Lead ingestion health risks

[eric1115]

To your first point - Are referring to Johansen? I didn't see that number in either Johansen or Bermeo?

My assumption is at that number 1.0 µg/dL, was supporting"Greenlanders had mean blood lead levels four to ten times higher than the EFSA benchmark dose modeling (BMDL) thresholds for developmental neurotoxicity in children and for chronic kidney disease in adults (Johansen et al. 2006). Perhaps 1.0 µg/dL is four to ten times higher?

Point 2: Didn't see them explain exactly how they processed the meat....do you have something on that? Hunt et al. said that all 30 deer processed in the Venison tested had rifle lead in it from hunters, and then they took it to another processor to check their own results and it showed lead presentation again. Is that one meal enough to cause issue? Don't know. They seem to point to long term exposure of the local diets contributing the most

Point 3? Where did you come up with those numbers? I looked at both studies in the quote and didn't see them?

Point 4 - without that cited specifically I tend to agree - maybe. I guess I rather go with what they cited around what they found than trying to figure out exactly how they get there. I guess I tried to answre the question with more than just opinion by citing multiple studies that all seemed to point to the same conclusion...a positive correlation between lead shot from bullets increasing health risk - to the OPs point.

Those numbers were semi-hypothetical - kind of referencing some of the qualitative problems I think I see with some of the various studies, but not their exact numbers.

My intent with those questions is to express that I think, but am not certain, that lots of these studies that get cited as unambiguously supporting the argument that lead bullets cause elevated BLL do not establish the link that they claim to.

You appear to have a very high level of confidence in the link between lead bullets and health risk. I'm trying to see if the evidence supports such a strong stance.

 

[Article 4]

Those numbers were semi-hypothetical - kind of referencing some of the qualitative problems I think I see with some of the various studies, but not their exact numbers.

My intent with those questions is to express that I think, but am not certain, that lots of these studies that get cited as unambiguously supporting the argument that lead bullets cause elevated BLL do not establish the link that they claim to.

You appear to have a very high level of confidence in the link between lead bullets and health risk. I'm trying to see if the evidence supports such a strong stance.

Appreciate that. to me we should all be making our own decisions rather than telling someone is wrong for theirs without truly researching it. this was my attempt to do it and help the OP

One of the things i really like about the study is that it does not seem to be 1 point of view. There are multiple articles sponsored by multiple different sources that come up with similar conclusions over a long time frame. Then they put is all in one place.

Also found it interesting that the NRA was cited too.

Cheers

 

[The Guide]

That is an exceptionally difficult study to conduct on humans. You can’t feed lead to humans (probably not easy to do on animals anymore either) for science- it’s not going to happen. You can do retrospective studies (try to compare kids from hunting families vs not etc), but trying to control for variables in the data is going to be impossible. This is unfortunately a question that will likely never get a really definitive answer like an actual study on humans would provide. It’s pretty safe to say there isn’t an argument about the potential benefits of eating any level of lead, so any study funding is likely coming from the other angle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are already areas of the country that track lead levels on pregnant women and children from birth to about the age of 5. These are in areas that have long term mining or other heavy industry exposure. Just adding a couple of questions about eating habits that include eating wild game while tracking their lead levels would produce information that can be used to see if there is trend for those people to have increased lead levels above those who had no contact with edible wild game.

To purposely poison people in the name of science like was done in the 50's, 60's, and 70's will hopefully never be done again but tracking exposure on people already at risks due to their environment should be safe.

Jay

 

[Article 4]

There are already areas of the country that track lead levels on pregnant women and children from birth to about the age of 5. These are in areas that have long term mining or other heavy industry exposure. Just adding a couple of questions about eating habits that include eating wild game while tracking their lead levels would produce information that can be used to see if there is trend for those people to have increased lead levels above those who had no contact with edible wild game.

To purposely poison people in the name of science like was done in the 50's, 60's, and 70's will hopefully never be done again but tracking exposure on people already at risks due to their environment should be safe.

Jay

directly addressing the OP @eric1115 question - "Is anyone aware of a study that clearly demonstrates connection or lack thereof between ingesting lead fragments and elevated BLL?"

• This one if from greenland - showing 50 humans tracked who eat bullet taken game - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749105004999?via=ihub

• Here is another showing transfer of lead from game animals shot with bullets by hunters and intended for human consumption - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1828051X.2016.1142360#d1e194

• Here is one from N Dakota showing lead remains in packaged meat from hunters for the homeless - https://science.peregrinefund.org/legacy-sites/conference-lead/PDF/0111 Cornatzer.pdf

• Here is one showing increased rifle lead in whitetail deer where they "We conclude that people risk exposure to bioavailable lead from bullet fragments when they eat venison from deer killed with standard lead-based rifle bullets and processed under normal procedures." - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005330

Whether that is clear to anyone here is up to you/them. My intent here is to give the OP direct information that addresses his question and shows there are studies that look at hunter killed, with rifle bullets, direct BLL tracked data on lead toxicity so he can decide

 

[nephewjephew]

No study to reference, just a thought to add.

A lot of "can", "could", "might", "may lead to", type wording in almost all of these studies (nothing definitive). With the amount of time humans have been shooting and eating animals, coupled with 70ish years give or take of this being studied. You'd think there would be a higher correlation between the two. As well as anecdotal evidence/stories of this guy, this family etc ate nothing but game and now look at them. The problem is that it isn't clear which is what one would expect if it was a real (read actual) problem. It might elevate BLL some, but to the point that people are falling over dead. Or more realistically if it was a real issue wouldn't we see hunters and their families constantly seeking medical attention because of it?

Tip of the cap to the OP for the post. I hope it continues to stay on track.

 

[eric1115]

directly addressing the OP @eric1115 question - "Is anyone aware of a study that clearly demonstrates connection or lack thereof between ingesting lead fragments and elevated BLL?"

• This one if from greenland - showing 50 humans tracked who eat bullet taken game - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749105004999?via=ihub

• Here is another showing transfer of lead from game animals shot with bullets by hunters and intended for human consumption - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1828051X.2016.1142360#d1e194

• Here is one from N Dakota showing lead remains in packaged meat from hunters for the homeless - https://science.peregrinefund.org/legacy-sites/conference-lead/PDF/0111 Cornatzer.pdf

• Here is one showing increased rifle lead in whitetail deer where they "We conclude that people risk exposure to bioavailable lead from bullet fragments when they eat venison from deer killed with standard lead-based rifle bullets and processed under normal procedures." - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005330

Whether that is clear to anyone here is up to you/them. My intent here is to give the OP direct information that addresses his question and shows there are studies that look at hunter killed, with rifle bullets, direct BLL tracked data on lead toxicity so he can decide

Excellent post, I really appreciate the clear laying out of your sources and your summaries!

I have read through more than half of those, and they all exhibit the kind of flaws in methodology, conclusions not supported by the data that they generate, etc. Those three questions I asked a few posts back we're speaking to some of the ways in which I found those studies unconvincing.

I was thinking about it last night after I put the phone away, I think there are two easy ways to look at the research that's out there. One way is to say say, it all reaches the same conclusion, even if various studies might have a weakness or two they all paint the same picture.

The other way, and the one I gravitate towards is to say say that it looks like he studies all want to run to the same conclusion and none of them are able to do so in a clean, convincing way. If the data is not there to support the conclusion they are looking for such that they have to and make various leaps (or at least stretches) to support their conclusions.

The multiple links-
Lead bullets result in a sufficient (X) amount of lead ingestion even with careful butchering,

Lead ingestion at that (X) level results in BLL increase of (Y)

BLL (baseline + Y) is actually harmful.


I would say at this point I am certainly not inclined keep to every last scrap of meat I can from around the bullet hole, pickle it in strong acid and can it and feels it to my 3 year old. I see enough evidence to think that is not a great idea.

I also look at the BLL decline; BLL's were in the teens, 20's, and higher in the 1970s and 1980's. I think getting them down to the mid to low single digits has been a very good thing. Maybe in 20 more years when all these 3.0 BLL kids grow up we'll look around and marvel at all the wonderful things these brilliant kids build and the amazing society that results from their improved cognitive abilities. My impression though, is that blood lead levels are not what's holding us back at this point.

Edit: Haha, @nephewjephew conveyed what I was trying to say using 75% fewer words. Well done my man.

 

[Article 4]

Excellent post, I really appreciate the clear laying out of your sources and your summaries!

I have read through more than half of those, and they all exhibit the kind of flaws in methodology, conclusions not supported by the data that they generate, etc. Those three questions I asked a few posts back we're speaking to some of the ways in which I found those studies unconvincing.

I was thinking about it last night after I put the phone away, I think there are two easy ways to look at the research that's out there. One way is to say say, it all reaches the same conclusion, even if various studies might have a weakness or two they all paint the same picture.

The other way, and the one I gravitate towards is to say say that it looks like he studies all want to run to the same conclusion and none of them are able to do so in a clean, convincing way. If the data is not there to support the conclusion they are looking for such that they have to and make various leaps (or at least stretches) to support their conclusions.

The multiple links-
Lead bullets result in a sufficient (X) amount of lead ingestion even with careful butchering,

Lead ingestion at that (X) level results in BLL increase of (Y)

BLL (baseline + Y) is actually harmful.


I would say at this point I am certainly not inclined keep to every last scrap of meat I can from around the bullet hole, pickle it in strong acid and can it and feels it to my 3 year old. I see enough evidence to think that is not a great idea.

I also look at the BLL decline; BLL's were in the teens, 20's, and higher in the '70s and '80s. I think getting them down to the mid to low single digits has been a very good thing. Maybe in 20 more years when all these 3.0 BLL kids grow up we'll look around and marvel at all the wonderful things these brilliant kids build and the amazing society that results from their improved cognitive abilities. My impression though, is that blood lead levels are not what's holding us back at this point.

Edit: Haha, @nephewjephew conveyed what I was trying to say using 75% fewer words. Well done my man.

I appreciate you actually reading and your take on them. I encourage you to read them all and since I am not exactly sure which ones you have read yet.

Side note, I am still looking around at more studies and I like you took a break last night after my interaction with form and others and relooked at them before saying anything - not being a jerk here at all - 100% want to discuss it as best we can here.

These aren't my studies of course and my sense is nobody here has done one...what i do know however is that medically, it is unethical and in many cases against the law to purposefully and proactively expose humans to substances that may cause negative outcomes - unless you are a pharma company LOL - and especially taboo for children. That might be why we conclude that the methodology is flawed - it does take higher sample sets to create statistical significance, which is really what scientists use to gauge the effectiveness of the data. Which as stated above may not be possible.

Whether we think there are flaws or not, my focus was to simply show that there are studies out there that show transmission of rifle shot meat to humans when some here say they don't exist. A few of them actually state that there is a direct BLL link from rifle shot animals, which some had said, didn't exist.

For me when I read things like:

• "We conclude that people risk exposure to bioavailable lead from bullet fragments when they eat venison from deer killed with standard lead-based rifle bullets and processed under normal procedures."
• The lead in particles of ingested ammunition fragments can be transformed to soluble lead ions and absorbed (Barltrop and Meek 1979), and cooking in acidic media may increase its bioavailability in humans
• A number of European food safety agencies now advise children and women of pregnancy age to avoid eating game shot with lead
• The adverse effect of lead on children’s intellectual function is well established, especially the decline in IQ and loss of cognitive skills

Now how many of us actually achieve toxic levels directly and only linked to eating game meat? I don't know and may not ever. Even with that - I would absolutely love it if there was a great big study out there that gave a once and for all definitive answer on the subject. Doubt that is ever going to happen.

 

[eric1115]

• This one if from greenland - showing 50 humans tracked who eat bullet taken game - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749105004999?via=ihub

My understanding is that greenlanders overall eat a lot of caribou and seal meat as well, presumably they would often be killed using lead bullets (though it seems seals are often head shots? Way out of my depth on seal hunting practices). The data seems to correlate specifically to bird shot, without any apparent spike in BLL for those who eat caribou but not birds?

They claim, "Blood lead was low (15 μg/L, mean concentration) among the participants reporting not eating birds. Among those reporting to eat birds regularly, blood lead was significantly higher, up to 128 μg/L (mean concentration)."

If I understand correctly though, that 128 number was one IDPA shooter and the rest of the bird eaters were a tiny fraction of his BLL. Why leave that data point in the abstract as the singular reference point for bird eating cohort without explanation or context? If I've confused this with another study please let me know. It speaks to the picture they want to paint vs what the data shows.

If I, a half retarded Idaho redneck with no stats training beyond a couple of 100-200 level undergrad courses, am noticing these issues on a quick reading of the study, how many more methodology and bias errors are there likely to be?

 

[Article 4]

My understanding is that greenlanders overall eat a lot of caribou and seal meat as well, presumably they would often be killed using lead bullets (though it seems seals are often head shots? Way out of my depth on seal hunting practices). The data seems to correlate specifically to bird shot, without any apparent spike in BLL for those who eat caribou but not birds?

They claim, "Blood lead was low (15 μg/L, mean concentration) among the participants reporting not eating birds. Among those reporting to eat birds regularly, blood lead was significantly higher, up to 128 μg/L (mean concentration)."

If I understand correctly though, that 128 number was one IDPA shooter and the rest of the bird eaters were a tiny fraction of his BLL. Why leave that data point in the abstract as the singular reference point for bird eating cohort without explanation or context? If I've confused this with another study please let me know. It speaks to the picture they want to paint vs what the data shows.

If I, a half retarded Idaho redneck with no stats training beyond a couple of 100-200 level undergrad courses, am noticing these issues on a quick reading of the study, how many more methodology and bias errors are there likely to be?

Yeah - one of the other things I wanted to do was to take the other side - as if I wanted to disregard the findings completely and how would I do that.

Flies in the ointment:

• Very few of the studies list who funded them - could be soros, greenpeace, who knows
• none of them have P values - which gauges the validity of the data - need way more people involved to get that
• Yeah, many of the studies say, there is no universally recognized minimum toxicity level for lead in BLL so your point around mean concentration is consistent
• Only I believe 3 of them track the exact question you posted - A direct correlation between BLL levels of lead and lead shot game. Not sure if it matters though if its birds or otherwise, its lead shot game

Wading through it all for a definitive answer is exhausting. But if I were going to argue against the findings, that is how I would do it. That said, the findings are there and I choose to believe that when it was found, they weren't lying about what they found. Unless of course a guy named Fauci was involved

Hope it at least gave you some reading which many said didnt exist. Am I going to continue to eat wild game - heck yes. My diet consists of about 90% wild animals and I dont see that changing based on these data

 

[eric1115]

• Here is another showing transfer of lead from game animals shot with bullets by hunters and intended for human consumption - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1828051X.2016.1142360#d1e194

This one contains language like "Soft tissues of large mammals often retain a high number of fragments up to more than 45 cm away from the wound channel."

Every other word in that sentence is a squishy word that renders the sentence more meaningless. How often? How high? "Up to more than 45cm"? So literally any number at any distance?


"Particularly, high concentrations were recorded in wild boar and pheasant meat, well above the maximum levels admitted by the Commission Regulation No. 1881/2006 for the categories ‘meat (excluding offal) of bovine animals, sheep, pig and poultry’ (max Pb level: 100 μg/kg wet weight) and ‘offal of bovine animals, sheep, pig and poultry’ (max Pb level: 500 μg/kg wet weight) (Commission of the European Communities Citation2006). The EFSA food category ‘boar (wild pig)’ meat gave a mean of 1143 μg/kg, 100-fold higher than ‘pork/piglet’ meat (mean value 11 μg/kg)."

I haven't looked nearly as closely at this one, I don't know if this is addressed, but to take the extreme ends of the range of possibilities, commercial meat lead levels are I think kind of like heavy metals in fish... Distributed evenly. If one sample has 1 g of lead dissolved throughout the tissue (feel free to come at me, biologists and chemists, if I'm way off base here) and another sample has a 1g chunk of lead in it, I see those as vastly different in terms of what we're likely to absorb as a result of ingesting and passing it. The commercial meat isn't going to have chunks of lead, so of course allowable levels are much lower.

Again, cursory reading and definitely not claiming that I've debunked the study, but these are some things that really don't add up for me. As we've talked about a bunch, dispositive proof is going to be a bar we're not likely going to reach.

 

[cubdriver84d]

Timely episode of Exo’s Hunt Backcountry Podcast released today.

 

[eric1115]

• Here is one from N Dakota showing lead remains in packaged meat from hunters for the homeless - https://science.peregrinefund.org/legacy-sites/conference-lead/PDF/0111 Cornatzer.pdf

This one is just silly to me. Finding: some packages contain some lead. Conclusion: DEMONSTRATED HEALTH RISK!!

Set aside the absence of a demonstration of how much that qty of lead is likely to increase BLL, and whether that BLL is actually harmful, the packages from the food bank were, I'd wager, processed with a lot less care than I take with my stuff. There's another study I read where something like 30-35% of packages from commercial processors ended up with lead fragments, while 8% of packages from people who butchered their own had fragments. I don't recall which study that was; if I dig it up I'll come back and edit my post to link it.

 

[eric1115]

Timely episode of Exo’s Hunt Backcountry Podcast released today.

Timely indeed! I'll for sure give it a listen, those guys seem to take a pretty objective and careful look at stuff like this.

 

[Article 4]

This one is just silly to me. Finding: some packages contain some lead. Conclusion: DEMONSTRATED HEALTH RISK!!

Set aside the absence of a demonstration of how much that qty of lead is likely to increase BLL, and whether that BLL is actually harmful, the packages from the food bank were, I'd wager, processed with a lot less care than I take with my stuff. There's another study I read where something like 30-35% of packages from commercial processors ended up with lead fragments, while 8% of packages from people who butchered their own had fragments. I don't recall which study that was; if I dig it up I'll come back and edit my post to link it.

Yeah I hear you - two takeaways

• Suspect data - again same issues with control of the inputs and a clear outcome based on it.
• That aside, there was the transfer of lead from the animal to the ppl eating it
  
  Whether it is directly harmful has to be either study specific and powered to look at specifically. So far it would seem (johansen) and maybe (Djermo) are the only ones that not only directly correlates it but also makes clear statements because of it.

To your point above, our question still remains. What are toxic levels of lead that show adverse outcomes in humans. Started trying to find that out. No, this is not a direct correlation to hunting and your original question - but does answer was is not clear to both of us, what are BLL measured toxicity levels of lead that show a direct correlation to adverse events.

Its in the NEJM which is a pretty well respected publication. It even includes P values that show statistical significance.

Im not even going to share an opinion - just the article

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022848

It may not answer how much is directly transferred but it does at least put a specific number on when toxicity happens in humans.

 

[bergie]

Podcast was a good listen, I recommend it. It certainly won't (because such statements are verifiably false) make any definitive statements such as 'eating game shot with lead will not raise blood lead levels' nor 'eating game shot with lead is a major health risk - don't do it; and while we are at it, ban lead ammo completely'.

Key takeaways I had
1. processing your own game greatly reduces lead exposure (duh, I care about what I eat much more than a butcher)
2. if you have young children or a pregnant wife, steps should be taken to further reduce any potential lead exposure (again, duh. if it was just me I wouldn't give this topic a second thought after initial research)
3. certain people (50%?) can actually carry lead fragments and shot in their appendix, once in there it can never escape, meaning it will slowly be absorbed
4. metallic lead from ingestion only stays in our system (not the stuff that may or may not fall into the appendix) for 24-36 hours so absorption in that time is minimal at best
5. studies show that hunters may have higher BLL than family members who don't hunt, but eat the same meals as the hunter. proving that lead exposure from primers/casings is much more readily absorbed than metallic lead ingestion.

 

[Article 4]

A

Podcast was a good listen, I recommend it. It certainly won't (because such statements are verifiably false) make any definitive statements such as 'eating game shot with lead will not raise blood lead levels' nor 'eating game shot with lead is a major health risk - don't do it; and while we are at it, ban lead ammo completely'.

Key takeaways I had
1. processing your own game greatly reduces lead exposure (duh, I care about what I eat much more than a butcher)
2. if you have young children or a pregnant wife, steps should be taken to further reduce any potential lead exposure (again, duh. if it was just me I wouldn't give this topic a second thought after initial research)
3. certain people (50%?) can actually carry lead fragments and shot in their appendix, once in there it can never escape, meaning it will slowly be absorbed
4. metallic lead from ingestion only stays in our system (not the stuff that may or may not fall into the appendix) for 24-36 hours so absorption in that time is minimal at best
5. studies show that hunters may have higher BLL than family members who don't hunt, but eat the same meals as the hunter. proving that lead exposure from primers/casings is much more readily absorbed than metallic lead ingestion.

Appreciate the synopsis - very pertinent to the OP issue and that there is data out there

 

[Southern Lights]

Ultimately we have a large list of examples where ingestion of lead in various products and ways has proven to be harmful. People get very bent out of shape to suggest it could happen with game meat. Unfortunately, anti-hunters have polarized the issue.

I'll continue to transition to copper as I feel there is likely a risk based on the history of lead. I feel the major risk is yes in primers and residue from shooting a lot. But I also think that depositing microscopic fragments of lead at Mach 2 into a carcass is a likely risk.

 

[Hoopleheader]

No study to reference, just a thought to add.

A lot of "can", "could", "might", "may lead to", type wording in almost all of these studies (nothing definitive). With the amount of time humans have been shooting and eating animals, coupled with 70ish years give or take of this being studied. You'd think there would be a higher correlation between the two. As well as anecdotal evidence/stories of this guy, this family etc ate nothing but game and now look at them. The problem is that it isn't clear which is what one would expect if it was a real (read actual) problem. It might elevate BLL some, but to the point that people are falling over dead. Or more realistically if it was a real issue wouldn't we see hunters and their families constantly seeking medical attention because of it?

Tip of the cap to the OP for the post. I hope it continues to stay on track.

The flaw with this line of thinking is that there are no safe blood lead levels for kids. Any increase is bad, although actually seeing acute clinical (falling over dead) requires very high levels. Feel free to do the research, I’m not going to cite a million studies.

Current thinking is that any measurable increase in blood lead levels in young children will have measurable effects on cognitive development. From a risk /reward standpoint, the asymmetric nature of the risk should call for an approach that says “show me the evidence that eating lead tainted meat does not risk increasing blood lead levels at all in my kids before I feed them my 77gr TMKs”. But, most people require being beat over the head with information or being forced to change via regulation before changing the way they do things (Fudd syndrome).


My own personal take (and actions) is that if you aren’t feeding it to kids or women who will some day or are pregnant, there probably isn’t a big enough risk/effect worry about, we all die of something. If you are, shoot the damn thing with Barnes and move on with life.

Hell, you can brag that you had to get close to the animal before you post the wound channel for collective approval of its legitimate death.

 

[Igloo]

Some interesting hunting footage and X-rays here from someone who clearly doesn't have an agenda

I don't shun lead containing bullets because I think they are harmful to people....more the impact on scavengers, particularly birds (crow/raven blood levels here are absolutely matching good/bad hunting years). I'm a hippie like that.

 

[Ucsdryder]

No. This is what I posted I response to a statement from another person. Read it in context-




There is a comma. I stated that eating wild game does not cause medically validated increased blood lead levels, because despite there being an entire “industry” if you will, trying to show that it is a serious health issue- there is nothing. If you would prefer that I put period after- “there are no studies that show it does”, no problem.

I stated “because it doesn’t”, because despite trying to prove it does- including lying and being deliberately disingenuous; there are no legit studies that show that hunters who eat meat from animals killed with lead based bullets have a higher BLL than the same population that doesn’t.

There definitely is higher BLL from shooter, especially reloaders, who shoot a lot and especially in indoor ranges. Without question the studies and individual cases of shooters getting increased BLL from lead styphnate primers is a thing. Ironically, the only recommended actions to take are- limit indoor ranges without good ventilation, don’t eat without washing hands, and wash hands a cloths after shooting. Not- let’s ban lead styphnate primers.





Sigh… ok.





I am not trying to “win” anything- you have no idea what my personal feelings about any of this is, because I do not state them. I do not care what you shout an animal with, I do not care what you eat or don’t eat. Twice in the last couple of days someone has tried to make me “prove” a negative. That’s a nonstarter from anyone. If you can quote and link a conversation where I have done so to someone else, I will gladly apologize to that person.





I do not care what you shoot at an animal or what you eat. Do you understand how research is approved and conducted? It is a real question- I am not being a jerk.
If you don’t, then simply: if someone wanted to conduct a legitimate research project to prove that lead bullets do not cause increased BLL, they would not get funding. You do not get money or grants for proving a negative in something like this- unless it is from a pharmaceutical company to “prove” that their drug is “safe”. Hence the reason why despite project after project trying to show lead bullets are dangerous in game meat- there is functionally nothing.

When you constantly have to say “I’m not being mean” and “I’m not being a jerk”, you’re being both.