139
impacts of lead on human health and well-being, on its effects
on wild bird populations, and given that satisfactory alternatives
to lead are now available, why is it that a large sector of the
hunting community in Britain and elsewhere remains opposed
to the replacement of toxic lead by non-toxic alternatives? Do
they just not know about the evidence, do they not understand
the problems, do they not believe the results of robust science
replicated in region after region, or have they been continually
fedwithmisleading information? Do they think the problems are
not big enough toworry about (the invisible problemsyndrome),
do they just object to any further regulation or change of any
kind, or do they see the banning of lead as a step on the way
to banning hunting? How can those organisations that represent
hunters and yet continue to oppose restrictions on lead justify
to their own members the stance they have taken, given the
knowledge we now have? Why do these organisations not take
a lead in educating their members, and supporting a legal ban in
the use of all lead ammunition? Given this intransigence, is it time
to put these issues more forcefully before the general public?
Whatever the answers to these questions, all raised during our
discussions at the symposium, there is clearly a communication
problem. No-one has suggested that decisions on such
important issues as lead poisoning should be left to hunters
alone. If it were just hunters who wanted to put only themselves
at risk, without affecting other people, domestic livestock or
wildlife, it is their choice. But their behaviour does affect other
people (including their families and associates), domestic
animals and wildlife. There are issues of health, well-being and
mortality, and also of animal welfare. In the UK, hundreds of
thousands of wild bird and mammal carcasses end up each
year in the human food chain for consumption by people not
involved in hunting, being sold by butchers, supermarkets,
hotels, restaurants, pubs or online shopping outlets. Yet all
this meat is distributed to the unsuspecting public without any
accompanying health warnings. Campaigns to promote the sale
of game meat as healthy food omit to mention the lead within.
In the presence of the information now readily available, and
which has been available for several decades, how can this be
allowed to continue? How will the shooting bodies who oppose
restrictions on lead justify to their members and the general
public the stance they have taken for more than three decades
after all other major uses of lead, from paints to petrel to pipes,
have been banned or seriously restricted? Europe is moving in
the right direction, but far too slowly.
We wish the Lead Ammunition Group well in their deliberations,
and look forward to their report. The recent Convention on
Migratory Species resolution on poisoning (UNEP-CMS 2014)
is also important because it puts our government under an
obligation to do something. My own view is that a legislative
ban is needed on the use of lead in all ammunition used for
hunting. At one stroke this would alleviate the problems created
for people (especially the hunters themselves), for wildlife
and for domestic livestock by this unnecessary but highly
toxic material. Of course, a date for the ban would need to be
set ahead, to give hunters and manufacturers time (ideally no
more than two years) to shift to other materials. After our day of
excellent science, practical experience and discussion, these are
the thoughts I would like to leave you with.
REFERENCES
CROMIE RL, NEWTH JL, REEVES JP, O’BRIEN MF, BECKMANN KM, BROWN
MJ (2015). The sociological and political aspects of reducing lead poisoning
from ammunition in the UK: why the transition to non-toxic ammunition
is so difficult. In: Delahay RJ, Spray CJ (eds). Proceedings of the Oxford Lead
Symposium. Lead ammunition: understanding and minimising the risks to
human and environmental health. Edward Grey Institute, The University
of Oxford. pp 104-124. Available at: .
Accessed: October 2015.
GREEN RE, HUNTWG, PARISH CN, NEWTON I (2008). Effectiveness of action
to reduce exposure of free-ranging California condors in Arizona and Utah to
lead from spent ammunition. PLoS ONE 3(12), e4022.
GREEN RE, PAIN DJ (2015). Risks of health effects to humans in the UK from
ammunition-derived lead. In: Delahay RJ, Spray CJ (eds). Proceedings of the
Oxford Lead Symposium. Lead ammunition: understanding and minimising
the risks to human and environmental health. Edward Grey Institute, The
University of Oxford. pp 27-43. Available at: http://oxfordleadsymposium.
info. Accessed: October 2015.
GREMSE C, RIEGER S (2015). Lead from hunting ammunition in wild game
meat: research initiatives and current legislation in Germany and the EU.
In: Delahay RJ, Spray CJ (eds). Proceedings of the Oxford Lead Symposium.
Lead ammunition: understanding and minimising the risks to human and
environmental health. Edward Grey Institute, The University of Oxford. pp 51-
57. Available at: . Accessed: October 2015.
KANSTRUP N (2015). Practical and social barriers to switching from lead to
non-toxic gunshot – a perspective from the EU. In: Delahay RJ, Spray CJ (eds).
Proceedings of the Oxford Lead Symposium. Lead ammunition: understanding
and minimising the risks to human and environmental health. Edward
Grey Institute, The University of Oxford. pp 98-103. Available at: http://
Accessed: October 2015.
KNUTSEN HK, BRANTSÆTER A-L, ALEXANDER J, MELTZER HM (2015).
Associations between consumption of large game animals and blood lead
levels in humans in Europe: The Norwegian experience. In: Delahay RJ,
Spray CJ (eds). Proceedings of the Oxford Lead Symposium. Lead ammunition:
understanding and minimising the risks to human and environmental health.
Edward Grey Institute, The University of Oxford. pp 44-50. Available at: http://
Accessed: October 2015.
Oxford Lead Symposium: closing remarks