I think, like everything else, you need to make your own decisions based on your own research. I cannot say I have read through every study on lead fragments in animals killed by hunters, but in the ones I have read, most are referencing lead shot from shotguns and not lead-based rifle bullets. One study references the use of rifle bullets, and I found some interesting points.
30 deer were harvested in this study.
Out of 234 packages of ground meat:
160 (68%) did not have any fragments.
74 (32%) packages had at least 1 fragment.
Of 16 deer carcasses with metal fragments near the spine, 4 (8%) packages had fragments, 45 packages did not.
Two ground meat packages (2 deer) each contained a single shotgun pellet, which had not been detected on the carcass radiographs. Where did these come from? This test used rifle bullets, with no reference to where or how these pellets came from.
If there were a lot of bullet fragments found in a deer, there should be a lot in their processed meat, but the study states, “No relationship was apparent between the number of metal fragments counted in carcasses and those subsequently counted in ground meat from the same animal.” Why is their no relationship, did a hunter do a better job of field butchering, did the commercial processor do a better or worse job?
They observed 155 metal particles in the ground meat packages or 3.1% of the 5074 metal particles counted in the carcasses of the 30 deer.
In their Bioavailability experiment (9 days), they fed pigs a combination of deer meat and pig feed to test for lead absorption. Their study shows a slight rise in blood lead levels of the control pigs, which were not fed the lead-tainted meat.
The pigs fed the lead-tainted meat for 9 days did have increased lead levels on days 1,2, and 3, but the levels dropped on days 4,5,6,7,8, and 9 to within the ranges of the control group.
Yes, the study showed an increase in lead level, but it also showed a return to normal with continued consumption.
The study was not continued past day 9, and I could not find how long they had planned the study for, but 9 days seems like a short time for a study to prove the health hazard to humans of consuming animals shot with lead bullets. Maybe they stopped it because they were not getting the information to prove their study goal.
For me, this study shows the importance of properly cleaning and processing the animal harvested, and that’s why I do not take my animal to a shop to be processed.
There is no doubt that lead consumption is not healthy, especially for kids and pregnant women, and yes, there can be an impact on birds, which is a different issue that is being tied to human health to give it more value. I feel there is a much greater risk for lead exposure from shooting as compared to eating. In my career, Lead is always tied to Copper for human health concerns, so I can easily see some groups' next focus being copper toxicity. So, ask yourself what we will shoot if lead and copper are both deemed unsafe. I hope it doesn’t happen, but this topic has more to do with predesigned outcomes and goals, not health.