126
non-toxic alternatives within three years (UNEP-CMS 2014 a,b).
While it is for Parties (of which the UK is one) to decide how
to implement these guidelines, the political imperative in the
Resolution’s wording is clear: countries with an established
poisoning problem (of which the UK is one) are expected to
act responsibly and implement the guidelines (see Stroud
(2015), for this and further requirements to restrict lead shot
under multilateral environmental agreements). Non-toxic shot
types have long been widely available, and the international
arms industry has developed effective non-toxic substitutes
for bullets (e.g. Gremse and Reiger 2015). The primary barriers
to a complete transition to lead-free ammunition use by game
and target shooters in the UK now appear to be socio-political.
Part of this seems to relate to the attitudes and beliefs of the
shooting community, and their ability to influence government
policy. The arguments used to oppose change are varied. Some
of these are based on perceived wisdom and hearsay, and
many myths have been perpetuated across decades. There also
appears to be an anxiety that that use of lead-free ammunition
would be detrimental to shooting sports (Cromie et al. 2015).
During the Oxford Lead Symposium’s discussion sessions,
the question of how we might tackle the misunderstandings
and myths surrounding lead poisoning and the options
for moving to non-toxic alternative ammunition was
repeatedly raised. To help address this, in this paper we have
outlined some of the issues and comments raised during
the symposium’s discussion sessions, and have included
answers, supplemented by additional information provided
by symposium participants. Where appropriate, reference has
been made to other papers in this symposium proceedings,
which provide supplementary detail.
One of the issues raised related to possibleways of overcoming
some of the barriers to change (many of which relate to
people’s perceptions regarding alternative ammunition
types). One way of helping to overcome barriers is through
providing relevant information to help dispel some of the
misconceptions about the alternatives to lead ammunition.
We have therefore also included a section specifically dealing
with this, compiled by those symposium participants with
specific shooting and/or ballistic expertise (i.e. the authors of
this paper).
The issues below are not a comprehensive synthesis of the
discussions, but include the key issues around which there was
debate during the symposium.
KEY QUESTIONS COVERED
How can the problem be
communicated better and the
debate depolarised?
The point was raised during the meeting that the need is not to
build a larger body of evidence, but rather better to communicate
the evidence that already exists. The public debate surrounding
the issue has become polarised in the UK, and there appears to
be the perception that the current move to phase out the use of
lead ammunition is some formof attack on game shooting sports.
While there are always likely to be organisations and individuals
both opposed to, and in favour of, game shooting sports, it is
very important for all involved organisations to separate this from
the issue of using toxic lead ammunition for shooting. Subject
to certain restrictions, the stalking and sports shooting of many
animal species is currently legal in the UK countries, and that is
not an issue for debate here. Both the legal pursuit of shooting
sports, and the established rural economy that derives fromthem,
are acknowledged by all of the main stakeholders in the current
debate. The drive towards lead-free ammunition for all shooting
in the UK is about ensuring the shooting, where it takes place,
is environmentally sustainable, and does not pose avoidable
health risks to either wildlife or human health. The use of non-
toxic alternative ammunition types should put game shooting on
a more sustainable environmental and economic basis without
its leaving a collateral toxic legacy. Science has long recognised
a single problem of humans’ use of lead products and their and
wildlife’s consequent exposure to toxic risk (RCEP 1983, Group of
Scientists, 2013, 2014, Stroud 2015).Thus, the use of lead in paints,
petrol, solders, and glass has been banned or heavily regulated
to protect human health. The use of lead ammunition in sport
shooting remains as an outstanding significant release of lead
to the environment that poses risks to the health of wildlife that
ingest it, and to humans who frequently eat shot game. Ending
the use of lead-based ammunition in shootingwould significantly
lower the exposure risks to both wildlife and humans. In this way,
one of the last, major, releases of lead to the UK environment
wouldbehalted.The shootingcommunitywouldassumeany cost
(negligible for steel shot) for the transition, and would internalise
this cost, rather than externalising it to the general environment
and society. This is consistent with the Polluter Pays Principle.
Land owners who send shot game (gamebirds and venison) to
the retail market would benefit from the assured export and sale
Vernon G. Thomas, Niels Kanstrup & Carl Gremse