Lead ingestion health risks

[ElPollo]

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?

So I’ll add a couple things about the papers that @Article 4 brought up. And just for reference, I prefer using lead ammo for hunting and would like to continue that until better options become available.

Lead studies often don’t address that there are multiple sources for lead in the environment. The Greenland paper discusses a population that largely lives on marine mammals which have high lead levels due to biomagnification (eating lots of smaller stuff that has trace levels of lead).

Part of the issue with not understanding sources is also cultural. Most ecotoxicologists are not hunters or shooters and do not understand the potential exposures those groups have. The IDPA example is a good one. High volume competitive shooters and range staff have just started recognizing over the last few years that lead styphenate primers put them at risk for high levels of lead contamination. The researchers likely had no idea of how to explain that outlier in their data. And high levels of lead like this would be more likely to show up in a sample of game meat eaters than a control group that is less likely to contain competitive shooters. Likewise, there may be other correlations that aren’t considered. I live in an older house built in 1955. Last year we started remodeling our kitchen cabinets and found out they had lead oxide paint on them. If I am part of either group, that lead exposure would be considered part of the random background level. Are hunters who process and eat game meat more likely to do their own home repairs?

The British paper is also an example that requires some context. Britain and Europe have a substantial game meat industry, where wild rabbits, wood pigeons, pheasants, and other game are sold whole in the market to the public. Anyone who has experience processing game shot with a shotgun knows that they have to go into every whole in a carcass to remove the hair, feathers, and shot that are in those holes. And anyone who’s hunted birds will also know that # 7 1/2 or #8 shot is not too small to find. The researchers likely took their samples from whole animals without understanding how the animals are processed by hunters prior to eating, and non-hunters who buy them may not understand how to process them either. These papers and the game meat trade in Europe are the primary reason why lead ammunition is now largely banned there for hunting. There is no similar commercial game meat trade in the US. If there was lead might already be banned.

Is lead bad for you? Undoubtedly. There is a pile of research showing that all forms of lead are detrimental to human health, but some are much worse than others. Metallic lead is the least detrimental, at least in mammalian digestive systems. Metallic lead in game meat is also a risk that we can largely mitigate through good trimming practices. If you take your game to a commercial processor, you are passing on that option to someone who likely does not understand what they need to trim, and you may be better off looking at non-lead options if you want to avoid or minimize exposure.

Thus far, this discussion is wholly about the risk to human consumers. There are other considerations that people using lead ammunition may consider to reduce environmental effects of lead. Lead in gut piles has been shown to be a significant issue in raptors and other carrion eating birds in some areas, but not to my knowledge for mammalian scavengers. This is likely due to differences in their digestive systems. In places where you can get an animal out whole, you can dispose of the offal and carcasses in places where there is less risk to avian scavengers like eagles. If you can’t get them out whole, burying or covering the carcass and gut pile with brush can reduce the chance that avian scavenger will find it. Mammalian scavengers will find it, but there isn’t any data showing high lead levels in coyotes and the like compared to avian scavengers. Obviously, using non-lead ammo is also an option.

My take is that if we want to continue to use lead, and I do, we hunters should use it carefully and try to limit unintentional exposure to people and other wildlife.

 

[Article 4]

So I’ll add a couple things about the papers that @Article 4 brought up. And just for reference, I prefer using lead ammo for hunting and would like to continue that until better options become available.

Lead studies often don’t address that there are multiple sources for lead in the environment. The Greenland paper discusses a population that largely lives on marine mammals which have high lead levels due to biomagnification (eating lots of smaller stuff that has trace levels of lead).

Part of the issue with not understanding sources is also cultural. Most ecotoxicologists are not hunters or shooters and do not understand the potential exposures those groups have. The IDPA example is a good one. High volume competitive shooters and range staff have just started recognizing over the last few years that lead styphenate primers put them at risk for high levels of lead contamination. The researchers likely had no idea of how to explain that outlier in their data. And high levels of lead like this would be more likely to show up in a sample of game meat eaters than a control group that is less likely to contain competitive shooters. Likewise, there may be other correlations that aren’t considered. I live in an older house built in 1955. Last year we started remodeling our kitchen cabinets and found out they had lead oxide paint on them. If I am part of either group, that lead exposure would be considered part of the random background level. Are hunters who process and eat game meat more likely to do their own home repairs?

The British paper is also an example that requires some context. Britain and Europe have a substantial game meat industry, where wild rabbits, wood pigeons, pheasants, and other game are sold whole in the market to the public. Anyone who has experience processing game shot with a shotgun knows that they have to go into every whole in a carcass to remove the hair, feathers, and shot that are in those holes. And anyone who’s hunted birds will also know that # 7 1/2 or #8 shot is not too small to find. The researchers likely took their samples from whole animals without understanding how the animals are processed by hunters prior to eating, and non-hunters who buy them may not understand how to process them either. These papers and the game meat trade in Europe are the primary reason why lead ammunition is now largely banned there for hunting. There is no similar commercial game meat trade in the US. If there was lead might already be banned.

Is lead bad for you? Undoubtedly. There is a pile of research showing that all forms of lead are detrimental to human health, but some are much worse than others. Metallic lead is the least detrimental, at least in mammalian digestive systems. Metallic lead in game meat is also a risk that we can largely mitigate through good trimming practices. If you take your game to a commercial processor, you are passing on that option to someone who likely does not understand what they need to trim, and you may be better off looking at non-lead options if you want to avoid or minimize exposure.

Thus far, this discussion is wholly about the risk to human consumers. There are other considerations that people using lead ammunition may consider to reduce environmental effects of lead. Lead in gut piles has been shown to be a significant issue in raptors and other carrion eating birds in some areas, but not to my knowledge for mammalian scavengers. This is likely due to differences in their digestive systems. In places where you can get an animal out whole, you can dispose of the offal and carcasses in places where there is less risk to avian scavengers like eagles. If you can’t get them out whole, burying or covering the carcass and gut pile with brush can reduce the chance that avian scavenger will find it. Mammalian scavengers will find it, but there isn’t any data showing high lead levels in coyotes and the like compared to avian scavengers. Obviously, using non-lead ammo is also an option.

My take is that if we want to continue to use lead, and I do, we hunters should use it carefully and try to limit unintentional exposure to people and other wildlife.

Appreciate your perspective.

Yup. The data certainly supports the OP question, when many including myself, didn’t know they even it existed.

No golden tickets in any of them for sure. Outside of a couple of very strong statements that directly address the OP, a lot of contrary data

Merica!!!! Take what you want from it and decide for yourself.

 

[Southern Lights]

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.

Two points:

1) That's surprising they'd spend all that money x-raying them for something not a concern.

2) What's it to lead shooters if others decide they simply want to use other bullets without lead? If people want to hunt with lead (I did for years), that's their business. If others don't want to shoot lead for their own reasons, who is it bothering?

I don't want lead risk in any game meat I process. It takes a lot of time, effort, and money to go on a hunt and get an animal. So I want to not waste any meat and the meat I do get I want to be sure is the best. I also don't want lead in the environment to affect wildlife. To me that means keeping lead out of my animals.

 

[Hoopleheader]

So I’ll add a couple things about the papers that @Article 4 brought up. And just for reference, I prefer using lead ammo for hunting and would like to continue that until better options become available.

Lead studies often don’t address that there are multiple sources for lead in the environment. The Greenland paper discusses a population that largely lives on marine mammals which have high lead levels due to biomagnification (eating lots of smaller stuff that has trace levels of lead).

Part of the issue with not understanding sources is also cultural. Most ecotoxicologists are not hunters or shooters and do not understand the potential exposures those groups have. The IDPA example is a good one. High volume competitive shooters and range staff have just started recognizing over the last few years that lead styphenate primers put them at risk for high levels of lead contamination. The researchers likely had no idea of how to explain that outlier in their data. And high levels of lead like this would be more likely to show up in a sample of game meat eaters than a control group that is less likely to contain competitive shooters. Likewise, there may be other correlations that aren’t considered. I live in an older house built in 1955. Last year we started remodeling our kitchen cabinets and found out they had lead oxide paint on them. If I am part of either group, that lead exposure would be considered part of the random background level. Are hunters who process and eat game meat more likely to do their own home repairs?

The British paper is also an example that requires some context. Britain and Europe have a substantial game meat industry, where wild rabbits, wood pigeons, pheasants, and other game are sold whole in the market to the public. Anyone who has experience processing game shot with a shotgun knows that they have to go into every whole in a carcass to remove the hair, feathers, and shot that are in those holes. And anyone who’s hunted birds will also know that # 7 1/2 or #8 shot is not too small to find. The researchers likely took their samples from whole animals without understanding how the animals are processed by hunters prior to eating, and non-hunters who buy them may not understand how to process them either. These papers and the game meat trade in Europe are the primary reason why lead ammunition is now largely banned there for hunting. There is no similar commercial game meat trade in the US. If there was lead might already be banned.

Is lead bad for you? Undoubtedly. There is a pile of research showing that all forms of lead are detrimental to human health, but some are much worse than others. Metallic lead is the least detrimental, at least in mammalian digestive systems. Metallic lead in game meat is also a risk that we can largely mitigate through good trimming practices. If you take your game to a commercial processor, you are passing on that option to someone who likely does not understand what they need to trim, and you may be better off looking at non-lead options if you want to avoid or minimize exposure.

Thus far, this discussion is wholly about the risk to human consumers. There are other considerations that people using lead ammunition may consider to reduce environmental effects of lead. Lead in gut piles has been shown to be a significant issue in raptors and other carrion eating birds in some areas, but not to my knowledge for mammalian scavengers. This is likely due to differences in their digestive systems. In places where you can get an animal out whole, you can dispose of the offal and carcasses in places where there is less risk to avian scavengers like eagles. If you can’t get them out whole, burying or covering the carcass and gut pile with brush can reduce the chance that avian scavenger will find it. Mammalian scavengers will find it, but there isn’t any data showing high lead levels in coyotes and the like compared to avian scavengers. Obviously, using non-lead ammo is also an option.

My take is that if we want to continue to use lead, and I do, we hunters should use it carefully and try to limit unintentional exposure to people and other wildlife.

Well we should have a great opportunity to understand what the environment factors for that Greenland community are once it is a US territory.

 

[Hoopleheader]

Merica!!!! Take what you want from it and decide for yourself

I prefer to be told what is correct by mysterious wise men then be brow beat into submission by their mass of loyal followers.

 

[Article 4]

I prefer to be told what is correct by mysterious wise men then be brow beat into submission by their mass of loyal followers.

not hard to find
CNN does it all the time lol.

 

[dirtshooter]

I didn't read the whole thread yet but a guy here in AB just put this video together last season.

Won't stop me from using a fragmenting bullet but interesting video. I always trim my meat and I'm not that desperate to save every ounce of meat from a hunt.

 

[Hoopleheader]

not hard to find
CNN does it all the time lol.

From what I have seen this behavior is most pronounced in social media, particularly in enthusiast forums.

 

[RockAndSage]

2) What's it to lead shooters if others decide they simply want to use other bullets without lead? If people want to hunt with lead (I did for years), that's their business. If others don't want to shoot lead for their own reasons, who is it bothering?

Respectfully, it's about the political dangers of not being unified. Rights lost are almost always gone forever. And it's the salami-slicing of those rights away that eventually leads to the shocking gun bans and confiscations in places like Australia, the UK, and, IIRC, NZ as well.

And this issue specifically is absolutely perfect as a trojan horse for a gun-ban workaround.

In the US they've had increasing difficulty in getting around our 2nd Amendment in the courts and in legislatures across the country. Banning ammo and banning shooting on public lands are absolutely, explicitly part of their agenda on forcing more gun control, to get around this.

It starts with banning lead shot on waterfowl. Then lead ammo in specific zones of California. Then lead ammo bans for all hunting across California, and now certain federal lands. This has already happened. And it is a relentless march by the left.

Next steps are bans on all lead ammo on state lands, one by one. And bans on lead ammo on all federal land. This a very easy leap for them to argue, because "lead poisoning" and how easy it is for everyone to believe shoddy science. And each is just one more salami slice, one election cycle at a time.

Once lead ammo is banned on all federal and state lands, the next step would be bans on copper bullets - because, frankly, copper is a heavy metal too. But the bans on ammo types and shooting on public lands aren't the reason it's pushed politically - that reason is further gun control.

So the issue isn't about who cares what you or other hunters use - the issue is making sure any "science" around the issue isn't politically motivated with biased agendas, to further take away our rights. I happen to live in a vast, remote part of America, in a state that is owned 87% by the federal government. Nevada. This is a real threat to my freedom and that of all of my descendants to come, and it's fueled by radical agendas, weaponized by biased and politically driven "science", and aimed at voters who don't know any better.

It's dangerous as hell. And that's why it matters.

 

[maxx075]

I'd be more worried about the atomized lead that is still in AV fuel and lead from water lines.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I was apart of the California ranchers and farmers that attended dozens of meetings regarding this going back to the mid 2000s, and all the way up until the full lead ammo ban just a few years ago.

In those meetings, there was nothing presented that showed any conclusive evidence of lead toxicosis in humans, and the “data” that was presented on animals as “fact” were later rescinded and updated by several government organizations; despite the lead ammo ban passing anyway in 2019.

 

[Southern Lights]

Respectfully, it's about the political dangers of not being unified. Rights lost are almost always gone forever. And it's the salami-slicing of those rights away that eventually leads to the shocking gun bans and confiscations in places like Australia, the UK, and, IIRC, NZ as well.

I get it. But unfortunately lead bullets is a bad hill to die on and defending use puts gun owners in a losing position. The vast amount of the public (and I bet most gun owners themselves) don't think exposing themselves to lead is a good idea.

We have had this happen in NZ where people complained about donated meat being killed with lead bullets as a way to attack gun owners. The better solution is for hunters to just use copper for meat donations to take the wind out of the sails of this tactic. Otherwise it's framed as dumb hick hunters are poisoning poor people and kids.

In fact during the NZ gun confiscations, they ran cartoons depicting gun owners as lead poisoned morons.

I think the hunting community should be encouraging companies to work on better solutions than lead. Get it out of the primers and bullets. It benefits gun owners not being exposed to lead constantly, but also plays a lot better with the public at this point by taking the lead issue on proactively vs. having crazy blue hairs setting the agenda.

I think lead bullets are going to go away (as pointed out in many jurisdictions already). Arguing for lead contamination of food and environment is not going to play well. I don't have a great answer, but I do know that arguing for lead isn't it.

 

[RockAndSage]

I get it. But unfortunately lead bullets is a bad hill to die on and defending use puts gun owners in a losing position. The vast amount of the public (and I bet most gun owners themselves) don't think exposing themselves to lead is a good idea.

We have had this happen in NZ where people complained about donated meat being killed with lead bullets as a way to attack gun owners. The better solution is for hunters to just use copper for meat donations to take the wind out of the sails of this tactic. Otherwise it's framed as dumb hick hunters are poisoning poor people and kids.

In fact during the NZ gun confiscations, they ran cartoons depicting gun owners as lead poisoned morons.

I think the hunting community should be encouraging companies to work on better solutions than lead. Get it out of the primers and bullets. It benefits gun owners not being exposed to lead constantly, but also plays a lot better with the public at this point by taking the lead issue on proactively vs. having crazy blue hairs setting the agenda.

I think lead bullets are going to go away (as pointed out in many jurisdictions already). Arguing for lead contamination of food and environment is not going to play well. I don't have a great answer, but I do know that arguing for lead isn't it.

Every. Single. Hill.

Give no inch, or you get gun bans.

 

[skipper907]

https://soundcloud.com/huntbackcountry%2F503-the-dangers-of-lead-ammunition