Meateater Podcast episode #155: Guns - Lead study in ND

[COEngineer]

Rinella was talking to guys from NSSF and one of them said the people in the ND study who ate wild game had lower levels of lead than people who did not eat wild game. I was amazed so I went looking for the study and the results do not match what he said.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26805912_Hunting_with_lead_Association_between_blood_lead_levels_and_wild_game_consumption

"1.27 and 0.84 microg/dl among persons who did and did not consume wild game, respectively. After adjusting for potential confounders, persons who consumed wild game had 0.30 microg/dl (95% confidence interval: 0.16-0.44 microg/dl) higher PbB than persons who did not.

Did the guy mis-speak or is he just full of it?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

---

 

[riv3rbanks]

Gotta see thru the bullshit.

 

[ltdann]

That is correct, but not the complete story. The study goes on to say:

"While this study suggests that consumption of wild game meat can adversely affect PbB, no participant had PbB higher than the CDC recommended threshold of 10μg/dl—the level atwhich CDC recommends case management; and the geometric mean PbB among this study population (1.17μg/dl) was lower than the overall population geometric mean PbB in the UnitedStates (1.60 μg/dl) (CDC 2005)."

That means the study group, in general, regardless of lead shot game consumption, had a lower lead level than the average US population.

North Dakota Lead Exposure Study, 14 OCT 2008, Epidemic Intelligence Service


Why? It's North Dakota, not Manhattan. People living in urban areas tend to have higher lead levels than rural areas.

 

[COEngineer]

That means the study group, in general, regardless of lead shot game consumption, had a lower lead level than the average US population.

Thanks for providing that. Can you link the report you got that quote from? I can only find it on some peregrine falcon website. I can't find it on the CDC's website or anywhere else.

 

[mottlet]

That is correct, but not the complete story. The study goes on to say:

"While this study suggests that consumption of wild game meat can adversely affect PbB, no participant had PbB higher than the CDC recommended threshold of 10μg/dl—the level atwhich CDC recommends case management; and the geometric mean PbB among this study population (1.17μg/dl) was lower than the overall population geometric mean PbB in the UnitedStates (1.60 μg/dl) (CDC 2005)."

That means the study group, in general, regardless of lead shot game consumption, had a lower lead level than the average US population.

North Dakota Lead Exposure Study, 14 OCT 2008, Epidemic Intelligence Service


Why? It's North Dakota, not Manhattan. People living in urban areas tend to have higher lead levels than rural areas.

But is that what the NSSF guys said? I'd have to re-listen to the podcast, but it seems like they got their facts messed up or flat lied.

Either way, folks in urban areas oughta be able to eat game too. I live in a suburb of DC and my pipes likely ain't near as old with lead problems of those in say, Manhattan, or you know, Flint. Bet your ass I'm shooting copper. NSSF is in a tight spot and I can appreciate that. Lead is toxic if consumed, and maybe even if it ain't. In the end though, lying about the effects isn't going to help the industry they're representing; just ask the tobacco companies and their lawyers.

 

[COEngineer]

OK, so maybe the NSSF guy just mis-spoke or wasn't clear that he was comparing venison eaters in this study to the general population, rather than what I heard (venison eaters to non-venison eaters in this study). And I agree with the conclusion that 0.30 microg/dl is not a huge concern and certainly not enough to make me worry about using non-lead bullets.

 

[Ben Long]

The guy also suggested that condors get lead from eating paint chips off water towers. Uh... yeah. Try to find a scientist who agrees with that one. I thought the guy made a lot of sense on some issues, not so much on others. Interesting show nonetheless.

 

[Irrelevant]

I sent MeatEater an email about this. They have to hold guests to a higher level of truthfulness, the podcast has more responsibility to the listeners than it does to the guests. Results do indicate that consumers of wild game have elevated lead levels, contrary to what the guests stated. There are also plenty of studies and condors were not getting elevated lead from paint chips, which was also stated by the guests.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

https://youtu.be/vsRR7Y6MawQ

 

[Sytes]

Since the price isn't a significant factor for choice between bullets used hunting, 2019 will be my first year hunting with non lead ammo. This decision was based mainly on prior thread(s) content posted here on Hunt Talk.

You can find the exact study from 2008 used in this podcast linked at the website for Rinella's meateater: https://www.themeateater.com/listen/meateater/ep-155-guns

I imagine there are more recent studies conducted on this subject though for sake of the content related to info used within;

Additional Information
Information about lead can be found on the following websites:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – www.epa.gov/lead/
• National Institutes of Health – www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/lead/index.cfm
• U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – www.cdc.gov/lead/
The following websites have information about lead bullet fragments and wild game:
• North Dakota Department of Health – www.ndhealth.gov/lead/venison/
• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources – www.dnr.state.mn.us/hunting/lead/index.html

I'd be interested whether the case study participants, who ranged from no wild game to those hunting / eating venison shot by lead bullets (ranged from undetectable to 9.82 micrograms per deciliter) were filtered by use of firearms on the range, reloading ammunition, etc. All significant factors that encompass hunters, beyond merely eating venison shot with lead ammunition.

 

[one ate E grain]

It's true and it's long been known. Most people get their info off magazine articles, not scientific publications. Statistics don't lie but liars use statistics he he.

Background lead in the US comes more from dust of lead emissions in gasoline from back in the day and paint. Lead pipes not as much. ND is fairly rural. If I were worried about lead the first thing I'd do is move out of a city.

The original CDC study was done very well, they used a control and took samples from a wide range of people.

There is no acknowledged safe level of lead, less is better. I've switched back and forth with amo, I now use Barnes for performance, but am happy to eat the lungs of animals from friends that use lead. (jerky and in pho)

The ammo manufacturers used to have a link to the CDC report, too lazy to search.

Another illuminating study was done on South American Condors and Turkey Vultures. South American Condors are very similar to the California variety and not endangered. What they did was poison each species with increasing amounts of lead (research done in South America). The condors showed signs of poison at extremely lower levels than Turkey Vultures, and died at lead levels before Vultures even showed any poisoning at all. Different species react differently to lead.

Different gov agencies issue various suggestions, in general they say less lead is better, which is true, but for practical purposes lead as it is found in bullets is not very worrisome. Coyotes seem to eat a heck of a lot of guts, and I don't see them having much problem except from the high velocity type. The lead in primers however....

Linky https://c-5uwzmx78pmca90x24eee1x2evaanx2ewzo.g00.fieldandstream.com/g00/3_c-5eee.nqmtlivlabzmiu.kwu_/c-5UWZMXPMCA90x24pbbx78x3ax2fx2feee1.vaan.wzox2fapizmx2fXLNx2fVL_zmx78wzb.x78ln_$/$/$/$?i10c.ua=1&i10c.dv=22

 

[COEngineer]

You can find the exact study from 2008 used in this podcast linked at the website for Rinella's meateater: https://www.themeateater.com/listen/meateater/ep-155-guns

That is a "fact sheet," with very little data and a few suggestions. I am looking for the quote that ltDann used.

 

[Sytes]

I see where that quotation was used however, the only location via the fancy Google search engine prompts is the following Field & Stream article: https://www.fieldandstream.com/pages/cdc-lead-study-nssf-says-venison-safe

CDC, NIH, EPA and the ND study state 0 results found when searching for an exact portion quoted from the field & stream article. Either it was archived, beyond Google or no such quote is attributable to the gov organizations listed.

 

[ltdann]

The guy also suggested that condors get lead from eating paint chips off water towers. Uh... yeah. Try to find a scientist who agrees with that one. I thought the guy made a lot of sense on some issues, not so much on others. Interesting show nonetheless.

Well, there are photos of condors eating paint chips off a ranger tower in the Pinnacles National Park. Subsquent testing of the paint confirmed it contained lead. Ironic this happened at Pinnacles, ground zero for the condor recovery effort.

The pics and test results were presented at a CA Game Commission public meeting at the behest of several hunting/shooting organizations by a PhD Metalurgist. This was before CA decided to go lead-free, statewide

CA flat ignored that, and other scientific studies that indicated it more likely that the condor lead poisoning was environmental rather than hunter related. HSUS had already gained a majority on the commission so it was all ignored.

It was all a political hatchet job and the hunters were tried in the court of public opinion influenced by HSUS.

 

[ltdann]

https://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008%20CDC%20ND_Final_TripReport_5NOV08.pdf

Page 9, near the bottom.

A big chunk of my job is supervising lead removal projects, so I have a professional interest in human lead exposure. When I heard about the proposed study, I contacted the ND Public Health Dept and they emailed the whole report when it was finished.

I've been following the whole lead bullet vs lead-free since before 2006 when the first lead-free zone was established in CA. While I agree on the waterfowl lead-free requirement (based on eating habits of waterfowl), it doesn't make sense for big game. Human's just don't eat enough lead shot big game to make a significant difference (0.30 ug/dl says the report).

Whats often over looked is the differences between organic and inorganic lead. Metallic lead is fairly safe, not easily absorbable. Lead compounds are highly absorbable (paint chips).

There are many, many, combat vets running around with lead fragments remaining in their bodies and none of them have elevated blood leads.

Having said all this, how much risk is there from eating a couple of deer a year? I'd say you'd probably get higher lead exposure from stripping paint on a DIY home renovation project, or old water pipes.

 

[ltdann]

I The lead in primers however..../QUOTE]

That's an interesting comment. The Marine Corps has ordered several million of Federals? lead free primers to test, primarily in 5.56 mm. There's a bit of excitement in the lead profession to see if the exposures go down measureably.

 

[Irrelevant]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/27/condors-prey-fatal-lead-poisoning/4943507/

 

[Doublecluck]

The guy also suggested that condors get lead from eating paint chips off water towers. Uh... yeah. Try to find a scientist who agrees with that one. I thought the guy made a lot of sense on some issues, not so much on others. Interesting show nonetheless.

It’s pretty well documented of condors eating all sorts of trash, batteries, coins, paint chips, and other shiny objects. Additionally from my understanding the most recent studies of the birds in CA post lead ammo ban showed no decrease in the amount of lead poisoning in the birds. If you can point me to the study that shows the decrease in lead poisoning in CA condors since the 2008 ban on lead in condor country I would be interested in reading it.

2015 study that states in several places the CA lead bullet ban has done nothing to reduce the lead in condors.

https://escholarship.org/content/qt2g08q7f1/qt2g08q7f1.pdf

 

[ltdann]

2015 report that clearly says in several places the ca lead ban has done nothing to reduce the lead in condors.

https://escholarship.org/content/qt2g08q7f1/qt2g08q7f1.pdf

That was the case here in CA. After the original lead ban went into effect, the game wardens reported 3000 hunter-warden contacts yeilded 99.97% compliance with the law (just 3 hunters using lead), and it zero effect on the lead poisoning rate. Just before the final 3 year study on effectiveness of the ban came out, Perigrine, CBD and HSUS pushed a statewide ban and got it passed. The final study became moot, but if I recall, it show no impact on the poisoning.

The method I've witnessed in the lead-free drive is to change the reasons for the ban, a moving target, if you will. First it was for big game only, because the condors only eat large mammal gut piles. Then it was small game after awhile. Then it was " it only takes one bullet to poison family groups" and on to "the condor range is expanding, we need to go statewide"

Then I began to see the same people and orginzations pop up trying the same thing in other states. I saw the exact same x-rays used to panic people in ND, pushed by the same dermatoligist from the Peregrine falcon fund. ND was smart, they got CDC to look into it.

Now if you look at the USA today article above

Game wardens during the recently completed deer hunt found that 88% of Kaibab Plateau hunters either switched to non-lead bullets or removed gut piles for landfill disposal.

"The hunters are doing this," Zufelt said. "They deserve credit."

But while this year's cooperation is a big improvement over the 50% participation when the no-lead push started in 2005, birds are still falling ill.

and then the response

"The problem we have is the birds have now expanded their range into Utah," said Chris Parish, leader of the Peregrine Fund's condor-conservation field program. Utah is just beginning a voluntary program to swap lead bullets for other alternatives.

It's a moving target, keep expanding the ban, thats the only answer.... when you know what to look for, the pattern of these organzations are the same, from the same playbook.

The fact is, the birds eat a ton of microtrash. They have to be taught not to fly into power lines, not to eat spilled antifreeze etc. etc. They're sporting a number badge, some GPS, and they get captured and tested periodically. I read a report from Audobon (I think) that broke down the costs. It was something like 40-50 $k per bird, per year. Funding comes from private, state and federal funds. Audubon called the condor program "little more than an outdoor petting zoo."

I can't count how many deer I've lost after switching to lead-free. It works differently, it impacts differently, it's more finicky to use and reload....and its much more expensive, and there's not much of it available. E-tips are currently not in production, but slated for a production run sometime this year,according to Winchester. Wait till CA goes totally lead free in July, supplies of lead-free will be non-existent.

I certainly can't afford to shoot, say 100 of them, at range session. Not at $2 a shot.