Lead - the invisible killer

[rodp]

BASC and shooting are mentioned in positive ways in the media, indeed we were in one of the Sunday papers this week. In the not too distant past we have been on BBC TV putting forward the positives of shooting, on the radio (I have given an interview to Radio 4 let alone other members of staff) and so on

 

Others will try to attack us, and that's why its important to have a well resourced BASC to stand up to any such attack

I give up That's it, that's the answer from the biggest shooting concern in the country, " to stand up to any such attack ".

 

I think we're on different wave lengths to be honest.......................... Keep taking the money and everything will be fine ........................... But I doubt you'll be getting mine next year

[mick miller]

It's true, BASC have a member funded media centre, much heralded at the time, they're a commercial company, set up to be the 'voice of shooting' and funded on this mission by the shooting community.

 

However, it appears to many of us that not enough is being done to protect the members or sport from frequent smears and misinformation in the press. The position does indeed appear to be reactive and not proactive.

 

The recent betrayal by a former senior member of BASC has left a bad taste in members mouths, and indeed left them wondering how deep the rot goes?

 

For my own part I gave BASC the benefit of the doubt for one more year, but I have not seen much to convince me that my money is being well spent?

 

BASC need to realise that without the support of the people it purports to represent it is defunct, finished.

 

We want to have faith, but we're not seeing much activity in the wider press to restore it! Rather than running features in the magazine that reflect the more frivolous side of shooting (game crisps as already mentioned), how about a quarterly round up of where BASC had been actively promoting shooting in the wider press, where it has defended the use of lead, where it has actively sought a repeal or change of some of the more ill-conceived legislation that affects those that shoot?

 

It has often been said on here that we can do this for ourselves, but this is not why we subscribe to a shooting organisation that proclaims to be 'the voice of shooting'. We WANT BASC to do it for us, with the resources and connections BASC has and that wonderful media centre.

 

Although, one can't help but wonder whether we should just give up on supporting BASC and go it alone? After all, if less than a handful of committed nutters, one with a charge sheet as long as your arm, can manage to convince two ferry companies to stop the transport of live pheasant chicks from the continent, then perhaps all shooting needs is a similarly committed approach to make the metamorphosis from being a sport regarded as for the rich elite, harmful to the environment and nature, cruel and unnecessary to one that is regarded as adding value to society, that protects the environment, that isn't a threat to anyone, that is carried out by some of societies most law abiding, that is as humane and sustainable as possible, that genuinely helps protect crops and agriculture and Britain's food supply...the list can go on.

 

I have never, ever been on a driven day for partridge or pheasant, nor have I enjoyed the glorious twelth. Rather, I enjoy I suppose what's regarded as the 'common' side of shooting; foxing, pigeon, deer, rabbits, crows. However, I don't feel that there is much in the way of representation for this in the magazine or wider press, surely an easier sell in terms of benefit than promoting the biodiversity of a grouse Moor, which likely represents less than 5% of BASC's membership?

 

The attack on lead is concerning for all that shoot, as was expected, the badly thought out compromise that was the ban on lead for wetland areas has proved to be the thin edge of the wedge being used by those that seek a wider ban on the use of lead everywhere. For a someone that spends most of their time shooting vermin with small bore rifles this is concerning, we don't have many cost efficient, practical alternatives to use.

 

Quite a lengthy post, my apologies.

Edited December 1, 2015 by mick miller

[Scully]

No need to apologise; I feel the frustration of both you and Rodp. Good post.

[David BASC]

Stevo, thank you for your kind words - I appreciate that the comments are not personal attacks on me

 

And to all others thank you too for your feedback, I will do all I can to help get out the messages to you all and indeed others about what BASC is delivering ect.

 

We do publish a monthly update on some of the things we do - here is October's for example: http://basc.org.uk/blog/key-issues/basc-bites-a-monthly-snap-shot-of-our-work/

 

David

[David BASC]

And to answer the point on grouse shooting, you may not know but there is an effort to ban grouse shooting - you or I may never have been, and may never go grouse shooting but what if it was banned - what next?

 

BASC working with others such as the Moorland Association have sufficient evidence to defend this aspect of shooting, and indeed facts and figures based on such evidence were presented by the UK Government in their official response to this attack.. and biodiversity as well as income were the key points in the defence...

[scotslad]

I like many others feel BSC and other shooting otgs should go on the attack far more their is so much research on our side.

But the problem is most of it is really quite boring and a non story in the terms of the press, far better to have misleading headlines about public health and thousands of birds dieing, or releasing some random predator that the country really doesnae need.

 

 

Has/Does BASCever join up with CA,NGO and GWCT and target universities esp ones for Journolism,Ecolgy or Environmental Science type degrees?

 

They are either the future reporters to peddle this nonsense, or the people who wil end up in gorernment positions making and advising on laws.

Possibly if u could get to them before there minds are posioned?

While i was studying Conservation at uni the massive ammount of good work done by shoots or the GWCT was never ever mentioned. Which is crazy on a 4 year course, most of my fellow students will never of heard of them.

Out of my final year group of 8 only 1 was a country person (farmers daughter), rest all townies and generlly mildly aggainst shooting , plus 3 who were massive aggainst it all 3 were hunt sabs and protested against nuclear etc. Ye they could now have jobs with EN,SNH etc or advising those bodies

Of the whole year of 80 odd environmental students only met 1 other who fished and i was only 1 who shot

 

 

 

So much for standing together, i've been lucky enough to be out on the 12th quite a few times (unfortunetly nt shooting but still brilliant to beat or pick up on the moor), and out that week most years (apart from this year), while grouse shooting may be exclusive to actually shoot.

But it is about far more than that, the whole communiy is often involved in the local moors (something i've never seen with pheasant shooting) the ammount of money it brings into area with little other jobs, most school kids will be out 4-6 days a week in some dales from the 12th till the holidays end and sometimes odd days after that that they really shouldnae. Quite a lot of cash for a school kid.

A lot of those bigger moors will be turning over £1mill+ each year, lot of money for those areas

 

Grouse is really the only type of game shooting u can actually truly defend as it is a 100% sustainable wild birds and none released.

If grouse shoting was banned, once common birds like lapwing, curlew, plover, reshank oystercatcher would not long in becoming very rare in this country, never mind ur black cock or ring ouzel , all those birds now depend almost eclusively on managed moors to survive.

Once management stops these birds will disapear, seen it on a local moor

[mick miller]

Stevo, thank you for your kind words - I appreciate that the comments are not personal attacks on me

 

And to all others thank you too for your feedback, I will do all I can to help get out the messages to you all and indeed others about what BASC is delivering ect.

 

We do publish a monthly update on some of the things we do - here is October's for example: http://basc.org.uk/blog/key-issues/basc-bites-a-monthly-snap-shot-of-our-work/

 

David

Thank you for that, link. Can I request that the information contained therein is made clearer in the quarterly magazine, as it doesn't seem to shout very loudly from the pages? Doing so would very much help bolster faith in BASC's role in representing the wider shooting community.

 

I was aware of the attack on grouse shooting, it was hard to miss given the disproportionate amount of coverage the issue got. This is however, simply one of many issues facing shooting, many championed by the misinformed or those with a political axe to grind and whilst I accept that any defeat is not a good one, really how many of those that shoot in the UK would this ban have affected? Good work on defending it for the interim anyway, I fear given the political climate in Scotland it won't be long before it is brought to the table once again.

 

The issues around lead, the use of lead, the restrictions on its use and how that will affect the wider shooting community is of far greater importance, it affects everyone single one of us, even those that merely shoot a few crows or a rabbit for the pot. The continuing problems with licensing, the wide variance in the interpretation by local constabularies of the HO guidelines when it comes to issuing certificates, the looming restrictions on law-abiding firearms certificate holders in response to the raised terror threat; these are all massive issues on which I trust BASC will be proactively arguing and lobbying for the wider shooting community?

 

And these are never personal attacks on you, rather I value your continued contribution to the forum and the efforts to make the work of BASC clearer (I didn't see much listed there in terms of the LAG though?).

 

 

Edited December 1, 2015 by mick miller

[David BASC]

Mick, Thank you for the feedback - I will do my very best re better promotion of what we are doing, Ref the other issues, yes we are proactively lobbying on those issues and others

 

Scotslad, I cant speak for the other orgs, but yes BASC does go to colleges all around the UK

 

David

[McSpredder]

David, could you please let us know whether BASC has raised with government the following three specific points relating to the Oxford Lead Symposium? And whether the government has responded?

 

1. Risks to human health, assessed by Green and Pain, were all calculated on the assumption that a toddler's game meat portions would be three times the size quoted in NHS and FSA publications, and an adult's portions would be double the size quoted by FSA.

 

2. Although the Symposium report states that "Green and Pain (2012) also assessed studies of effects of lead on Standard Assessment Test (SAT) scores of UK schoolchildren" , the cited reference only describes a mathematical modelling exercise, and contains no indication that Green and Pain ever assessed any actual SAT test results in relation to actual UK game meat consumption.

 

3. The Symposium report suggests the amount of game meat eaten by high-level consumers may be in the region of 100 times the UK average, but did not offer any evidence to indicate whether those high-level consumers had actually suffered more health problems than the population as a whole.

 

In case anybody is interested, there are some details below. Please correct me if you find that I have misinterpreted the report -- I do not claim any expertise in ornithology, human health or nutrition, and am simply noting what the Symposium participants have themselves written. Apologies for such a lengthy post, but this topic seems quite important to me.

 

 

MEAT PORTION SIZES

Predicted risks to human health, presented at the Symposium by Green and Pain, have been based on the assumption that:

 

(a) a 30-month old toddler would eat half as much as an adult, 85% as much as a 7 year old, and about three times the quantity suggested by NHS;

 

(b) the portion for a toddler would be the same size as the FSA suggests for an adult.

 

Either the NHS and FSA are totally wrong, or else the Symposium participants have grossly over-stated the risks from eating gamebird meat.

 

FSA indicated an average serving of gamebird meat to be 100g for adults and 30g for toddlers. NHS publications suggest meat portions of 50-80g for a child of 4-10years, and 25-35g for a toddler aged between 9 months and 3 years, so they seem to be in line with the FSA figures. By contrast, Green & Pain (Oxford Lead Symposium) have assumed portions to be 200g for an adult, 118g for a child of 6.9 years, and 100g for a toddler of 30 months.

 

http://www.nhs.uk/change4life/Documents/PDF/Schools%20cooking%20resources/SchoolFoodStandardsGuidance.PDF

 

https://www.cornwallhealthyweight.org.uk/Portion_sizes_9m-6y_v1.5.pdf

 

http://www.leadammunitiongroup.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Risk_assessment_for_lead_in_wild_game.pdf

 

References cited in the report reveal that portion sizes used for risk assessment were not based on information from nutritionists. Instead, Green and Pain relied on a mathematical model of their own, which assumes meat portions would be directly proportional to Total Energy Expenditure. (Presumably they consider meat to be primarily an energy source rather than a protein source). I found nothing to indicate whether the Symposium authors have qualifications or expertise relating to nutrition of children, nor whether nutritionists were consulted during development of the mathematical models.

 

 

SAT TEST RESULTS

The paper by Green and Pain (2012), cited in the Symposium report, contains no indication that Green and Pain ever assessed any actual SAT test results in relation to actual UK game meat consumption, and only describes a multi-stage mathematical modelling exercise in which the authors appear to have:

(1) obtained data on diet composition for the UK population as a whole;

(2) modified this using a model based on German data, in order to estimate childrens daily lead intake from non-meat sources;

(3) measured average lead concentration in 121 carcases from six gamebird species, and used these to estimate the lead content of an adult portion;

(4) developed their own model to estimate portion sizes for children of 2.5 years and 6.9 years old;

(5) used mathematical models and data from Greenland in order to predict blood lead concentrations that might result from the estimated dietary lead intake;

(6) estimated how IQ of children MIGHT be affected by eating gamebird meat, assuming that the relationship between blood lead concentration at 30 months and SAT test results at age 7-8 years was the same as had been reported in an earlier study near Bristol (and assuming that the children would eat portions three times greater than the NHS recommendations).

 

https://www.jagdverband.de/sites/default/files/2012_food_and_chem_tox_green_lead_uk_game_0.pdf

 

 

MEDICAL HISTORY OF HIGH-LEVEL GAME MEAT CONSUMERS

According to the Symposium report "the amount of game meat eaten by high-level consumers is much higher, perhaps by two orders of magnitude, than the UK average." So, there is a group of people, most of them easily identifiable, who are thought to have been eating in the region of 100 times as much game meat as the rest of the population, and many of them probably doing so for at least half a century. The obvious questions are:

(1) Has that group been obviously less healthy other people?

(2) If so, why did nobody report this to the LAG?

(3) Have scientists ever attempted to establish the facts about health of shooters and their families, or their deceased relatives? (eg by a simple questionnaire survey among shooters, or an analysis of lifespan from BMD records, or by looking at the causes of death as recorded on death certificates)

[Scully]

Wow. Fabulous post. I think everyone owes a big thank you to all the time and effort you've obviously put into that.

This needs submitting to DEFRA, all our shooting organisations and all those organisations involved in the LAG, including D. Paine...Payne or Pain.

From feedback I've received, I think the CA would be very interested in this.

[panoma1]

It seems McSpredder has more right to call himself/herself a scientist than Messrs Green, Pain et al!..........Is it beyond the capability of our representative organisations to have done a similar analysis in defence of lead shot?

We all suspect this issue has little to do with lead ammunition and is designed to do damage to live quarry shooting, this anti lead ammunition campaign should be exposed for what it is, spiteful and dishonest, as should those progressing this campaign which appears is based on lies, deceit and misinformation.

[McSpredder]

Chairs and Convenors of the Oxford Lead Symposium included three Fellows of the Royal Society.

 

"The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' is taken to mean 'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment." (https://royalsociety.org/)

Does that tally with evidence about human health risks as presented at the Symposium?

 

I don't know whether this guiding principle extends to chairmanship duties, and simply note that the following were involved in the Symposium:

 

1. Professor Chris Perrins LVO, FRS

 

2. Professor Ian Newton OBE, FRS, FRSE

Quote from Closing Remarks to the Symposium: "Links between the use of lead ammunition and lead in the human body, and between lead in the body and human health and well-being are now firmly established by several independent studies (e.g. see Green and Pain 2015, Knutson et al. 2015)."

 

3. Lord John Krebs Kt, MA, DPhil, FRS, FMedSci, Hon DSc

Quote from Forward to the Symposium report: "It is estimated that at least thousands and possibly tens of thousands of young children are currently consuming sufficient game to potentially risk health effects in the UK (Green and Pain 2015)."

 

Lord Krebs' entry in the website of Jesus College, Oxford, notes that: "...between 2000 and 2005 I was Chairman of the UK Food Standards Agency." (http://www.jesus.ox.ac.uk/fellows-and-staff/fellows/lord-krebs)

[Scully]

Chairs and Convenors of the Oxford Lead Symposium included three Fellows of the Royal Society.

 

"The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' is taken to mean 'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment." (https://royalsociety.org/)

Does that tally with evidence about human health risks as presented at the Symposium?

 

I don't know whether this guiding principle extends to chairmanship duties, and simply note that the following were involved in the Symposium:

 

1. Professor Chris Perrins LVO, FRS

 

2. Professor Ian Newton OBE, FRS, FRSE

Quote from Closing Remarks to the Symposium: "Links between the use of lead ammunition and lead in the human body, and between lead in the body and human health and well-being are now firmly established by several independent studies (e.g. see Green and Pain 2015, Knutson et al. 2015)."

 

3. Lord John Krebs Kt, MA, DPhil, FRS, FMedSci, Hon DSc

Quote from Forward to the Symposium report: "It is estimated that at least thousands and possibly tens of thousands of young children are currently consuming sufficient game to potentially risk health effects in the UK (Green and Pain 2015)."

 

Lord Krebs' entry in the website of Jesus College, Oxford, notes that: "...between 2000 and 2005 I was Chairman of the UK Food Standards Agency." (http://www.jesus.ox.ac.uk/fellows-and-staff/fellows/lord-krebs)

I have just received an email concerning the activities of Krebs and his inclusion in the LAG etc. It doesn't read well but am not sure how to upload it to the forum from a PDF.

This is something our shooting organisations should be looking into but I still remain sceptical (with exceptions) as to their commitment.

[Danoi99]

I give up That's it, that's the answer from the biggest shooting concern in the country, " to stand up to any such attack ".

 

I think we're on different wave lengths to be honest.......................... Keep taking the money and everything will be fine ........................... But I doubt you'll be getting mine next year

 

Yep, **** BASC !! Not worth the money each year. Sad but true. You're not getting another penny out of me !!!!!!

[Danoi99]

McSpredder for president !!!

[McSpredder]

If anyone has time to spare, it might be worth looking at page 37 (left hand column) of the Symposium report, where Green and Pain refer to a European Food Safety Authority document. If I am interpreting their wording correctly, European experts have assessed the risk levels as follows:

 

Reduction of IQ for some children with average to high base diets - The possibility of an effect cannot be excluded.

(Additional lead from frequent consumption of game would increase the risk, but this has not been evaluated)

 

Cardiovascular effects for adult average consumers - The risk is very low.

 

Increased systolic blood pressure if dietary lead was close to the upper end of the range in adult consumers - The possibility of an effect cannot be excluded.

 

Chronic kidney disease - The possibility of an effect cannot be excluded.

 

Clinically important effects on either the cardiovascular system or kidneys of adult consumers - There is low to negligible risk.

 

Effects on neurodevelopment in infants, children and pregnant women - The possibility of an effect cannot be excluded.

 

I am not quite sure what to make of all that. When I cross the road, the possibility of being run over cannot be excluded, so I look both ways before stepping off the pavement. When an aeroplane flies over, the possibility of something falling on my head cannot be excluded, but I don't let it worry me very much. When a pigeon flies over, the possibility of something falling on my head cannot be excluded, and in fact it happens regularly.

[David BASC]

I dont understand why me posting that BASC as the largest shooting organisation in the UK is best placed and best resourced to fight off attacks on our sport, as we have done for many decades and will continue to do has resulted in such negative posts against BASC, even resorting to swearing - but that's your choice. How reducing BASC's resources is going to help the shooting world is beyond me, but I will move on.

 

I doubt the government have taken much notice of the Oxford report, they will wait for DEFRA who are tasked with reporting on the lead issue, that's why the continued work BASC and others are doing with DEFRA is important.

 

The EFSA report was pretty clear, treat lead shot game correctly in preparation and the risk from lead is minimal, and as we have again restated recently, although research has provided evidence that although individual waterfowl can be affected by lead shot deposition there is no impact on their overall population. This is a clear and robust position from with BASC will continue to defend your right to keep using lead shot.

 

David

[Scully]

 

 

I doubt the government have taken much notice of the Oxford report, they will wait for DEFRA who are tasked with reporting on the lead issue, that's why the continued work BASC and others are doing with DEFRA is important.

 

 

Do you mean 'wait' as in the way the government 'waited' for the Cullen report? That's ok then. Oh... hang on a minute.......

[McSpredder]

I agree with David's view that the present government might prefer to wait for DEFRA's opinion. A future government could take a different attitude, so I hope shooting organisations are not allowing anyone to overlook the elements of good science, for example:

 

1. When actual figures are already available, use them (eg SAT test results, lifespan and cause of death for deceased shooters and their families).

2. If actual figures could easily be obtained, go out and collect them. (eg Health status of living shooters and their families)

3. Mantra is not science. Guesswork does not become fact just because it has been repeated many times, or by many people, or by highly-qualified people.

4. As in that motto of the Royal Society, "verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment"

 

Although I pay my subscriptions to BASC, CA and CPSA, and will continue to do so, BASC is the one that I have noticed prominently and regularly responding to concerns raised by PW forum members.

 

If we can provide David facts and figures (I almost said ammunition) for use in discussions with DEFRA, that might just possibly be of some help. Folk telling him they are dissatisfied about what BASC has done or not done in the past will almost certainly not help.

[Scully]

Folk telling him they are dissatisfied about what BASC has done or not done in the past will almost certainly not help.

That's a fair point, but many people have been, or do now, feel let down by their organisations past or present inactivity. If they don't voice that dissatisfaction then said organisation will believe all in the garden is rosy, and it isn't.

Your informative posts are enlightening and thought provoking, and if they were being posted on here (or anywhere for that matter) by a representative of any of our organisations, would be uplifting and confidence inspiring. But they aren't.

[David BASC]

Scully, there is a formal process in play to look at the lead shot issues as I am sure you know, and no one is simply sitting back to see what happens next, and I cant understand why you chose to say that unless of course you have missed all the information from BASC et al since the LAG report when to DEFRA.

 

I can assure you all that BASC regularly briefs MP, Peers and others on a range of shooting related issues including lead shot, that's because we have political team who spend much of their time in the various parliaments and assemblies doing what our members pay us for - standing up for and promoting your rights

 

David

[Scully]

As I'm not a member David I don't often visit the BASC website, but if BASC or any other organisation have printed information along the lines of those questioning posts by McSpredder, then I'm sorry I missed it. But if they have, then why is he repeating it?

The effectiveness of BASC and its representatives, and all our other organisations, speaks for itself David, and is there for all to see.

[McSpredder]

...if BASC or any other organisation have printed information along the lines of those questioning posts by McSpredder, then I'm sorry I missed it. But if they have, then why is he repeating it?

Maybe some of the points have been mentioned by BASC, and I just never spotted them. It must be impossible to construct a website where every item can be found easily and quickly by everybody (just try looking for some specific piece of Government information) and I often come across things on the web simply by chance.

 

For example, I noticed that RSPB's former prosecutor and senior criminal investigator makes claims far wilder than anything ever suggested by the LAG, and says that "...120 million cartridges translates into an estimated 38,400 metric tonnes (37,795 imperial tons) of lead annually discharged into the British countryside." Those figures imply a load of 320g (yes, three hundred and twenty grammes) in each cartridge.

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/images/pdf/kfps.pdf

 

His report of pheasant shooting in Britain asserts that "about 75,000 metric tonnes of lead shot are discharged annually into the countryside" and that "the amount of lead deposited from gamebird shooting significantly exceeded the American combined upland and wetland totals." World use of lead ammunition is about 150,000 tonnes/year, so the ex-RSPB man wants readers to believe that British game shooters use as much lead as all the military forces, terrorists, pest controllers, target shooters and sporting shooters in every country throughout the whole world.

 

Dont just laugh at this, because he is now an "Experienced professional criminal investigator and bird expert". He is also a Fellow, Honorary Life Member and former Principal of the Institute of Professional Investigators, which probably means that he has been highly successful in persuading law courts to accept his opinions and reject those of any other witnesses. This gentleman might be in court today, giving "expert" evidence against a shooter.

http://www.birdexpertuk.com/index.php

[panoma1]

I have to say this is precisely why our representatives need to go on the offensive, and shout loud and long about the false information our enemies continue to spew out! If this false propaganda and the people who introduce and keep on repeating it (whoever they may be) are not challenged and discredited in all forums, more and more members of the public will believe their misinformation and join the ranks of those who wish to damage shooting.

 

If our representative organisations hold back for fear of upsetting someone and "fiddle whilst Rome burns" by allowing this to disgraceful unjust attack to gain momentum, and because of this lead ammunition is further restricted......they should hang their heads in shame!

Edited December 7, 2015 by panoma1

[Guest stevo]

I have to say this is precisely why our representatives need to go on the offensive, and shout loud and long about the false information our enemies continue to spew out! If this false propaganda and the people who introduce and keep on repeating it (whoever they may be) are not challenged and discredited in all forums, more and more members of the public will believe their misinformation and join the ranks of those who wish to damage shooting.

 

If our representative organisations hold back for fear of upsetting someone and "fiddle whilst Rome burns" by allowing this to disgraceful unjust attack to gain momentum, and because of this lead ammunition is further restricted......they should hang their heads in shame!

 

⬆ This