and many usually fatal conditions.

This science is now well understood by the powers that be, and by the shooting organisations.

There are plenty of non toxic bullets that work humanely and well. Tens of thousands of deer are being shot with such bullets. The only downside is an extra £1 to £2 in the cost of ammunition to shoot each deer. Up here in Scotland many of game dealers now will not take any lead shot deer. Contractors are being paid over £100 per deer. So the extra cost for each deer shot is pretty immaterial.
That's fine but there country is absolutely full of lead flashing and lead water pipes.

The level of lead put in to the system is absolutely infinitesimal compared to run of from roofs and people drinking through lead.
 
Shot is a different kettle of fish to CF ammo in terms of quantities spread. In fact,
One might argue the lead based rifle pollution is negligible, and whilst I shoot non-toxic, I agree lead kills faster and possibly more ethically.

However, there are three sides to this - 1. Pollution, where shot is the serial offender. 2. Risk to raptors ingesting lead from gralloch. 3. Risk of human consumption of lead, especially involuntarily where for ex. Children or pregnant woman are fed lead shot game/meat.

1. Bollocks to a degree when you see what pollution is happening elsewhere
2. Could be managed via requirements to bury gralloch or remove, or risk fines, loss of FAC etc.
3. Can not really be managed and is IMHO the only real concern here, along with the possibility that if in the case of No.1, lead from crop fields can be proven to make it into the food chain an be absorbed.

I’d happily shoot non toxic or lead, i cope. But I won’t feed the kids lead shot game. I do buy them breakfast cereals, but I have no test results on whether there has been lead
Absorption from shooting activities over the land it was harvested from - it would be interesting to see some more research on this actually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WW.
What I find truly amusing about this thread is that all those wanting the same conditions as the EU, where pretty much all the same ones who were advocating for BREXIT, that we leave the EU and allow the British Government that has been elected by a large majority of the British electorate to make up its own mind about legislation and introduce legislation and regulation that is different to that of the EU.

Defra, which is part of the British Government has widely consulted with a wide host of interested parties and introduced a ban on lead in ammunition as that, in the minds of the elected government, is in the best interests of the British people and the British environment.

You might disagree, but that’s democracy.
Yet more sweeping assumption to appease the troubled minds.
 
Our shooting organisations should be picking up and acting on this. The enforced conversion to copper centrefire is wholly unmanageable & being pushed along/encouraged by an anti shooting agenda knowing full well the implications - a further restriction to people shooting game.
This is precisely what’s causing the problem. Apparently the bullet makers have informed the EU that they can make copper bullets or traditional lead core but not both, and that the copper bullets cannot be adapted to military use.
Cue tooth sucking noises from the EU side of the table.
It looks very much as if there will be a ban on lead shot only, and even that is problematic with 7 countries telling the EU that there is no evidence to support the imposition of the ban and they will refuse to comply with the directive.
Of course none of this is of anything other than academic interest in the UK, for reasons we wont mention.
If there is a market for ‘non toxic’ venison then let the market place dictate & lead/encourage the conversion - how long has this agenda been pushed? I see & hear of no positive attributes to this push so far other than fragmenting the shooting community - which is a result for said anti’s.
 
This is precisely what’s causing the problem. Apparently the bullet makers have informed the EU that they can make copper bullets or traditional lead core but not both, and that the copper bullets cannot be adapted to military use.
Cue tooth sucking noises from the EU side of the table.
It looks very much as if there will be a ban on lead shot only, and even that is problematic with 7 countries telling the EU that there is no evidence to support the imposition of the ban and they will refuse to comply with the directive.
Of course none of this is of anything other than academic interest in the UK, for reasons we wont mention.
What it does however highlight is the possible assumption that ;
A, it is indeed anti hunting/ shooting driven first and foremost.
And, B, hypocrisy.
 
What it does however highlight is the possible assumption that ;
A, it is indeed anti hunting/ shooting driven first and foremost.
I don’t totally agree, but theres no doubt that there was more than a whiff of anti hunting sentiment involved.
And, B, hypocrisy.
I don’t agree there either. The processes for making bullets using lead cores are completely different to the manufacture of copper, you can make one or the other on a production line but not both, and can’t easily transition from one to the other. That is focusing minds since Trump came to power and the Ukraine kicked off. So not hypocrisy, pure practicality in face of a change of circumstances.
About time too.
The interesting one to watch is the lead shot ban, if only one country had told the EU to go away it would be very easy to force the directive through, but 7 countries is too big a bloc to be either bullied or ignored.
I’m watching with interest.
 
Shot is a different kettle of fish to CF ammo in terms of quantities spread. In fact,
One might argue the lead based rifle pollution is negligible, and whilst I shoot non-toxic, I agree lead kills faster and possibly more ethically.

However, there are three sides to this - 1. Pollution, where shot is the serial offender. 2. Risk to raptors ingesting lead from gralloch. 3. Risk of human consumption of lead, especially involuntarily where for ex. Children or pregnant woman are fed lead shot game/meat.

1. Bollocks to a degree when you see what pollution is happening elsewhere
2. Could be managed via requirements to bury gralloch or remove, or risk fines, loss of FAC etc.
3. Can not really be managed and is IMHO the only real concern here, along with the possibility that if in the case of No.1, lead from crop fields can be proven to make it into the food chain an be absorbed.

I’d happily shoot non toxic or lead, i cope. But I won’t feed the kids lead shot game. I do buy them breakfast cereals, but I have no test results on whether there has been lead
Absorption from shooting activities over the land it was harvested from - it would be interesting to see some more research on this actually.
Here is an overview of lead and cereals and the mechanisms of action.

 
Here is an overview of lead and cereals and the mechanisms of action.

main sources of lead in agricultural crops:
  • Legacy Contamination: Historical use of leaded gasoline (which settled into roadside soils), lead-based paint, and past industrial emissions.
  • Historical Pesticides: Previous use of lead arsenate pesticides in orchards and vineyards remains a significant source of lead in soil.
  • Mining and Smelting: Areas near mines or smelters have high lead deposits, which often exceed safety limits.
  • Agricultural Inputs: Certain phosphate fertilizers, animal manures, and biosolids (sewage sludge) can introduce lead, though modern regulations have reduced this in many areas.
Lead shot is not seen as a significant contributor
 
Here is an overview of lead and cereals and the mechanisms of action.

Please show us where in your linked article Lead from hunting bullets is stayed as a source of lead contamination?
 
Not being funny it’s the same argument that’s been rolling on and on and on, for years and it’s not going to change, it’s coming so get your head around it, or keep your gob shut and get on with it.
 
Last edited:
Not being funny it’s the same argument that’s been rolling on and on and on, for years and it’s not going to change, it’s coming so get your head it, keep your gob shut and get on with it.
Not being funny but, just because it’s likely to be a ‘done deal’ doesn’t mean we that know the truth should shut up and keep in line like good little sheep.

I have lead free alternatives for the rifles I own that can shoot such. I do own rifles that are not able to shoot lead free and am peed off that no derogation exists for them.
 
Hey Heym - stay on topic, i didn’t mention lead shot - I’m only referring to centrefire.
Too big a subject to roll into one, and now I note you dare mention Brexit.
If your beloved EU are now looking to ignore your toxic comments then surely you should be getting back under that stone & taking it on the chin.

I’m questioning the ivory towers for removing a freedom to do as I wish while openly adopting others rights to supply a supposed marketplace - the utopia of a lead free premium paying superstore. Yeah right’o………….

As for the £100/deer you quote - it’s this type of ballacks that has got this country into the state it is. Paying all this money to protect the re-wilding bonkers that we’ve adopted - most normal thinking people think the loonies have taken over the asylum.
£100, more like £150 in many cases is what Forestry and Land Scotland are paying their contractors. And they are shooting many tens of thousands of deer.
 
Not being funny but, just because it’s likely to be a ‘done deal’ doesn’t mean we that know the truth should shut up and keep in line like good little sheep.

I have lead free alternatives for the rifles I own that can shoot such. I do own rifles that are not able to shoot lead free and am peed off that no derogation exists for them.
Like I said keep your gob shut and don’t worry about it!
 
Not being funny but, just because it’s likely to be a ‘done deal’ doesn’t mean we that know the truth should shut up and keep in line like good little sheep.

I have lead free alternatives for the rifles I own that can shoot such. I do own rifles that are not able to shoot lead free and am peed off that no derogation exists for them.
There is a derogation that allows you to use such rifles on approved ranges for target shooting where the lead bullets are captured.
 
Here is an overview of lead and cereals and the mechanisms of action.


That article doesn't mention shot or hunting anywhere and shooting once in a context that is nothing to do with hunting so what is your point, heavy metals are ubiquitous?

Do you have a commercial interest in this subject? You seem very determined to make your point which we all understand and most of us agree with. We just want a choice and are kicking against this nanny state.

Lead will kill you just like old age.
 
There is a derogation that allows you to use such rifles on approved ranges for target shooting where the lead bullets are captured.
True, no derogation exists for shooting deer though and that is my point. My .50 flintlock is held for primary good reason of deerstalking and AOLQ it IS also conditioned for target but that’s not really why I have it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top