129
How can we enhance shared
learning and speed up
implementation of the use of
non-toxic alternatives?
Legislation requires the use of non-toxic ammunition for
some (or in a few cases all) shooting with shotguns and/
or rifles in many countries, although we have heard that
compliance can be very poor (especially with partial
restrictions as in England). There exist other politically
binding imperatives to replace lead ammunition with non-
toxic alternatives, viamultilateral environmental agreements
such as the Convention on Migratory Species and the
African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds Agreement (see
Stroud 2015). In addition, an increasing number of national
food safety authorities are publishing advice recommending
that women of pregnancy age and young children eliminate
or significantly reduce the consumption of game shot with
lead ammunition from their diet (see Knutsen et al. 2015).
The science around the toxicity of lead at low levels of
exposure is extremely compelling and agreed upon by all
major authorities, but there appears to be little awareness
of the issue more broadly, including across the general
public, medical practitioners, retailers and restaurateurs. For
example, the food safety advice published by the UK Food
Standards Agency (FSA) in October, 2012 (FSA 2012) was
not included in National Health Service advice on a healthy
diet in pregnancy when they revised their guidance either
in 2013 or January, 20151 .
It appears that a concerted communication effort will be
needed across all stakeholders, including the shooting
community and the general public, to increase awareness of
the problem, and to share knowledge on and facilitate the
implementation of possible solutions, including the use of
non-toxic alternative types of ammunition.
In 2010 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Defra) and the FSA invited key organisations to form
an independent strategic group to advise Government on the
impacts of lead ammunition on wildlife and human health. The
purpose of this group (the Lead Ammunition Group - LAG) was
to bring together relevant stakeholders and experts to advise
Defra and the FSA on:
(a) the key risks towildlife from lead ammunition, the respective
levels of those risks and to explore possible solutions to any
significant threats;
(b) possible options for managing the risk to human health
from the increased exposure to lead as a result of using lead
ammunition.
The LeadAmmunitionGroup’s report [subsequently submitted in
June 2015] will provide much needed information and guidance.
This symposium enabled an open examination of the evidence
and stimulated and facilitated debate both around the health
risks of lead ammunition to wildlife and humans and solutions
available including those already implemented elsewhere.
These proceedings should provide a helpful ‘one stop shop’ for
information on the issue in the UK, along with examples of how
others have effectively dealt with this.
However,increasedpublicawarenessandgoodcommunications
should ideally come from within the shooting community.
Regulation requiring the use of non-toxic ammunition would of
course solve the problem, and there would need to be a sensible
phase in time to enable adaptation.
While all of the information is accessible to facilitate and
enhance shared learning, implementation of the use of non-
toxic alternatives ultimately requires political will for change.
Are there economies of scale
for non-toxic ammunition
production?
Steel is widely available and is by far the most commonly
used alternative to lead shot. Prices of lead and steel shot are
currently comparable, and depending upon world metal prices,
steel shot may be slightly cheaper or slightly more costly than
lead, but differences are small. The more expensive shot types
are tungsten and bismuth, which are sold and used in far lower
volumes. Tungsten is a strategic material and is always likely to
bemore expensive than lead.With bismuth, if themarket is large
enough, the price could come down somewhat. For bullets, an
economy of scale effect is predictable. In the USA, where a larger
demand for lead-free bullets exists, the prices for lead-free and
lead-core equivalent bullets do not differ much when sold in
large retail stores (Thomas 2013a). Knott et al. (2009) indicated
Key questions and responses regarding transition to use of lead-free ammunition
1