There are many reasons for signing the petition to ban driven grouse shooting – click here – and this study provides two more reasons at different levels.
The study looks at Red Grouse carcasses bought on the open market which were intended for human consumption and found that all 78 carcasses contained lead shot and that, as a result, the lead levels in the flesh of the birds (destined to be consumed as meat) were high. The lead levels were much higher (much, much, much higher) than would be legal in meats such as beef, pork, chicken etc. This use of lead shot is despite the shooting industry committing to a voluntary phasing out of the use of lead ammunition by the shooting season in which these Red Grouse were shot. All 78 Red Grouse contained lead shot – that is zero progress on their own voluntary scheme. And these results are despite a huge pile of scientific evidence that eating high levels of lead is bad for your health and particularly bad for infants.
The results will come as no surprise to readers of this blog which has documented studies of lead ammunition use since 2011 and the non-compliance of the shooting industry with the law, yet alone with voluntary initiatives. Indeed, this blog, back in 2016 – click here – carried out a similar study, buying Red Grouse sold in Iceland supermarkets, getting them analysed and showing high lead levels.
But the second reason for signing this petition is that the grouse shooting industry seems to me to have a large number of confirmed liars in its ranks, and this scientific finding simply adds use of lead shot to the failure to deliver a voluntary ban on upland burning and to deliver a meaningful reduction in the illegal killing of birds of prey. You cannot take the word of the grouse shooters as being their bond.
If you look at my book review – click here – of a book which purports to tell the world about grouse shooting then you can see what I think of the truthfulness of the book but you can read the book and judge for yourself. Another blatant example of evading the truth is the much used non-fact that the UK has 75% of the world’s heather moorland – this isn’t remotely true and yet it also found its way into Defra’s response to our petition – it’s almost as though a Labour Defra is as pro-shooting as a Conservative Defra. Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner and even Harold Wilson must be spinning in their graves.
I have respect for some individuals who shoot grouse but not for the industry as a whole and I regard that as a reason why we should rise up and sign this petition to ban this unsustainable hobby – click here.
[registration_form]
Hmmm! What does it say there on that packaging? “Always adventurous with food”!
There are many ways of seeking adventure but self-administering toxic heavy metals for which there is no recognised safe dose is perhaps not what most thrill seekers have in mind!
Hi Mark,
Some years ago I watched a TV program which reported on Japanese people who ate whales and dolphins and who were tested for mercury deposits in their body via hair samples. The results, as I recall, showed seriously high concentrations of mercury in the investigated individuals who subsequently gave up eating dolphin and whale meat. To your knowledge has anyone similarly investigated lead levels in humans who eat grouse or other game birds?
Bill – not that I recall. Gamekeepers’ children are those for whom I would fear the most.
During my clinical career I saw a good many x-rays which showed lead shot in the bowel and when I jokingly advised the individuals they were “full of shot” they often looked rather startled but relieved too when I explained they would pass the shot naturally. In those days it was a frequent finding especially during the game shooting season but in more recent years the phenomenon became much less frequent. This suggests,perhaps, much less eating of ‘game’ despite the release of so many millions. Of course too, perhaps fewer x-rays are performed these days and so the shot is less likely to be seen. Or perhaps game meat is cleansed of shot more meticulously than in the past.