gunsmoke

I only ask the questions, if I do not know the answer. I may be reading tealeaves but its only my best guess. The LAG process was said to be open, yet we they tried to keep the emails between John Swift and Defra secret. They have had phone conferences that have not been reported on or the minutes published. It was to be an open process. all we got was the main committee minutes on the web site. I feel the best thing BASC could do if come out in support of lead. Tell us that it is the best thing to use in standard proofed guns. I'm not going to be able to use a 3 1/2 inch steel proofed gun for crow or pigeon shooting. Its alright for wildfowlers they may only fire 2-3 shots. I could use 100-250 cartidges in a day.

Malkiserrow For a statutory Instrument to be sign by a minister all parts have to agree, That is how they got the WIldfowling lead ban through because the BASC agreed. Now we have the shooting organisation resigning and BASC had not say it that as they where not members of the main LAG committee. That type of agreement is not possible. Now the problem is that happens if the LAG recommend a phasing out of lead, I believe on the line of the BASC road map of implementation, that I think is the 15 year plan I talked about last year. Is the BASC road map for implementation still BASC policy? If the LAG come out with a recommendation for a phasing out of lead, saying that they have the evidence, where does that leave BASC? We have send the LAG science and there is NO evidence. Only the WWT/BASC report on compliance and the WWT lead in game meat, both can by total trashed. Which way are BASC going to go? Are the government going to publish the final LAG report? Are the Government going to act on that report or bin it? If BASC did the minutes for the LAG final meeting they would have seen the report and know what it recommends. We how play a waiting game.

grrclark I emailed admin of the LAG and asked Matt Ellis when the minutes of the last LAG meeting would be up on the LAG web site. No reply. The LAG meet in May and the final report is in with the minister according to the resignation letter of John Batley. Is the LAG still a credible group? I do not think so. The WWT, RSPB and John Swift ex BASC CEO have all said they are in favour of a lead ban. With the all the shooting organisation resigning it can no long have any credibility. The plan was to have the shooting organisation on broad to get the lead ban through, then the government could sign the SI without the need for an amendment the the Countryside and Wildlife Act. The same way they brought in the lead ban for wildfowling. With the shooting organisation resigning that type of agreement is not possible. As I said in another thread my view is that, the way this has been managed, the government can no long trust the WWT, RSPB or BASC to advise them on anything.

I am sure that you challenged him as to his impartiality as chairman and his white hat bias No need to challenge him already know the answer. John and Harradine along with other BASC staff have been leading us to a 'lead free' future for the last 10 years. We have the Research Committee minutes, we have the John Swift comments to the BASC AGM when he left, the John Swift emails, we have the minutes of the lead steering group and the minutes of the LAG. With all this information please show me where BASC have defended the use of lead? what role did BASC play in "preparing the road map of implementation". I'm told by an ex-BASC staff member that John asked BASC staf to draw up plan for the implementation of the using non-toxic shot. This have got future that anyone thought, they are now talking about a total phasing out of lead for all shooting. Shotgun, rifle and air weapons. The BASC research committee paper told us that.

These post are better, PW member together could be a fight force in the coming months. I re-read the 'WWT lead shot plans' thread on PW, lots of good information in there. Add this to what we know and you can see this was the plan along. The WWT and BASC to come up with the Compliance report, with the help[ of the RSPB, all three of them move onto the LAG with the outcome to recommend the phasing out of lead. This is the 'road map' they talked about. What role did John Swift and Harradine play it the scam against all of us shooters.

Yes I think you're right, it will be nice to see BASC stand along side all shooters, now that the back stabbers have gone. However you have a lot of making up to do first, before you can be trusted.

No need, the way all this has been handled and the mismanagement of due process on the LAG, the Government for the next 20 years are not going to be able to let the BASC, WWT or RSPB anywhere near an adviser group on lead.

Yes that's right, all I have posted it John Swift comments as I am following the LAG terms of reference for openness. The first time he came to the DI his opening line [not recorded] was "there is lead in the food chain, we have to find was to reduce it". Thats when I wrote Lead shot-gate parts 1 & 2 for countryman's weekly. When you write in magazines someone is always there to pick holes in you work, I can say all I got was praise. Thanks to Pigeon Watch I have been able to enlighten follow shooters to what is really going on.

You've got it. That's my point all along. I posted this to show the John Swift was briefing outside of the LAG, I believe that that breaks the LAG terms of reference.

I think you've got it summed up. I would say that my theory that the blood level concentrations around the wound they test could be due to the fact that the wound is a mix of meat and blood together and may not be from the bullet fragments. In the Norwegian report the average level of lead in blood was 19.3 mg/l. the EU average is between 20 and 30 mg/l. So Norwegian hunter have a lower the EU average lead level. So all this hype about higher lead levels in people who eat lead shot game is no more than scare mongering. This article is headed, ‘much to do about nothing’ or are we to believe the hype that lead shot game is toxic, my conclusion is that it is “much to do about nothing!”

From the Deer Initiative minutes May 2010 Lead in the food chain John Swift (JAS) advised that the main Lead in Ammunition strategy group met on 26th April and was made up of representatives of the following organisations: · RSPB – Mark Avery · Gun Traders Association – John Batley · CLA – Adrian Gane · Countryside Alliance – Rob Gray · Universities Federation of Animal Welfare – James Kirkwood Institute of Environment & Health – Len Levy · Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust – Debby Pain · GWCT – Steve Tapper Defra provided the secretariat JAS reported that the group had agreed that the process must be inclusive and open, and he underlined that it would proceed in an ordered and measured way. JAS advised that there will be an opportunity for other organisations to become more involved as smaller sub groups. JAS noted the following points: · Gathering evidence would be the first task and collating key information in a single place · A future stage may require new research to fill any knowledge gaps · Any information which originates from abroad must be applicable to the UK · The next meeting will take place on 28th May, at which point the group will regularise the sub groups for evidence gathering · The group will develop a risk assessment, and stakeholders will be involved in this exercise. · Only when specific risks have been assessed will sub groups be formed to look at mitigation – setting up the groups too soon will pre-judge the outcome. · The group will also look at new products and emerging technologies · An important element will be independent moderation – the progress report (due in 12 months time) must be based on evidence which can be peer reviewed. · it is anticipated that the website will be available by the end of the week and that the minutes of the previous meeting will be uploaded to the site as well as other information sources. The website is available at http://www.leadammunitiongroup.co.uk/ · JAS emphasised the importance of demonstrating openness and of involvement of interested parties. The group is determined that outcomes will be rigorous and will deal with actual risks. JAS referred to 2 studies which have been published recently which provide topical information · A scientific opinion on lead levels in food - European Food Standards Agency · Lead Bullet Fragments in Venison from Rifle-Killed Deer: Potential for Human Dietary Exposure– available on plosone.org JAS stressed the importance of retaining public confidence in food standards. AM confirmed that Defra also have an open mind on the situation. Defra is working in conjunction with the FSA, with Defra’s interest in the topic based on the conservation and welfare of animals. AM also noted that Defra recognise that this was the start of a lengthy and detailed process to gather appropriate evidence. In response to a question from CB, JAS advised that the website was designed and hosted by the BASC web team, but that it was not a BASC website. In response to a question from NW, JAS clarified that the risk assessment would cover wildlife and human health. In response to a question from DW, JAS advised that, if that stage is reached, any new UK research work would be part of an open tender process. MS suggested contacting the Centre for Decision Analysis and Risk Management at Middlesex University which provides a useful resource for risk management information and strategies. EG suggested that if NE becomes involved at a later stage, if would be helpful to contact Ian Carter who is a bird specialist and has been involved in previous lead shot debates. AM advised that Defra and FSA had made the decision not to involve other Government agencies in the main strategy group so that advice emerging from the group will be completely independent. In response to a question from DK, JAS advised that the main strategy group is not a lobbying group With reference to the RSPB publication on the subject, DK asked if the main strategy group has a view on external lobbying. JAS noted that peer reviewed scientific papers will be treated with respect, and it is not for the group to engage in considering whether or not such papers are relevant or accurate. AM noted that the members of the main strategy group had agreed that they sat on the group as individuals in their own right for their knowledge and expertise; that they also represented their organisations, but that they must also take into account external views from within their own sector. The group will issue single opinion press releases for consistency, but it was also recognised that it was likely that organisations will also issue press releases based on their own internal views. Appendix 4 report from john Swift Report to the DI Partnership meeting 25 November 2014 This report has been listed as a “Lead Ammunition Group Update” and I am happy to tell you where things stand and answer questions if I can. But I stress that I am speaking in my capacity as a trustee of DI Ltd because I think there is something that DI needs to be thinking about carefully. As far as the Lead Ammunition group is concerned, since you have asked, I can apprise you that I have drafted a Report pulling together and consolidating the wide range of evidence from four detailed risk assessments, as well as discussions in committee and subgroups covering human health and wildlife impacts of lead ammunition. That was largely completed in October and is now being checked for technical accuracy and balance – and distilling a straightforward executive narrative. I am hoping to get that feedback by the end of November but whether I do is another matter, and how much time will be needed to make all the corrections and re-editing is uncertain until I do. Circulation to stakeholders will follow. Then finally submission to Defra and FSA, who will need time, before they decide what to do. So the timetable remains rather open. Chairmanship of the Lead Ammunition Group means that I pay close attention to anything connected with lead ammunition. If something could impact the objects and business of the Deer Initiative I draw it to the attention of the Board, which I did the other day. To start with the obvious the Deer Initiative’s responsibility is for deer, good management, promoting conservation priorities, preventing damage, road accidents and disease, and so on. It relies for this in part on being able to control deer numbers. And that in turn is much helped by the possibility to dispose of shot animals as high quality venison food products, whether that involves “local distribution in small numbers”, or more particularly to larger retailers or export. If markets could be at risk it is a serious issue. And it is therefore important to keep antennae finely tuned. One of the topics the Lead Ammunition Group has been addressing is the possibility of harm to an increasingly game-eating public – in our case caused by lead bullet fragments. We have to answer the question whether ammunition lead can be present in game at levels enough to present significant health risks to children and adults, depending on the amount they eat of course. But the additional question for DI is also whether authorities in other countries to which we export venison, believe the answer is “yes”. The technical reasons for concern, and I don’t want to bore you with technical jargon, are that food health authorities in this country (FSA) and in EU (EFSA) as well as globally through WHO, are of the view, on the strength of much science, that the gap between public lead exposure levels from a normal diet is already too close to exposure levels causing known and specified clinical health risks – and the policy is to reduce lead exposure wherever possible. That indeed has happened in recent years. But concern has also been expressed for people who eat a lot of game as part of their diet, so called “high level consumers” and double-especially so for children and expecting mums, and triple especially so for children and expecting mothers and women trying for a child in high consuming households. The source of this risk is the well-known neurotoxic impact of lead when ingested and getting into your blood stream, and especially the risk to the foetus’s or young child’s developing brain. This happens at very low levels of exposure from ingested lead. In fact there is no lower level below which harm will not be done – for which there is solid science. Lead harms just about every organ and biochemical system in the body to some degree but brain damage is the most important. The risks from eating deer meat and deer meat products - veni-burgers, sausages and pates and so on, have been rather assumed to be less than the potential hit from eating game birds – not least because a lot of venison comes from game farms where they are head or neck shot – or imported from New Zealand. You will be able to read my report into all this and the risk assessments in due course once formally submitted to Defra and FSA, but in the meantime two reports have recently been published from Norway and Sweden that should not be ignored and may be helpful. These address, by good research such as has not been done in UK (1) ammunition lead levels in cervid meat products (which have been found to exceed permissible lead levels in other types of food products for the market) (2) blood lead levels in consumers (which have been found to approach or exceed reference levels for benchmark harmful health effects), and (3) options and advice, based on pretty rigorous and now painstaking study, on prudent consumption levels and carcass handling practice that will ensure a safe product, help secure future markets for venison and ensure “bon appetit”. The studies I refer you to are: 1. The Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants of the Norwegian Scientific Committee on Food Safety, entitled “Risk Assessment of Lead Exposure from Cervid Meat in Norwegian Consumers and in Hunting Dogs”. This was dated 18.06.13 with ISBN number 978-82-8259-096-9. 2. The Swedish National Food Agency Report #18 dated 2014 for which there is an official English summary – entitled Lead in Game Meat. You must read these for yourselves with a cold towel around your head, because the findings are nuanced. But some of the most pertinent findings to me from Norway were: 1. Lead concentrations can be found at 25 cm distance from the wound channel in red deer and wild boar shot with various unknown ammunition. This broadly coincides with Peter Green’s advice to BDS in October 2009. 2. Associations between game meat consumption and blood lead concentration have been studied in four population studies in Norway. In the three studies performed in the years 2003-2005, a significant association between game meat consumption and higher blood lead concentration was only seen in the subgroup of male participants in one of the studies (the Norwegian Fish and Game study). 3. In the more recent fourth study, the Norwegian Game and Lead study conducted in 2012, the median blood lead concentration was in the lower range of medians measured in most European and Norwegian studies over the previous 10 years. But – and it’s a big but - this study also confirmed (1) association between cervid meat consumption and concentrations of lead in blood and (2) that those with frequent (monthly or more often) cervid meat consumption had about 30% higher average levels of lead in blood than those with less frequent consumption. However to be fair, there was a wide range, and many participants with high or long-lasting game meat intake had low blood lead concentrations. 4. The increase in blood lead concentrations seemed to be associated with consumption of minced cervid meat particularly purchased minced meat. 5. Blood lead concentration was significantly higher in participants who reported self-assembling of lead-containing bullets. Thankfully not too many children do home loading. 6. The third big but is that blood lead concentrations measured in participants in the Norwegian population studies are in the range of, and partly exceeding, the reference values for increased risk of high blood pressure and increased prevalence of chronic kidney disease in adults, and for neurodevelopmental effects in children. The additional lead exposure from cervid meat in frequent (monthly or more often) consumers of such meat is therefore of concern. 7. So what are they doing about it? Removal of meat around the wound channel reduces the lead exposure from cervid meat consumption. Lead’s fragmenting and distribution is dependent on several variables. The available studies did not allow a firm conclusion on the amount of meat needing to be trimmed around the wound channel in order to remove lead originating from the ammunition. Other possible measures to reduce lead exposure from cervid meat would be to use lead based ammunition with low fragmentation (bonded bullets), or ammunition without lead. The latest Swedish report has moved things on and concluded that 1. In all, lead levels were analysed for 200 samples of food product and lead levels ranged from below the level of detection (0.004 mg/kg) to hundreds and even thousands of mg/kg. The highest levels were found in the meat from the wound channels, but very high levels were also found in meat intended for consumption from the area around the wound channel. 2. More than 40 percent of the cuts from roe deer, fallow deer and wild boar contained levels above the legal limit for beef, pork, mutton and poultry. There was a significant decrease in lead level with increasing distance from the wound channel. 3. Lead levels were high for game taken with lead shot before cleaning but could be reduced by up to 100 times by removing any meat visibly affected by the shot or fragments. Alternatively, lead free ammunition can be used. 4. Recent investigations in both Sweden and Norway show that consumers who eat game meat more often than once per month suffer from higher lead levels in the blood than consumers who do not eat game meat. 5. In addition, the studies showed that there was a positive relationship between blood lead levels and the number of shots fired, and in the Norwegian study also from reloading of ammunition. 6. Consumption of game meat and shooting independently may result in elevated blood lead levels of hunters’ families. 7. So …. Handling practices for game shot with lead ammunition – hunters · For game shot with bullets, remove the wound channel defined as any meat that is visibly affected by the bullet (or bloodshot) and an additional 10 cm of meat visibly unaffected by the bullet. All of this meat should be discarded. Handling practices for game shot with lead ammunition – consumers · Avoid consumption of meat from the area close to the wound channel, unless the carcass has been cleaned in accordance with the advice above. Handling practices for commercial game processing plants · Game processing plants and their retailers should develop procedures that ensure that game meat released on the market does not contain elevated levels of lead. Additional information to be communicated · Consumers that eat game meat once or twice per year are unlikely to receive a portion with elevated lead levels, regardless of the choice of cut. The associated very limited lead exposure would not entail increased risks of negative health effects. · Game meat that already has been harvested (e.g. in freezers in households) and which can be expected to contain elevated lead levels need not be discarded, but consumption should be limited to once per month. The associated limited (exposure length) lead exposure would not entail increased risks of negative health effects. · Pregnant women, women planning to become pregnant and children 0-7 yrs. should continue to avoid eating such meat. · Using lead-free ammunition eliminates the problem of elevated lead levels in game meat and products made from game meat. It’s certainly not my job to make judgments here today. It is up to the partners to decide what they feel they might/could/should do to safeguard future markets, which after all are pretty important if the partnership is to carry out its mission. As things stand FSA has published advice to consumers but it is very vague indeed – nothing like the advice that is now being given in respect of children and mothers to be in Sweden, Norway, Spain and Germany. All we know about carcass handling practices in UK is that people who shoot more game tend to take more care to remove the more obvious damage and lead fragments. But there is no information available to me what that amounts to. Advice on precisely what needs to be done to ensure safe-meat is not part of the “best practice” syllabus. There is some monitoring but I am not aware of testing or procedures within the supply chain for ensuring that lead levels in venison products going onto the market are not elevated. Nor am I talking today in terms of responsibilities about not putting lead into the environment, or evidence of it getting into wildlife and collateral damage from killing or harming animals. Of course there is a plan B - non-lead ammunition – which is another matter. I’m not aware of any systematic collection of “an industry view” in UK although there is a huge amount of knowledge about the efficacy of copper from other countries these days. I would stress in closing that I am speaking purely as a Trustee of DI Ltd and not in my capacity as Chairman of LAG. Thank you for listening and I hope it provides some food for thought a regards best practice – a stitch in time … John Swift 25 November 2014

Thought you might find this interesting, the terms of reference of the LAG. Outputs At the end of the first year the Group must produce a written report on progress for Defra/FSA. During the year, the Group must inform Defra/FSA of any key findings as they become apparent. Any scientific data or research used to underpin the written report must be of a quality that would withstand peer review. The Chair will provide a single point of contact for the formal disclosure of advice from the Group to Defra/FSA. Individual group members must not disclose advice outside the Group. Status of Advice Advice should not be limited to actions for government and should cover advice to non-government organisations. However, any conclusions or recommendations of the Group will be taken into consideration by Defra/FSA when developing policies, but neither Defra nor FSA will be bound by any advice. Openness The key purpose of the Group is to inform government policy development. Advice from the Group will become publicly available, but Defra/FSA are likely to need time to consider and discuss the advice prior to wider dissemination. Defra /FSA will therefore decide on the timing of publication of any advice and prior to that all group members must respect confidentiality. *Note: Defra has policy responsibility for this issue in England only, but the Devolved Administrations will be kept informed. The FSA has a UK wide remit. The Chair will provide a single point of contact for the formal disclosure of advice from the Group to Defra/FSA. Individual group members must not disclose advice outside the Group. This is the good one, Individual group members must not disclose advice outside the group. The WWT where on the BBC news asking for a total lead ban. John Swift was briefing outside of the LAG. I when to three meeting where John Swift brief of the work of the LAG.

Cookoff013 The shot is made from tungsten, as we now know from my reports, we have to question the use of Tungsten, they have stopped making tungsten bullets and even the Lead Ammunition Group talked about there being a problem with Tungsten based ammunition.

After my last comment on here a PW members has send me this. So there is a threat and its from the WWT and the WWT are using to Compliance report as proof of non-compliance. Who did the compliance report with the WWT, oh yes, that's right, the BASC. This is from the briefing note on the Lead Shot Campaign web site. On the issue of compliance we are extremely vulnerable. Provided we abide by the restrictions there is little immediate threat. But any lapse lays us wide open to claims that the law doesn’t work; that a partial ban is unenforceable and that the only solution is a total ban. Our opponents are deploying this argument to considerable effect. (See the WWT’s lead shot policy statement at www.wwt.org.uk and search lead policy).

As you will see when we had the meeting regard compliance the WWT/BASC report on compliance never come up. Thought you would like this one for the CA. "The Austrian decision follows the collapse of the UK Government’s Lead Ammunition Group (LAG), when Countryside Alliance executive chairman Barney White-Spunner and other members of the shooting industry resigned from the body over abuses of process!" CA So according the the CA the LAG finished! It also says: Barney White-Spunner said: “We are pleased that Austria is asking the right questions and researching areas that the chairman of the LAG chose to ignore. There is no scientific evidence that lead ammunition has a negative effect on the environment in the UK outside wetlands, where there are already restrictions on its use. Austria’s decision backs-up our move to leave the LAG.” Who says that "we will have lead banned if we don't compliance with the law." I have only every heard this from BASC staff. Where has this come from? Please show me what Government Minister has said this or organisation other that BASC?