The government response to the Lead Ammunition Group’s report, back in July last year, was that the Food Standard Agency’s advice is adequate.
The FSA advice on human health aspects of eating game shot with lead is pretty good (although it could be better if you read the minutes of Lead Ammunition Group meetings) and contains the words ‘…people who frequently eat lead-shot game, particularly small game, should cut down their consumption. This is especially important for vulnerable groups such as toddlers and children, pregnant women and women trying for a baby, as exposure to lead can harm the developing brain and nervous system.’ and ‘There is no agreed safe level for lead intake. Independent scientific expert groups across the European Union advise that exposure to lead should be reduced as far as possible.‘.
So that’s the advice, but I reckon nobody knows it’s there and very few people read it. Meanwhile the shooting industry is promoting game as a healthy meat for all it’s worth (and to them it’s worth a lot of money).
Am I right that rather few people access the FSA advice? I thought I’d find out and asked (simply asked, not through EIR or FoI) the FSA how many times that page had been accessed since Liz Truss’s hopeless letter to the Lead Ammunition Group on 12 July 2016. And for comparison I asked about three other similar pages at the same level on the FSA website; irradiated food, arsenic in rice and acrylamides.
Here is the response:
Response
As requested below see below the answers to the information you request:
12th July 2016 – 11th October 2017: page viewed 13,785 times
https://www.food.gov.uk/science/irradfoodqa
12th July 2016 – 11th October 2017: page viewed 4,262 times
https://www.food.gov.uk/science/advice-to-frequent-eaters-of-game-shot-with-lead
12th July 2016 – 11th October 2017: page viewed 40,938 times
https://www.food.gov.uk/science/arsenic-in-rice
12th July 2016 – 11th October 2017: page viewed 32,029 times
https://www.food.gov.uk/science/acrylamide-0
So, we can see that the ‘don’t eat too much lead’ message is not getting out very strongly. There are a few posts that have appeared on this blog that have been accessed as many times as that over the same period for heavens sake!
Remember, just for starters, that the Lead Ammunition Report contains the following passage;
Saying that the information is out there is nonsense if it isn’t getting to vulnerable groups. The shooting industry is promoting lead-shot game like mad and government, Defra, despite knowing the dangers is doing nothing to reduce the public impacts. Another Defra failure.
I presume you’re aware of recent Italian study? Which indicates eating lead shot game does not increase lead level in body…
Though the study did show that hunters have twice the blood lead levels than the rest of the population. And other studies have linked lead levels with increased crime rates. Food for thought.
“Twice the blood lead levels”, on its own, is meaningless. It’s a question of whether that level presents a risk to health, that matters. E.g. if one person has a sip of sherry, and another person has a whole glass, the latter’s blood alcohol will be many times higher, but they would still be perfectly safe. However, if the first drinks a bottle of vodka a day, and the other drinks two, they’re both in serious trouble.
Mike, I get what you’re saying but lead is a toxin with no safe limits. Name any level you like and I’d rather be in the group with that level rather than the group with a level that is twice as high.
Ian – and we don’t have to use lead – non-toxic alternatives are widely and cheaply available.
A self-reporting, small sample size project funded by an Italian national hunting association
That would be this one? http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/05/finally-some-good-news-eating-pasta-makes-you-slimmer-claims-new-italian-study-5986036
Oh no, sorry, that’s the Italian study that says eating pasta doesn’t make you fat. But then you didn’t give a reference.
I’m sure you’ll be able to find it! I read an article on it last month.
Brilliant!
Took 10 minutes to find:
‘A multiple linear regression analysis (containing the covariates sex, age, hunting, wine drinking, game meat consumption, tobacco smoking, shooting range, and occupational exposure) found an association with hunting (Pb-blood almost double in hunters) and wine drinking (40% higher in drinkers) but not with consumption of game meat or other parameters. Whether the higher Pb-blood level was due to inhalation of lead fumes while shooting with lead ammunition, to handling lead ammunition or both could not be ascertained.’
https://moh-it.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/blood-lead-levels-following-consumption-of-game-meat-in-italy
With a sample of 95 I now see. Couldn’t hope to get any worthwhile results with that, the research a complete wate of time. Didn’t even include pasta-eating habits.
Well, I did look for it but could not find it. Google no help, so I guess it is pretty obscure. Probably depends what you read. But it seems that Jeff P has answered my implied question, so my attempted humour, even if poor, was pertinent, as I suspected it might be. I’m trying to cut down on pasta.
Just by the way, Italy has the highest level of illegal shooting of migrant birds in Europe, at 5.6 million annually. I’m not completely sure why we don’t focus more sharply on that. It’s certainly a lot of lead scattered about the Italian countryside. Odd when you think how many famous Romans and (later) Italians died of lead poisoning.
Actively promoting something at the same time as knowing that it’s damaging to long-term health, and also knowing that most of the population will be unaware of the relevant information. It makes you wonder about the potential for future lawsuits.
Abel and Cole, purveyor of ‘Game Boxes’ (three items of game a week as the default, ‘may contain shot’) say their supplier has trialled alternatives to copper-cased lead and says they do not meet welfare standards ensuring the animal doesn’t suffer. Thoughts?
Yes, a couple of quick thoughts. It doesn’t sound like the most watertight of excuses for continuing to poison people. And if they are saying that by continuing to rely on lead-shot game they ARE able to ensure that the animals don’t suffer then I’d like to see their evidence.
The web stats are interesting to a point, but perhaps more interesting, and more useful, would be an analysis of why the figures are as they are. Who is searching, where are they searching from, what search terms bring them to the pages? I wonder if the FSA has done this analysis?
Mike – well we know that the campaigns by shooters to get people to eat game meat aren’t pushing those people towards this advice. And I have seen no sign of DEFRA doing so either.
Now that the fallacious junk-science claims that cholesterol and animal fats are bad for us have been debunked and several decades of bad dietary policy advice have been quietly abandoned the notion that low-cholesterol and low-fat meat are in some way “healthier” is no longer persuasive. I would very much like to sue the Gubmint for the loss of the pleasure of eating eggs foregone but I think they could claim crown immunity and I will be better-off spending the money on eggs instead
Mark, rather than thinking solely about which organisations link to the FSA, I was more wondering what the underlying reasons for the different figures might be? I don’t think there are many bodies that would send large numbers of the public to advice on irradiated food, so why is that page so heavily hit? And I understand that around half of hits on most pages are not by humans at all.