106
The replacement of lead ammunition (both shot and bullets)
with non-toxic alternatives is recognised widely as a practical
solution to this One Health problem (UNEP-CMS 2014b, Group
of Scientists 2013, 2014) i.e. one mitigation measure which
would bring health benefits across the medical, veterinary
and conservation sectors. Given the global drivers to reduce
exposure to lead for both humans (e.g. WSSD 2002) and wildlife
populations alike (UNEP-CMS 2014a, 2014b), this substitution
would likely bring a range of benefits for the shooting
community and wider society, namely:
1. Substantial reduction in wildlife poisoning: mortality,
morbidity and associated welfare concerns (e.g. Anderson
et al. 2000, Samuel and Bowers 2000, Stevenson et al.
2005). From the shooting perspective, removal of this
significant mortality factor has potential to result in greater
numbers of individuals of quarry species to shoot. Indeed,
replacement of lead ammunition for waterfowl hunting
in the USA has been described as a key cost effective
waterfowl conservation tool (Thomas 2009);
2. Reduction in environmental pollution and uptake of lead
from soils into plants and lower animals (e.g. Sneddon et al.
2009);
3. Reduction in risk to humans consuming game shot with
lead. Due to the particular sensitivity of the developing
brain to the effects of lead (e.g. USATSDR 2007, CDC 2012),
this is of particular importance to children, especially
those most likely to be consuming such meat frequently
e.g. children in shooting households (a BASC/Countryside
Alliance survey of game-eating habits estimated that
5,500 – 12,500 children under eight years of age from
their community eat game at least once a week (Lead
Ammunition Group 2014)). Such levels of consumption
have the potential to result in intellectual and other
developmental deficits, e.g. BfR (2011), AESAN (2012),
Andreotti and Borghesi (2012), Food Standards Agency
(2012), VKM (2013), NFAS (2014), Green and Pain (2012, 2015);
4. Reduction in waste of harvested animals where substantial
proportions of carcases are recommended to be discarded
to eliminate the greatest proportion of lead-contaminated
meat (e.g. a 60 cm diameter around the wound canal for
mammalian game species shot with bullets (Knutsen et al.
2015));
5. Reduction in potential risk to the wider public image of the
shooting community as tacitly poisoning;
6. Reduction in risk of markets for game meat being affected
negatively within the UK, the European Union and beyond
if restrictions are introduced for food safety reasons (e.g.
if minimum lead levels are introduced for game meat to
bring in line with other meat, fish, shellfish and mollusc
restrictions (EC 2006));
7. Reduction in potential risk of future economic impacts on
the shooting community (particularly if societal awareness
or controls on lead increase) in the case of perceptions
leading to blight affecting the value of land or produce;
or the principle of the polluter being asked to pay for the
remediation of contaminated land where there are actual
impacts such as on domestic stock or human health.
By necessity, the practicalities and technical aspects of
production and use of non-toxic ammunition have been, or are
being, addressed (e.g. Gremse et al. 2014, Gremse and Reiger
2015, Thomas 2013, 2015). Despite evidence of poor compliance
with existing regulations in England (Cromie et al. 2002, 2010),
there are undoubtedly some shooterswhohavebeenusingnon-
toxic ammunition routinely since the introduction of regulations
on use of lead shot for shootingwildfowl/or over somewetlands.
Additionally, a number of UK organisations using ammunition in
natural resources management (not for recreational shooting
per se) e.g. government agencies and NGOs, have either made
the transition to non-toxic ammunition or are in the process of
doing so.
Although it has taken many decades of science and policy
development (often associated with industry resistance),
exposures of people to lead in paint, petrol and pipes have
been significantly reduced at a global scale (Stroud 2015). The
scene is now set for change on use of lead ammunition: the
evidence is extensive and robust (Group of Scientists 2013,
2014); there are clear international and national policy drivers
(Stroud 2015); ammunition users are not being asked to stop
their current activities, they are being asked instead to use
different ammunition, which is increasingly available; and
there are a range of benefits, as mentioned above. Despite
consensus between conservation (BirdLife International) and
international shooting organisations (The European Federation
for Associations of Hunting and Conservation - FACE - and the
8 This International Council for Game andWildlife Conservation (CIC) Workshop’s Resolution states that “It is now technically feasible to phase out the use of lead
ammunition for all hunting” (accepting some development needs for some calibres of bullets).
Ruth Cromie, Julia Newth, Jonathan Reeves, Michelle O’Brien, Katie Beckmann & Martin Brown