Report Maladministration ruling on EU lead restriction consultation in General Shooting Matters Posted 7 hours ago 3 minutes ago, McSpredder said: UK modellers Rhys Green and Debbie Pain reported that they “used observations from two studies of Greenland adults (Bjerregaard et al. 2004; Johansen et al. 2006) to derive an empirical relationship between the mean daily intake of dietary lead from the meat of shot birds and mean B-Pb”, omitting to mention that the Greenland scientists found lead concentration in one species (eider) to be 8.3 times as high as in the other species (thick-billed murre). Anybody who has actually looked at the various papers from the Greenland studies can hardly fail to have noticed that the numbers of samples were small and the variability within each species was also very large, leading to: an eight-fold range in the 95% confidence limits for the 25 carcases of eider; a twelve-fold range in the 95% confidence limits for the 32 carcases of thick-billed murre. I assume that HSE staff who prepared the Annex 15 Restriction Report might have been unaware of small sample sizes and great variability of data on which the mathematical model was founded, otherwise they might not be presenting it to government as a basis for legislation. Ornithologists issuing predictions about child health have excluded any mention of data published by the UK Health Security Agency’s Lead Exposure in Children Surveillance System (LEICSS) or Public Health England’s Surveillance of Elevated Blood Lead in Children (SLiC). Why? Could it be because real data does not agree with the model? The ornithologists predict that 48,000 children may be at risk solely as a result of eating game meat. By contrast, health professionals have recorded on average fewer than 40 cases per year in which UK children suffered elevated blood lead concentration from any source. The most common cause was ingestion by very young children of non-dietary objects, and no cases at all were identified as resulting from food intake. Publications cited by HSE indicate that high-level consumers of game meat tend to be people with higher income and higher position in society, whereas health professionals report that cases of elevated blood lead concentration in children were mostly found in areas of considerable deprivation. The HSE consultation refers to official records in relation to animals under the Veterinary Medicines Directorate National Surveillance Scheme, but excludes any mention of the equivalent records relating to children (LEICSS and SLiC). I can only assume that modellers and HSE staff: considered official surveillance information to be irrelevant, OR examined the data recorded by health professionals and decided that it was incorrect, OR were ignorant of the existence of surveillance schemes relating to child health. Presumably the papers published in scientific journals would have been subject to peer-review. The reviewers might have been insufficiently familiar with the subject matter, and failed to notice the omission of surveillance data; alternatively, they may have regarded it as perfectly acceptable. Predictions about effects of lead ammunition on human health have often been written by the same people who assert enormous damage to wildlife and the environment. If they have withheld or distorted information relating to human health, anything they have written on other topics might be equally unreliable. Most interesting - thanks.