Lead ingestion health risks

[PistolPete]

For those looking.

Here you go: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/LeadFragmentsinVenison/Venison and Lead HC 110408.pdf

BTW, it took me exactly 5 seconds to Google this.

For those that aren't going to read it it basically states that "based on modeling", "there is a predicted risk in elevated levels in children consuming venison shot with lead ammunition.". Note, it doesn't say they actually found that. It says that they predict it based on their model.
It then goes on to conclude; "Because elevated blood lead has not been confirmed among consumers of venison, and because the measured lead content in venison varies greatly, there is an indeterminate public health hazard among those consumers." (emphasis is theirs). Again, for those who are having a hard time figuring out what that means, it means that they didn't find anybody who had a increased lead level in their blood that could be correlated with eating venison that had been shot with lead, so they can't make a determination on if it is bad or not.

Nice work; that's a major scientific pet peeve of mine.

"based on modeling" = "this model I created, with parameters that I gave it, just happened to generate the result that my funders wanted!"

 

[eric1115]

For those looking.

Here you go: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/LeadFragmentsinVenison/Venison and Lead HC 110408.pdf

BTW, it took me exactly 5 seconds to Google this.

For those that aren't going to read it it basically states that "based on modeling", "there is a predicted risk in elevated levels in children consuming venison shot with lead ammunition.". Note, it doesn't say they actually found that. It says that they predict it based on their model.
It then goes on to conclude; "Because elevated blood lead has not been confirmed among consumers of venison, and because the measured lead content in venison varies greatly, there is an indeterminate public health hazard among those consumers." (emphasis is theirs). Again, for those who are having a hard time figuring out what that means, it means that they didn't find anybody who had a increased lead level in their blood that could be correlated with eating venison that had been shot with lead, so they can't make a determination on if it is bad or not.

I have read that paper too. I see a handful of things in it that I see as problematic. I'm hoping to find time to go through it and trying to clearly articulate the issues I see in it.

It's in my opinion a prime example of "we can't demonstrate a clear link, but we're still going to recommend avoiding meat shot with lead bullets." And it goes on the "research that shows lead is bad" pile.

 

[ElPollo]

You quoted the part of my post talking about how lead consumption for children is a serious matter, thus the reason why I linked those posts.

The truth is that you won’t get LESS lead consumption while eating meat shot with lead bullets. You will get more than if you used copper (assuming you’re eating the meat within a certain radius of the shot which depends on a ton of factors such as caliber, impact velocity, bullet construction etc.) it’s common sense.

My whole point in posting in this thread was purely to say that lead hunting bullets will eventually be regulated because of the factors I listed.

Another thing is that just because there are no studies on a matter, that does not mean that there isn’t legitimacy for the claim.

Also, I want to reiterate that I USE lead bullets and will continue to use them while hunting because I don’t think the slight increase in potential lead consumption is anything to worry about for me or my family. But good luck trying to convince that to lawmakers.

This thread is about lead consumption in game meat. The links you provided are not particularly relevant to that discussion.

The paper that was linked in the thread and my discussion were focused solely on big game. What Form is saying is that there are very few scientific studies on this and some are better than others. This paper mentioned here is about as good of a resource as I’ve seen. And it suggests the risks of injection are low and the biological risks from that level of metallic lead is also minimal.

When you talk about biting pieces of lead that is upland game, which is another issue all together. I am not aware of studies related to lead consumption from upland birds. However, I have eaten upland game shot with lead since I was a baby and am currently 55 years old. My family regularly eat quail killed with lead shot. We all get our lead levels checked periodically. None of us have significantly high lead levels.

 

[ElPollo]

For those looking.

Here you go: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/LeadFragmentsinVenison/Venison and Lead HC 110408.pdf

BTW, it took me exactly 5 seconds to Google this.

For those that aren't going to read it it basically states that "based on modeling", "there is a predicted risk in elevated levels in children consuming venison shot with lead ammunition.". Note, it doesn't say they actually found that. It says that they predict it based on their model.
It then goes on to conclude; "Because elevated blood lead has not been confirmed among consumers of venison, and because the measured lead content in venison varies greatly, there is an indeterminate public health hazard among those consumers." (emphasis is theirs). Again, for those who are having a hard time figuring out what that means, it means that they didn't find anybody who had a increased lead level in their blood that could be correlated with eating venison that had been shot with lead, so they can't make a determination on if it is bad or not.

The modeling in that paper is meaningless, but the fact that they found lead in processed meat is not.

We can reduce that lead exposure risk substantially based on how we trim and process game meat.

Years ago I worked for a game processing facility and swore I would never use one based on that experience. If you take meat to a processor to be ground or made into jerky or sausage, you aren’t getting your meat back. That stuff is made in 1,000# batches and you get back some percentage of that communal batch. That batch may contain bloodshot meat and probably has plenty of meat from that guy who hangs his deer in the shop to ‘age’ for a couple weeks. You know, until the inside of the body cavity is carpeted with white mold. And yeah, I’ve seen that multiple times, along with deer that are shot to the bejesus. “My wife don’t like deer meat, so make the whole thing into jerky.”

No thank you. If my family is going to eat it, I want the option to determine which parts get eaten and which don’t.

 

[Bluumoon]

I’ve seen the sources reporting that lead traveled up to 18” from the wound channel. They were not peer reviewed and neither is the paper discussed here. Peer review is supposed to catch those leaps of logic that transcend physics (like microscopic grains that travel a foot and a half through muscle), but they don’t always. As with everything in science, it’s up to the reader to critically evaluate the materials, methodology, and the conclusions. And it’s also important to remember that science is a tool that can inform policy, but policy makers rarely have the ability to do that critical evaluation. They rely on others to synthesize the findings. Those synthesizers can be well-intentioned people or not.

I’ll add Peer review is FAR from perfect. Medical world has seen too many assholes w agendas that are really good at making shit up, some have done it decades before being called out. Journals can be clickish at best, often exclusionary, often lazy, Will publish crap research if done in the right format. Review articles (synthesizers) are great for finding the original research (via references) then digging in to see if the primary research was worth a hoot.

 

[ElPollo]

I’ll add Peer review is FAR from perfect. Medical world has seen too many assholes w agendas that are really good at making shit up, some have done it decades before being called out. Journals can be clickish at best, often exclusionary, often lazy, Will publish crap research if done in the right format. Review articles (synthesizers) are great for finding the original research (via references) then digging in to see if the primary research was worth a hoot.

Humans aren’t perfect, and scientists are humans. Suprised? Anyone who’s gone through the peer-review process has gotten shitty reviews or reviews from people flexing their claim on scientific real estate. The peer review process relies on getting multiple independent reviews to account for all that variability from being human. It also relies on repetition, both within and between studies. But it’s a process and it can take a lot of time. It’s easy to point out a bad example and poke holes in the process, but it’s much harder to come up with options to improve it.

 

[Bluumoon]

Humans aren’t perfect, and scientists are humans. Suprised? Anyone who’s gone through the peer-review process has gotten shitty reviews or reviews from people flexing their claim on scientific real estate. The peer review process relies on getting multiple independent reviews to account for all that variability from being human. It also relies on repetition, both within and between studies. But it’s a process and it can take a lot of time. It’s easy to point out a bad example and poke holes in the process, but it’s much harder to come up with options to improve it.

Agree.

The lead “studies” I’ve read so far are just enough to get get irritated. The last/most recent one I read out of NY was a disgrace to “science”. The methodology was based around an arguably false premise, derived from equally crappy research.

CO CPW is doing a lead bullet study currently. Problem is someone’s or multiple someone’s job is tied to the outcome of that “study” leading to one conclusion.

Personally I need to make time and delve in, look at the primary papers. If someone wants to make a drop box w all the pdfs I’d buy them a beer.

 

[Yoder]

Have they ever done any animal testing to see how much eating lead increases lead levels in blood? If they fed an animal with a similar digestive system lead in a controlled environment, you would know the answer.

 

[RockAndSage]

Have they ever done any animal testing to see how much eating lead increases lead levels in blood? If they fed an animal with a similar digestive system lead in a controlled environment, you would know the answer.

Back in the 1980s-90s, some of the studies they relied on for banning lead shot in waterfowl hunting essentially force-fed lead shot to ducks in quantities you'd feed them to fatten them up to make pate. Absolute not realistic at all, yet, "science" spoke.

 

[ElPollo]

Hey I’m no moderator, but I’ll offer a suggestion here. Let’s maybe keep this discussion on potential consumption of lead in game meat. If there is a study or even a review article you agree or disagree with on the topic, I think it would be helpful to look it up on Google Scholar, post a link to the study, and tell us why. Sharing your practices on addressing lead in game meat is also helpful. The issue of lead in the ecosystem and how it affects wildlife is a whole different discussion that probably aught to have its own thread.

 

[Southern Lights]

In New Zealand the Department of Conservation has stopped use of lead bullets for all culling operations. It has been linked to death in endangered Kea (Alpine Parrot). There was a recent study of lead in game meat that NZ researchers published:

X-ray screening of donated wild game is insufficient to protect children from lead exposure - Discover Food

Worldwide hunters distribute game meat as a gesture of community bonding and as an essential nutritional resource for those facing food insecurity, especially among children and adolescents. Nonetheless, the risk of lead (Pb) contamination from lead-based bullets is not widely acknowledged...

link.springer.com

X-Ray alone is insufficient to determine contamination.

"Between 25 April 2022 and 25 August 2022 we collected game meat samples from 44 animals from 38 hunters across New Zealand. Hunters were recruited to contribute samples through an article in a hunting magazine as well as radio coverage and newspaper articles. We asked hunters to submit mince (ground) meat samples from their stores that they had harvested. These samples could have been processed by the hunter or through a professional processing service. These collections were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations and all experimental protocols were approved by the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology. Minced meat is most likely to be harvested from the forequarter, the area corresponding to the ideal shot placement to kill the animal (chest cavity) and therefore most likely to be contaminated. As hunters provided samples they had self-harvested and processed, these samples demonstrate real-world evidence regarding lead contamination in harvested game."

...

"Measured by ICP-MS, 48% (21/44) of the samples exceeded the acceptable daily lead intake for children and 27% (12/44) exceeded the acceptable daily lead intake for females of childbearing age. When comparing the radiologically-positive samples and those exceeding the safe level of lead in meat there was not a relationship for the children’s threshold (P = 0.54), but there was a relationship for the women of childbearing age threshold (P = 0.03; Fig. 1C). Thus, medical radiography X-ray screening of wild game meat does not allow meat products with unacceptable lead levels for children to be identified."

...

"Future research should focus on: 1. Determining if this lead-contaminated meat results in elevated blood lead levels; 2. Techniques to identify meat products contaminated with lead; and, 3. Outreach to hunters describing the potential risks of using lead ammunition. We are unaware of any programs that warn consumers of the potential for lead exposure through game meat."

 

[Yoder]

This is an interesting study about bears, cougars and wolves in the Yellowstone area. I skimmed through it, and they took blood samples from all the animals at various times of the year to see if hunting season had an impact on lead levels in the blood from eating carcasses. From what I understand, it had no effect.

https://tetonraptorcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/8_Rogers_et_al._2011_lead_in_carnivores.pdf

 

[Article 4]

By what mechanism would that happen?

It would appear it may;

I looked up what I feel is a good study on this; if you don't want to read it all, what is pertinent to this thread is - the study queried a lot of data and that citation is listed as the first bullet

• We carried out a literature search in the database Web of Science for scientific papers dealing with environmental and health consequences of the use of lead in ammunition. We used 11 different query combinations of the key words “lead, lead-free, non-lead, non-toxic, ammunition, hunting, poisoning, shot, meat, game, raptor, waterfowl, and upland game.” After removing non-relevant papers, we manually added approximately 100 references found by searching in other databases (PubMed, Google Scholar) or in reference lists of published literature. Finally, we were left with 570 peer-reviewed papers published from 1975 through August 2016. The number of articles per year showed a strong increase over time during the period covered: 6.9 in 1975–1989, 9.3 in 1990–1999, 19.0 in 2000–2009, and 27.7 in 2010–2016. These papers were analyzed for relevance and conclusions, with special reference to topics such as health risks for humans consuming game hunted with lead-based ammunition (e.g., Johansen et al. 2004), lead residues in game meat intended for human consumption (e.g., Andreotti et al. 2016), use of apex species as biomonitoring sentinels for lead exposure and effects (e.g., Mateo-Tomás et al. 2016), lead poisoning of critically endangered species (e.g., Bakker et al. 2016), scavengers (Bedrosian et al. 2012), upland game birds (e.g., Kreager et al. 2008), and waterfowl (e.g., Green and Pain 2016), lead fragments in carcasses and offal (Cruz-Martinez et al. 2015), and lead contamination from shooting ranges (Okkenhaug et al. 2016). We found that more than 99% of them raised concerns over use of lead-based ammunition. A recent international symposium (Delahay and Spray 2015) highlighted the health and environmental risks from lead in spent ammunition. Apparently, there is scientific consensus on these issues.
• Lead-based bullets fragment inside game animals, potentially contaminating much of the carcass (Hunt et al. 2009). This explains high concentrations of lead found in retailed packages of venison.
• According to the World Health Organization (WHO 2015) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA 2013), there are no defined safe levels of lead intake in humans. The toxic effects of lead are numerous and largely irreversible. Of greatest concern is the effect on the nervous system of fetuses and children. The adverse effect of lead on children’s intellectual function is well established, especially the decline in IQ and loss of cognitive skills (Lanphear et al. 2005; Bellinger 2008; Grandjean and Landrigan 2014), which may have huge economic effects on societies especially when populations are affected.

The only way fetuses receive any nutrients from the mother is through the umbilical cord....blood tranferred from the mother to the fetus. That would lead me to believe that there are toxic levels of lead int eh bloodstream.

The study goes on to say that while chronic lead exposure does have significant negative affect on health, short term exposure in adults in small quantities does not; and any side effects from that exposure is reversible.

What I take from this is there is significant evidence it affects animals and waterfowl, likely due to the ratio of lead to body weight...it would appear the risk to humans (other than fetuses) is pretty small.

Health and Environmental Risks from Lead-based Ammunition: Science Versus Socio-Politics - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[The Guide]

Hey I’m no moderator, but I’ll offer a suggestion here. Let’s maybe keep this discussion on potential consumption of lead in game meat. If there is a study or even a review article you agree or disagree with on the topic, I think it would be helpful to look it up on Google Scholar, post a link to the study, and tell us why. Sharing your practices on addressing lead in game meat is also helpful. The issue of lead in the ecosystem and how it affects wildlife is a whole different discussion that probably aught to have its own thread.

That's the issue. There haven't been any studies done without financial backing from a source with a desired outcome. If there were independent studies done using correctly designed scientific research following protocols for the scientific method that showed meaningful correlation between game shot with bullets containing lead of any percentage and a rise in levels of lead in the human body, would these studies not be easily found?

Jay

 

[Article 4]

That's the issue. There haven't been any studies done without financial backing from a source with a desired outcome. If there were independent studies done using correctly designed scientific research following protocols for the scientific method that showed meaningful correlation between game shot with bullets containing lead of any percentage and a rise in levels of lead in the human body, would these studies not be easily found?

Jay

Yup, just posted one. It even talks about the hunting lobby and interest groups as part of the fight. has a ton of cross referenced data from multiple countries, food organizations, and unrelated groups. More than 50 references across multiple studies across multiple years.

Seems pretty impactful.

 

[bergie]

That’s not how it works. You have to prove that there is an issue, if you claim that there is. It’s not on everyone to prove a negative.

If someone claims that watching TV for 5min a day will greatly increase your risk of brain cancer, it isn’t on you to prove that it won’t- it’s on them to show and prove that it does. The OP laid out pretty well the issues with current “research” on it already. The reason that there are no legitimate research showing that game meat killed with lead bullets increases BLL when accounting for other factors- is because there isn’t any that show that it is. The only things that have been done is emotional hooks like a picture of a deer from an X-Ray with lead particles purposely put there to show “what could happen”. Or the “grind every single scrap up from every deer- don’t even try to remove projectiles, then let’s X-ray the packaged meat and see if lead exists. Or, shoot deer with fragmenting lead bullets in the chest, then gut them and spray them out (washing the inside chest contents all over the animal) and x-ray the whole carcass and show lead deposits all over the uncleaned, untrimmed, unpacked meat. No doubt those are non-biased actions.

I am not disagreeing with any of that, I want unbiased studies. I am not trying to prove anything. I am here for the same reason as the OP, to see if there is any proof one way or the other as I am curious.

You very matter-of-factly stated that solid lead ingestion from projectiles doesn't cause medically validated increased blood lead levels. For you to say that I have to assume that you have proof to back up your claim.

I realize you spend a large amount of time arguing with people on the internet, and as far as I can tell you have done it enough that you have developed a certain set of skills that enables you to 'win' those arguments (chief among them is asking for proof/evidence/photographs when folks disagree with you, but then turning it around and detailing why you don't need proof when it is asked of you). Your response above was just to 'win' an argument in which I am not opposing you, hell I most likely agree.

I am not interested in arguing, I simply wanted you to produce proof of a statement you made so that I could then use it in my life when choosing what projectile I want to fling at a critter (I use both lead and copper currently). If you have no proof that is ok, thats all I would need to know.

 

[Article 4]

I am not disagreeing with any of that, I want unbiased studies. I am not trying to prove anything. I am here for the same reason as the OP, to see if there is any proof one way or the other as I am curious.

You very matter-of-factly stated that solid lead ingestion from projectiles doesn't cause medically validated increased blood lead levels. For you to say that I have to assume that you have proof to back up your claim.

I realize you spend a large amount of time arguing with people on the internet, and as far as I can tell you have done it enough that you have developed a certain set of skills that enables you to 'win' those arguments (chief among them is asking for proof/evidence/photographs when folks disagree with you, but then turning it around and detailing why you don't need proof when it is asked of you). Your response above was just to 'win' an argument in which I am not opposing you, hell I most likely agree.

I am not interested in arguing, I simply wanted you to produce proof of a statement you made so that I could then use it in my life when choosing what projectile I want to fling at a critter (I use both lead and copper currently). If you have no proof that is ok, thats all I would need to know.

Proof is important. There is a lot of confirmation bias, especially on the ol slide.
I hear you - I too would like to see how Form came up with his fact that projectiles do not cause medically validated increases in blood levels and if he can, who did the study. Him? A bullet manufacturer maybe?

It is really hard to find a study that is absolutely neutral. In any way shape or fashion.

Someone or something has to fund the work. Pay the people, pay for the references and copyrighted data. There are very few, I would guess almost no organizations that take money to do work that are going to do something that isn't in their interest to do so, from the ones "donating" the money.

 

[JGRaider]

You've got just as good of a chance of getting hit by a meteor than getting sick/dying from hunting bullet caused lead poisoning. This is what I'd call dreaming up something to worry about.

 

[bergie]

It is really hard to find a study that is absolutely neutral. In any way shape or fashion.

Someone or something has to fund the work. Pay the people, pay for the references and copyrighted data. There are very few, I would guess almost no organizations that take money to do work that are going to do something that isn't in their interest to do so, from the ones "donating" the money.

Yep I get it, thats why I was so interested when someone definitively said that eating critter shot with lead will not elevate BLL. To make such a cut and dried statement, to me, means they have proof. I was simply asking to read that study.

 

[Article 4]

Yep I get it, thats why I was so interested when someone definitively said that eating critter shot with lead will not elevate BLL. To make such a cut and dried statement, to me, means they have proof. I was simply asking to read that study.

Yup, I am interested in reading it too. Hope @Formidilosus shares it.

The one I shared quoted this:

• Additionally, Menke et al. (2006) showed that increased cardiovascular mortality in adults occurs at substantially lower blood lead levels than previously reported. Despite the marked decrease in blood lead levels in the general population, low-level environmental lead exposure remains a major public health problem and has been termed a “silent killer” (Nawrot and Staessen 2006). People who frequently consume game shot with lead ammunition are at risk from high dietary lead exposure, e.g., 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).