A new scientific paper has been published today that demonstrates the shooting industry’s so-called 5-year ‘voluntary transition’ away from the use of toxic lead ammunition has spectacularly failed, at least in relation to the shooting of red grouse.
Five years ago in February 2020, nine UK game-shooting organisations made a massive U-turn after years and years and years of defending the use of toxic lead ammunition, and said they wanted to drag the industry into the 21st Century by making a five-year voluntary transition away from lead ammunition (see here).
A lot of us were sceptical because (a) we rarely trust anything the industry tells us; (b) previous ‘voluntary bans’ by the industry on a number of issues have been infamously unsuccessful (e.g. see here, here and here); (c) the ongoing failure of the shooting industry to comply with current regulations on many issues, including the use of lead ammunition over wetlands in England (here) and in Scotland (here), means there should be absolutely zero confidence in its ability and/or willingness to stick to any notional voluntary ban; (d) the Scottish Gamekeepers Association refused to sign up to the proposed five-year transition period because they believe there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that lead can have damaging impacts on humans, wildlife and the environment (here); and (e) in the very same year that nine shooting organisations committed to the five-year voluntary transition, BASC announced it was set to fight a proposed EU ban on the use of lead ammunition on wetlands (see here).
We were right to be sceptical.
Regular blog readers will be familiar with the Cambridge University-led research project called ‘SHOT-SWITCH‘ that has been monitoring the progress (or not!) of this five-year voluntary transition by purchasing pheasants from supermarkets and other retailers across the UK each year and having them lab tested to determine whether they’ve been shot with toxic lead ammunition or with non-toxic ammunition.
The results of the SHOT-SWITCH project’s 2024/2025 sampling of pheasants are due to be published shortly (results from the previous four years can be read here).
However, the same team, led by Professor Rhys Green, Dr Mark Taggart and Dr Debbie Pain, has also sampled red grouse carcasses that were bought during the 2024 red grouse shooting season and it’s these carcasses that are the focus of this new scientific paper, published today in the Conservation Evidence Journal.
It’s worth reading past the summary if you have the time (the full paper can be read at the foot of this blog). It contains some hilarious commentary from the Moorland Association (grouse moor owners’ lobby group in England) who reportedly told the researchers on 21 January 2025 that ‘grouse moor owners have been at the forefront of the transition away from lead shotgun ammunition‘.
Hmm. Would that be in the same way that grouse moor owners have been at the forefront of hen harrier ‘conservation’?
The paper also cites an earlier published statement made by the Moorland Association in 2022: ‘That commitment [to the transition] is unwavering‘ and ‘There is growing evidence of shoots moving away from lead‘ and ‘Suggesting a ban [on the use of toxic lead ammunition]…, is not supported by our evidence of active transition underway‘.
The researchers dryly comment:
“Based upon this strong statement, it might be expected that quantitative evidence of change in practice on moorland shoots had already been obtained and that it showed that the voluntary transition from lead to non-lead ammunition was progressing as rapidly or more rapidly for red grouse shooting than it has been for pheasants. We are not aware of any such evidence. The results reported in this paper indicate that almost all red grouse continue to be shot using lead ammunition, even as the end of the transition period approaches“.
I’m looking forward to reading the SHOT-SWITCH project’s forthcoming paper showing the results of its lead ammunition testing in pheasants from the 2024/25 shooting season, which will hopefully be published within the next few weeks.
Results are also expected soon from Wild Justice’s latest tests on the lead content of gamebird meat bought from various supermarkets during the 2024/25 shooting season, as they’ve done in previous years (e.g. see here and here).
This year Wild Justice also tested some of the pre-prepared ‘ready to cook’ food pouches that are distributed by the game-shooting industry and others to foodbanks and community projects for vulnerable members of the public suffering from food poverty. The laboratory tests analysing the lead content of those meal pouches will be fascinating.
All of these results, from the SHOT-SWITCH project and Wild Justice, will provide timely information for the Secretary of State at DEFRA and his colleagues in the devolved countries who are currently reviewing recommendations made by the Health & Safety Executive in December 2024 for restrictions to be placed on the continued use of toxic lead ammunition (see here). A response is due before 13 March 2025 (see here).
Here is the excellent paper by Green et al., published today in the Conservation Evidence Journal, demonstrating the continued use of toxic lead ammunition to shoot red grouse in the UK:
Raptor Persecution UK 
The members of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association are living proof of the harm done to humans by the regular ingestion of fragments of lead.
It is also against the law to use lead shot over SSSI sites. Not all but quite a few grouse moors are designated SSSI so you will probably find offences are being committed on a regular basis. I have found empty shotgun cartridges on SSSI sites that were not steel or lead substitutes. Another angle for you to look into and good evidence if we ever get close to the matter of a ban getting debated in parliament.
I would like clarity on this, but I don’t think there is a blanket ban on using lead shot over sssi’s, I think it is only over wetland sssi sites.
this is from government website…… “Regulations prohibit the use of lead ammunition on all foreshores in England, in or over specified SSSIs (predominately wetlands)”
Surely, given that the shooters and their organisations are simply paying lip service to the phasing out of lead, it is high time that its sale was banned. This might take some time to work its way through the system but it would be a positive step towards, eventually, eradicating its use.
are you aware of anyone that has succumbed to lead poisoning by overconsumption of lead shot in game presented on a plate?
Jenny,
Given your background, I’m pretty sure you’d be aware that the health issues associated with the consumption of toxic lead ammunition are generally accumulative, manifesting over many years.
Try reading the papers published on the Lead Ammunition Group webpage – there are plenty relating to the risks to human health, especially children, and also the risks to wildlife, domestic pets, environmental contamination etc etc
https://leadammunitiongroup.org.uk/resources/
Yes we deal with many potentially harmful materials in our day to day existence and I’m quite sure their cumulative effect may be similar. Use of mobile phones being perhaps a prime and as yet perhaps unknown contributor to our future health issues. I was just curious to know of anyone having first hand experience of issues caused by ingesting lead and if so what sort of timescale. I am aware that lead is generally alluded to as a superior ballistic material for ensuring a swifter end to the recipient.
Try reading this and the linked scientific papers:
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/get_the_lead_out/pdfs/health/Human_Health_Risks_from_Lead_Ammunition.pdf
The human health risks of consuming lead ammunition have been known for a considerable number of years!
Thanks for directing me to the article, although based on hunting communities in the US and Canada. I’m not aware of anyone having linked their ill health directly to consumption of game shot with lead ammunition and would be intersted to hear of any direct accounts from others on the page.
“Although based on hunting communities in the US and Canada”.
I hope you’re not going to try and suggest that the physical damage caused to humans (and wildlife, domestic animals etc) by consuming toxic lead ammunition works differently on the other side of the Atlantic?!
In the history of Bath, wisitors would seek a cure from various ailments by drinking the spa water and soaking in the spring-sourced hot baths. One ailment was ‘Devonshire Colic’, now understood to be lead poisoning. It resulted from lead plumbing, etc, used in cider masking and dissolved in the product.
Lead poisoning has a long history, as a search for *Devonshire Colic* will reveal.
From World Health Organisation:
“Key facts
The harmful impacts on health from lead exposure are entirely preventable.
Exposure to lead can affect multiple body systems and is particularly harmful to young children and women of child-bearing age.
Lead is distributed to the brain, liver, kidney and bones. It is stored in the teeth and bones, where it can accumulate over time. Human exposure is assessed through the measurement of lead in blood.
Lead exposure was attributed to more than 1.5 million deaths globally in 2021, primarily due to cardiovascular effects.
Lead in bone is released into blood during pregnancy and becomes a source of exposure to the developing fetus.
There is no level of exposure to lead that is known to be without harmful effects.”
Fraudulent advertising of standards of products is, I believe, something that these regulators might be interested in:
Animal and Plant Health Agency
Food Standards Agency
Competition and Markets Authority
National Food Crime Unit
The Advertising Standards Authority
The Information Commissioner’s Office
The Direct Marketing Association
Trading Standards
Local authorities