Lead ingestion health risks

[The Guide]

Yup, just posted one. It even talks about the hunting lobby and interest groups as part of the fight.

That isn't a study. What you linked is a synopsis based on a literary search of articles from 1975 to 2016 that had certain key words.

From the linked web page...

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.

You linked an article referencing research papers with a brief explanation of what some of those papers found. I'm looking for actual independent studies done in modern times that had no backing from groups with any agenda either positive or negative. True agenda free studies are hard to find because there is no money in the study so nobody wants to back it.

Jay

 

[Article 4]

That isn't a study. What you linked is a synopsis based on a literary search of articles from 1975 to 2016 that had certain key words.

From the linked web page...

It is absolutely a study. It is called a "retrospective study" - they are used across multiple industries and scientific forums to do exactly what that study did...take a huge amount of science based, peer reviewed, and qualitative information and summarize the consensus of the points into one paper. So rather than just dismissing it without knowing, maybe ask first.

This particular study is a case series study which generally; is the description of a group of cases with an unusual disease or treatment.. So very appropriate for this topic

You linked an article referencing research papers with a brief explanation of what some of those papers found. I'm looking for actual independent studies done in modern times that had no backing from groups with any agenda either positive or negative. True agenda free studies are hard to find because there is no money in the study so nobody wants to back it.

Jay

Again, that is what a retrospective study does. Did you even read the whole thing?

I didn't have to go back and read them all because the unbiased nature of a retrospective study means they do it for you.

You wanna go deep, the references are there for you.

 

[Southern Lights]

We are four pages in and people are arguing that eating lead is OK.

Eating lead is bad. Let's not pretend that there is no risk potential here. If the risk doesn't bother someone because of how they process game meat that's fine. But it's unlikely there is no risk.

 

[bmart2622]

We are four pages in and people are arguing that eating lead is OK.

Eating lead is bad. Let's not pretend that there is no risk potential here. If the risk doesn't bother someone because of how they process game meat that's fine. But it's unlikely there is no risk.

What?!?!?! Who on here said that eating lead is ok or that lead is not harmful to you?!?!? Lead has been proven to be harmful when ingested, what hasnt been proven(and likely wont be) is if eating game shot with lead core bullets is harmful due to potential lead ingestion.

 

[Article 4]

What?!?!?! Who on here said that eating lead is ok or that lead is not harmful to you?!?!? Lead has been proven to be harmful when ingested, what hasnt been proven(and likely wont be) is if eating game shot with lead core bullets is harmful due to potential lead ingestion.

Agree on first part

Beg to differ on second. Might want to peruse the study I linked - it actually states evidence to the contrary - the study actually states

• 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). Bjermo et al. (2013) showed that increased blood lead levels in Swedish adults were associated with wild game consumption and that the blood lead concentrations in several individuals exceeded EFSA’s BMDL threshold values. The sources of lead in wild game were hunting bullets or shot.

 

[HuntHarder]

https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/wildlife/lead/publicsummary.pdf Whole study

https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/hunting/ammo/lead-short-summary.html Summary

This is one I found, shows lead spread, but nothing regarding the health impacts.

 

[bmart2622]

Agree on first part

Beg to differ on second. Might want to peruse the study I linked - it actually states evidence to the contrary - the study actually states

• 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). Bjermo et al. (2013) showed that increased blood lead levels in Swedish adults were associated with wild game consumption and that the blood lead concentrations in several individuals exceeded EFSA’s BMDL threshold values. The sources of lead in wild game were hunting bullets or shot.

Does it state if they were eating meat visibly effected by the bullet? Looks like it lumps lead shot in there as well, that changes things, a lot easier to miss a pellet in a grouse or pheasant breast in processing than it is to not stay away from blood shot meat of a deer or elk. Where other causes or sources of lead explored or ruled out in the foreign countries the studies took place?

 

[HandgunHTR]

Agree on first part

Beg to differ on second. Might want to peruse the study I linked - it actually states evidence to the contrary - the study actually states

• 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). Bjermo et al. (2013) showed that increased blood lead levels in Swedish adults were associated with wild game consumption and that the blood lead concentrations in several individuals exceeded EFSA’s BMDL threshold values. The sources of lead in wild game were hunting bullets or shot.

Read the actual study that you keep quoting! Not the "retrospective" study, the one referenced. Johansen et al 2006. You will find that they did not definitively link the increased blood levels of lead to actual ingestion of lead from bullets. And the Bjermo study that showed that "several individuals" had higher than threshold values also showed that many of those individuals were also competitive shooters or had jobs that also exposed them to lead.

As far as the retrospective study stating, "We found that more than 99% of them raised concerns over use of lead-based ammunition.", well color me surprised. Of course they raised concerns. They want it gone. The problem is that the studies cannot show to a scientific level of proof that it is a problem.

 

[The Guide]

Read the actual study that you keep quoting! Not the "retrospective" study, the one referenced. Johansen et al 2006. You will find that they did not definitively link the increased blood levels of lead to actual ingestion of lead from bullets. And the Bjermo study that showed that "several individuals" had higher than threshold values also showed that many of those individuals were also competitive shooters or had jobs that also exposed them to lead.

As far as the retrospective study stating, "We found that more than 99% of them raised concerns over use of lead-based ammunition.", well color me surprised. Of course they raised concerns. They want it gone. The problem is that the studies cannot show to a scientific level of proof that it is a problem.

This is why I finally just ignored him. No good faith arguments and continuously changes the bar and edits posts to change the commentary. The way he states that the papers or information he shares shows one thing when it reads a completely different way is baffling. Best of luck for anyone trying to engage in honest discourse with that user.

Jay

 

[Article 4]

Does it state if they were eating meat visibly effected by the bullet? Looks like it lumps lead shot in there as well, that changes things, a lot easier to miss a pellet in a grouse or pheasant breast in processing than it is to not stay away from blood shot meat of a deer or elk. Where other causes or sources of lead explored or ruled out in the foreign countries the studies took place?

You read it and answer that for yourself

 

[bmart2622]

No thanks

 

[JohnB]

This is an interesting one I came across a few years ago that isn't actually lead poisoning

An Unusual Cause of Abdominal Pain: Three Lead Pellets within the Appendix Vermiformis - PMC

Most ingested foreign bodies usually pass out in the feces uneventfully. Complications such as intestinal perforation and bleeding usually occur with sharp, thin, stiff, long, and pointed objects. This case describes the management of three lead ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The tl:dr is that someone wound up with appendicitis from getting 3 lead shotgun pellets lodged in their appendix that they had eaten from a rabbit they shot. It's not lead poisoning but was a surprising story to come across!

 

[Article 4]

This is why I finally just ignored him. No good faith arguments and continuously changes the bar and edits posts to change the commentary. The way he states that the papers or information he shares shows one thing when it reads a completely different way is baffling. Best of luck for anyone trying to engage in honest discourse with that user.

Jay

Read the actual study that you keep quoting! Not the "retrospective" study, the one referenced. Johansen et al 2006. You will find that they did not definitively link the increased blood levels of lead to actual ingestion of lead from bullets. And the Bjermo study that showed that "several individuals" had higher than threshold values also showed that many of those individuals were also competitive shooters or had jobs that also exposed them to lead.

As far as the retrospective study stating, "We found that more than 99% of them raised concerns over use of lead-based ammunition.", well color me surprised. Of course they raised concerns. They want it gone. The problem is that the studies cannot show to a scientific level of proof that it is a problem.

That is the only thing you pulled out of that entire paper? I have read it all including the prospective studies that led to the paper.

Lead shot are bullets! No to mention the study actually calls out in Baltro, meek, and mateo - knudtsen

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 (Mateo et al. 2011). A number of European food safety agencies now advise children and women of pregnancy age to avoid eating game shot with lead (Knutsen et al. 2015).
Funny - when I read the Johnson study it says and pay attention to the bold!

In Canada, 11% of lead levels in breast muscle of waterfowl exceeded the national residue guideline value of 0.5 μg/g-wet wt for fish protein (Scheuhammer et al., 1998). In Greenland, we found that 11% of lead levels in breast muscle of thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia) exceeded the Danish residue guideline value of 0.3 μg/g-wet wt (Johansen et al., 2001). Since seabirds are important in the local diet, we concluded that birds hunted with lead shot are probably the most important lead source for many people in Greenland. Other studies have also pointed to game hunted with lead shot as a lead source in the diet, e.g. Tsuji et al., 1999, Tsuji et al., 2001 for the First Nation Cree in Northern Ontario, Canada, and Kosatsky et al. (2001) for Montrealers consuming sportfish and waterfowl. In Greenland, a relationship between bird intake and blood lead has been documented. In a cross sectional population survey in West Greenland, Bjerregaard et al. (in prep.) found that participants reporting less than weekly intake of seabirds had blood lead levels around 75 μg/l, while those reporting to eat seabirds several times per week had more than 50% higher blood lead levels.

Lead shot pellets eaten unintended may result in increased lead exposure and intoxication in humans (Hillman, 1967, Madsen et al., 1998, Johansen & Nygård, 1987). For some groups lead shot from the consumption of game are common in the gastro-intestinal system as found in people from the western James Bay region (Tsuji and Nieboer, 1997) or people from Newfoundland (Reddy, 1985).


Your words:
As far as the retrospective study stating, "We found that more than 99% of them raised concerns over use of lead-based ammunition.", well color me surprised. Of course they raised concerns. They want it gone. The problem is that the studies cannot show to a scientific level of proof that it is a problem.

The lanphear study cited that states it DOES raise concerns - in the actual paper talking about blood born lead affecting unborn fetuses

The preponderance of experimental and human data indicates that there are persistent and deleterious effects of blood lead levels > 10 μg/dL on brain function, including lowered intelligence, behavioral problems, and diminished school performance (Baghurst et al. 1992; Bellinger et al. 1992; Cory-Slechta 1997; Dietrich et al. 1993; Ernhart et al. 1989; National Research Council 1993; Needleman and Gatsonis 1990; Pocock et al. 1994; Rice 1993; Wasserman et al. 1997; Yule et al. 1981). Lead toxicity, defined as whole blood lead ≥10 μg/dL, was based on numerous cross-sectional and prospective studies [Bellinger et al. 1987; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 1991; World Health Organization (WHO) 1995]. These studies generally, but not always, found adverse consequences of childhood lead exposure (CDC 1991; WHO 1995). Still, most of the children in those studies had blood lead levels > 10 μg/dL. The WHO and the CDC recognized that there was no discernable threshold for the adverse effects of lead exposure, but too few studies had examined children with blood lead levels < 10 μg/dL to support any firm conclusions (CDC 1991; WHO 1995).

I can go on and on -

Look don't believe it - eat as much lead as you like

 

[JohnB]

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

This is an interesting study! Thanks for passing it along.

 

[Article 4]

This is why I finally just ignored him. No good faith arguments and continuously changes the bar and edits posts to change the commentary. The way he states that the papers or information he shares shows one thing when it reads a completely different way is baffling. Best of luck for anyone trying to engage in honest discourse with that user.

Jay

The thread title is lead ingestion health risks. You wanna ignore clear results of the study by people who are way smarter on the subject than any of us here. Have at it and ignore away

Eat as much lead as you like

 

[HuntHarder]

The thread title is lead ingestion health risks. You wanna ignore clear results of the study by people who are way smarter on the subject than any of us here. Have at it and ignore away

Eat as much lead as you like

I think people in here are more interested in rifles shooting bullets vs. shotguns shooting shot. IMO those are different and are not exactly what the OP is trying to prove or disprove. Try to stay on subject and not so argumentative. It is a bad look. I believe you have the ability to argue, just try and take the emotion out of it and not get so defensive. I see that almost every time you post, you are usually not well received. Change you approach a little and you might get some traction.

 

[Article 4]

I think people in here are more interested in rifles shooting bullets vs. shotguns shooting shot. IMO those are different and are not exactly what the OP is trying to prove or disprove. Try to stay on subject and not so argumentative. It is a bad look. I believe you have the ability to argue, just try and take the emotion out of it and not get so defensive. I see that almost every time you post, you are usually not well received. Change you approach a little and you might get some traction.

Appreciate the olive branch - hope you share that counsel with others.

How is my sharing a study that shows a direct link with ingesting lead and health risks not in line with the OP?

 

[Formidilosus]

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.

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

Not one of those addresses solid lead ingestion from projectiles causing medically validated increased blood lead levels.

I’ll give you a hint- because there are no studies that show it does, because it doesn’t.

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.

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).

Sigh… ok.

Your response above was just to 'win' an argument in which I am not opposing you, hell I most likely agree.

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 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.

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.

 

[Article 4]

I think people in here are more interested in rifles shooting bullets vs. shotguns shooting shot. IMO those are different and are not exactly what the OP is trying to prove or disprove. Try to stay on subject and not so argumentative. It is a bad look. I believe you have the ability to argue, just try and take the emotion out of it and not get so defensive. I see that almost every time you post, you are usually not well received. Change you approach a little and you might get some traction.

Oh and so I dont "edit the post" I will add another sincere question.

Shot or bullets...they are both cited as causes of health issues. Disregarding that by definition, shot is a bullet.

 

[HuntHarder]

Yeah, I am not in this to argue with you, just telling you what a guy on the "outside" of your discussion sees. I am not sure anyone in this thread disagrees that ingesting lead is a bad thing. What we are trying to prove or disprove is shooting an animal with a lead core rifle bullet and eating the meat, can lead to an increase in BLL.

I have no data to support my position, but I believe that there is little, to no way a rear quarter would be affected by a shot to the thoracic cavity. Now how big that lead dispersion is, is of debate, as well as how much ingestion it would take to increase BLL. If I was eating all the meat around the wound, I could infer that my lead intake would be increased. Again, I have no data to support my beliefs, which is why I am in this thread. I am looking for data.