Lead Ammunition Group

Chair: Prof Len Levy

Members: Peter Green, Dr Rhys Green, Dr John Harradine, Dr Alastair Leake, Dr Debbie Pain

The sub-group may invite individual specialists to advise on issues of technical detail at any time.

Purposes:

(a) To gather and list sources of evidence for assessing the risks of lead in ammunition under the categories outlined below

(b) To advise on the quality, applicability and therefore inclusion of such evidence for risk assessment

(c) To propose a risk assessment method

(d) To use the proposed evidence sources to prepare an initial risk assessment under the categories outlined below

(1) Risks to wildlife from ingested lead from ammunition. This will include welfare considerations, individual and population level risks.

(2) Risks to human health from the ingestion of lead from ammunition. This will include both risks associated with the ingestion of lead gunshot/bullets or fragments thereof in game animals, and the ingestion of animals that have themselves ingested and assimilated lead from ammunition. (It may also include any other perceived risks arising from lead ammunition).

(3) Risks to human health through livestock feeding in areas of lead shot deposition. This will include risks from lead deposited through inland shooting, including clay-pigeon and other target shooting.

The process

From the many papers on lead risks and impacts, we will aim to list those that provide comprehensive coverage of the key issues and the most current, relevant, science-based information and reviews available. Where authoritative reviews are used we will provide an opinion on the soundness of the authors’ interpretations. Additional references may be added if deemed appropriate at any time.

The primary evidence gathered will cover the risks from lead in ammunition and not comparative risks of other materials used for non-lead ammunition types.

We will cover the following types of information:

1. Published in independently peer-reviewed[1] established journals

2. Published in independently peer-reviewed other literature (e.g. proceedings of conferences) or published reports written by 'accredited' expert specialist groups (which may have an ISBN number or be freely available online)

3.Other reports, e.g. commissioned by government, academic institutions and NGOs - not published, or published but not peer-reviewed

4.Other literature considered to be of sufficiently high quality in total or with some information useful to the Sub-Group

We may consider it necessary to send literature for independent or further independent peer-review.

References will also be tagged as having the following applicability: UK, EU (Europe), INT (International). This is to assist judgment about their relevance to the UK and reflects the fact that, while not necessarily carried out in the UK, they may contain information of relevance to the LAG’s purposes. 

A List of publications and reports being considered as primary evidence