Lead ingestion health risks

[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.

 

[Bluefish]

I would agree that consuming meat that is contaminated with lead can lead to increased blood level. There is a big but. The study does not look at how the birds got lead. Is it environmental and they have high lead levels from eating lead shot? Did they do a control against hunters using steel shot to see if it was from the lead shot or another source? The geeenland study seemed to say you eat birds that have high lead levels it elevates human blood levels. I don’t see any data that says that all that lead comes from shot even if it implied. Maybe I am wrong and just didn’t read it.

I know I have read other studies on condors and they have high lead levels even in areas with lead bans and outside of hunting season. This does suggest that lead shot or bullets is not the source of the lead.

 

[Formidilosus]

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

Or it’s that determining intention through the written word is difficult enough, and when being candid with people online, it often causes an emotional response. However I thank you for your insight.

 

[Hoopleheader]

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.

I’d wager that non-avian scavengers are not effected. The reason birds are prone to acute lead poisoning is the lead gets added to their gizzard grit and stays there, prolonging exposure.

 

[mtnbound]

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.

 

[HandgunHTR]

Yeah, I didn't know the answer so I went looking.

I am seeing this...A couple of studies (johansen and Bjermo) point pretty specifically to a direct correlation and outcome. They stated there is rifle and shot lead in the deer and in ducks and the people studied had higher levels of lead. Four to ten times higher from a steady diet of those animals. Those higher levels of lead are showing health risks to fetus and adults including brain issues and CKD. I took that at face value and that it addressed the OP question. Seems pretty declarative.

I probably would think differently if they said the data was inconclusive.

I appreciate it too, this so far has been a healthy discussion

Did you actually read those studies, or are you still relying on what the “retrospective study” said?

What was the population that they sampled? What was their rate of ingestion of game animals (including birds) per week (or day or month). What were the various occupations of the participants of the studies?

Those are just some basic questions that should be answered in them.

 

[eric1115]

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.

Thanks! I got a chance to listen to it today, it was a really good conversation to listen to, especially on the heels of what we've been discussing. I highly recommend it to anyone who's remotely interested in the topic. I think your summary is a really good one as well.

 

[woods89]

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.

I'm partway through the podcast. Heffelfinger seems like someone who is trying to be objective about it, and I appreciate that.

I did hope that we would hear a little on whether the blood levels have indeed dropped in birds in the area where AZ does their voluntary campaign. Seems like that came up recently, and perhaps the results were not crystal clear.

Honestly, I will continue to feed my children wild game, and I will continue to use lead core bullets. Any apparent link is shaky at best. I'm way more worried about mental health being affected by social media, and the proliferation of ultra processed foods than this one. I completely support any parent making their own decision on it, however.

One thing that did jump out that I will certainly be more aware of is the issue of spent cartridges. I do reload, and I am going to be much more intentional with how and where tumbling, etc happen, and how my children interact with that process. This to me is considerably more concerning than lead fragments in meat.

 

[JGRaider]

Question for @Article 4, @Southern Lights, you guys seem very sure of yourselves that lead bullets definitely pose a health risk. What would the evidence look like that would shift your confidence level more toward a "hmm, I'm not sure."

Same question the other direction for @Bluumoon, @JGRaider, @Formidilosus.

You guys are making very definite declarative statements about the fact of the matter. What are you guys seeing that I'm not? I see research that looks to me like it has serious flaws, but some of it I don't have a really solid answer for.

To all: I appreciate how (relatively) well this has stayed on the rails!

Show me 5 verified cases of lead ingestion from game animals killing a human being in the last 20 years, or even making him seriously ill. You can't do it, so that is "what I'm seeing". It's called reality.

 

[Southern Lights]

One thing that did jump out that I will certainly be more aware of is the issue of spent cartridges. I do reload, and I am going to be much more intentional with how and where tumbling, etc happen, and how my children interact with that process. This to me is considerably more concerning than lead fragments in meat.

I agree the spent cartridge issue is a much bigger problem. I use stainless media with liquid to control dust. But I always wear gloves when handling spent cartridges for reloading. If I was using dry media in a tumbler I'd be concerned about the amount of lead dust being distributed around.

 

[Ucsdryder]

Or it’s that determining intention through the written word is difficult enough, and when being candid with people online, it often causes an emotional response. However I thank you for your insight.

You should add “with all due respect” to your repertoire. Ultimate passive aggressive lead in…

 

[woods89]

I agree the spent cartridge issue is a much bigger problem. I use stainless media with liquid to control dust. But I always wear gloves when handling spent cartridges for reloading. If I was using dry media in a tumbler I'd be concerned about the amount of lead dust being distributed around.

It's going to change a few of my practices, for sure.

 

[eric1115]

Show me 5 verified cases of lead ingestion from game animals killing a human being in the last 20 years, or even making him seriously ill. You can't do it, so that is "what I'm seeing". It's called reality.

That seems like an insanely high burden of proof. It's also not what's being suggested. The most alarmist lead propaganda alleges negative health effects like cognitive development issues, fetal development problems, neurological issues, etc. nobody I've seen says that we're risking death or serious illness from eating game shot with lead bullets.

Do you think risk from elevated lead levels is categorically a hoax? Like lead in gasoline, paint, primers, etc hasn't had health impacts?

Just for clarity, I do think the risk from eating game shot with lead bullets is blown away out of proportion, to the extent that I have no plans to move away from lead bullets to feed my family (including little kids). I just think the issue is messy enough that such a level of certainty on either side is strange.

 

[Article 4]

Did you actually read those studies, or are you still relying on what the “retrospective study” said?

What was the population that they sampled? What was their rate of ingestion of game animals (including birds) per week (or day or month). What were the various occupations of the participants of the studies?

Those are just some basic questions that should be answered in them.

read them and answer that yourself

 

[The Guide]

You should add “with all due respect” to your repertoire. Ultimate passive aggressive lead in…

Naw, "Bless your heart..." is better.

Jay

 

[JGRaider]

That seems like an insanely high burden of proof. It's also not what's being suggested. The most alarmist lead propaganda alleges negative health effects like cognitive development issues, fetal development problems, neurological issues, etc. nobody I've seen says that we're risking death or serious illness from eating game shot with lead bullets.

Do you think risk from elevated lead levels is categorically a hoax? Like lead in gasoline, paint, primers, etc hasn't had health impacts?

Just for clarity, I do think the risk from eating game shot with lead bullets is blown away out of proportion, to the extent that I have no plans to move away from lead bullets to feed my family (including little kids). I just think the issue is messy enough that such a level of certainty on either side is strange.

I think the premise that lead ingestion from hunting bullets, by humans, leading to all of these health "problems" is absolutely a hoax, a fraud, and a big nothing burger. Worrying about this subject occupies about .0000001% of my day.

 

[JGRaider]

I agree the spent cartridge issue is a much bigger problem. I use stainless media with liquid to control dust. But I always wear gloves when handling spent cartridges for reloading. If I was using dry media in a tumbler I'd be concerned about the amount of lead dust being distributed around.

I've tumbled brass with dry media for 30+ years, and this "problem" is a big nothingburger as well.

 

[Article 4]

Did you actually read those studies, or are you still relying on what the “retrospective study” said?

What was the population that they sampled? What was their rate of ingestion of game animals (including birds) per week (or day or month). What were the various occupations of the participants of the studies?

Those are just some basic questions that should be answered in them.

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.

Nice synopsis and there is a lot of good data here. Appreciate you actually reading through it.

The OP asked "Is anyone aware of a study that clearly demonstrates connection or lack thereof between ingesting lead fragments and elevated BLL?" It looks like there are 4 at this point so they are available

They are

• Hunt,
• Johansen,
• Baltro and Meek,
• Linboe - When I looked up the original paper it came up as a stand alone abstract and I didn't want to pay for the full paper, its a quick read if you want to go read it. Ill quote it since I didn't include it in a previous post.

They looked at Moose shot with lead rifle bullets stating "consumers eating a moderate meat serving (2 g kg(-1) bw), a single serving would give a lead intake of 11 µg kg(-1) bw on average, with maximum of 220 µg kg(-1) bw. The results indicate that the intake of meat from big game shot with lead-based bullets imposes a significant contribution to the total human lead exposure."

What that actually translates to as far as total BLL of lead, I don't know. It did show transmission and elevated lead concentrates in humans.


One of the issues is there are so many contradictory statements in studies included. One even states that the adverse affects of lead is irreversible...so contrary to what the other study said. Maybe they tried to present a balanced argument. I don't know, I didn't write them.

The other issue is taking into account who funded the studies. Some of them clearly state who funded them and some don't. The NRA even funded one. I would like to think they didn't out and out lie...unless one was maybe funded by Greenpeace or PETA.

The New England Journal published a huge study discussing toxic lead levels that cause harm and exactly what those levels would have to be in humans - it didn't relate directly to hunting bullets though so I didn't include it
While there is no out and out conclusion that any of us are gonna die from eating game meat, I think we can all agree eating lead is bad. Certainly to unborn fetus and children it is critically bad.

Am I going to stop eating game meat based on this. NO WAY...my diet is about 90% wild game...but I am going to be super focused on my butchering and be super focused on what butcher I take meat to for sure.

 

[HandgunHTR]

read them and answer that yourself

I have.

 

[yeti12]

I can tell you guys with absolute certainty that a large ammunition company that starts with a H x rays their gel blocks in the very building im in right now after shooting them to look at the lead particles. Those of you that think shooting animals with lead bullets is going to affect your health are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Your drinking water is probably more of a risk to your health.