Two weeks ago Defra made it’s long-awaited announcement that a ban on the sale and use of toxic lead ammunition (with limited exceptions) would be coming in to force across England, Wales and Scotland in 2029 (see here).
Although the precise details of the ban have yet to be revealed, the news was welcomed across the board by conservation organisations, many of whom have spent decades campaigning against toxic lead ammunition because of the damage it causes to wildlife (especially waterbirds and raptors), the environment and human health.
An excellent summary article was published last week welcoming the ban and discussing its potential impact, published by The Conversation and written by two leading scientists who have been at the forefront of academic research into the use of toxic lead ammunition in the UK – Professor Rhys Green and Dr Debbie Pain. It’s well worth a read for a general overview for those new to this topic.
The government intends to introduce the new legislation by summer 2026 and a three-year transition period will follow (so effectively this is a four-year transition period from the date of Defra’s announcement). This is a shorter transition period than the five-year transition period proposed by the Health & Safety Executive and government sources tell me the shorter transition period was preferred by Defra and the devolved governments in Wales and Scotland ‘because the original five-year transition was proposed due to Covid-19 manufacturing delays, which have now returned to pre-pandemic levels‘.
I don’t know what evidence Defra used to decide that manufacturing levels have rebounded but it’s clear that a number of the game shooting organisations are intending to lobby for a return to the five-year transition period because they don’t think that non-toxic ammunition is ‘readily available’.
If it isn’t readily available, then what ammunition are the thousands of wildfowlers using, given that lead ammunition has been banned for killing waterfowl in England since 1999, in Wales since 2002, and banned for use over wetlands in Scotland since 2005?
Although a series of scientific studies have shown that compliance with those bans is poor (see here, here and here), it seems highly unlikely to be due to a lack of available non-toxic lead ammunition and more likely to be down to arrogance by those shooters who, by their own admission, don’t accept the justification for a lead ban and so carry on using it knowing that enforcement measures are mostly non-existent. There’s a clear lesson there for the English, Welsh and Scottish governments and the enforcement authorities when the wider ban is finally in force in 2029.
Since Defra’s announcement about the ban two weeks ago, apart from whining about the shortened transition period away from toxic lead ammunition, a number of the game-shooting organisations have been undertaking a gaslighting exercise with extraordinary claims about their environmental foresight.
It’s been interesting to watch because from what I’ve been reading online, many, many gamebird shooters still do not recognise the need to move away from toxic lead ammunition – they simply see it as a threat to their bird-killing hobby/industry – and they’re furious with their membership organisations for what is perceived as ‘rolling over’ to the pressure.
The gaslighting clearly hasn’t impressed the shooting organisations’ members, so I can only conclude it’s for the benefit of Ministers and civil servants.
Here are some examples.
The Moorland Association responded to Defra’s lead ban announcement by proclaiming:
“Grouse moors: Leading the transition. Our moors have already been paving the way. Sporting organisations, including the MA, GWCT, BASC and others, voluntarily endorsed a five-year lead-free target back in 2020“.
Ah, yes, the five-year so-called ‘voluntary transition’ away from using toxic lead ammunition (2020-2025) that failed spectacularly!
Peer-reviewed evidence produced by scientists at the University of Cambridge in 2025 at the end of the voluntary five-year transition period showed that of 171 Pheasants found to contain shot, 99% of them had been killed with lead ammunition.
And as for Red Grouse – the same study also analysed shotgun pellets found in Red Grouse carcasses shot in the 2024/25 shooting season and on sale through butchers’ shops and online retailers. In all 78 grouse carcasses from which any shot was recovered, the shot was lead.
Quite how these results translate to: ”Grouse moors: Leading the transition. Our moors have already been paving the way‘ is anyone’s guess.
Then there was the response by the Countryside Alliance:
“This is an important step for the future of shooting, which will benefit the countryside and rural economy. The Alliance has long advocated a move away from lead ammunition which is necessary and beneficial“.
I’m interested in the Countryside Alliance’s definition of “long“. Yes, it was one of the nine organisations that signed up to the (now failed) five-year ‘voluntary transition’ away from toxic lead ammunition in 2020 but what was the Countryside Alliance saying prior to that?
Oh, this –
And this –
And this –
That doesn’t look to me like evidence of the Countryside Alliance having “long advocated” for a move away from toxic lead ammunition – it looks like gaslighting.
And what about BASC? What has it had to say?
Apart from clapping itself on the back for participating in the (now failed) five year ‘voluntary transition’ from 2020-2025, BASC said:
“Today’s announcement confirms that the Government plans to introduce legislation to restrict lead ammunition by summer 2026, with a further three-year transition period running until 2029.
“In doing this, the Government has shortened the expected timeframe for shotgun ammunition from five years to three years on the assumption that the ammunition is readily available – that is not the case for commercial and supply reasons beyond our sector’s control, and we urge government to adhere to a five-year timescale proposed by the Health and Safety Executive“.
Hang on a minute! Wasn’t it BASC that proclaimed “significant progress” had been made at the end of the so-called voluntary transition period in 2025? And wasn’t it BASC who said:
“Market-led solutions have emerged, with more than 150 sustainable cartridge options now available, and many shooters have successfully transitioned to lead-free ammunition” (see here).
Surely BASC wasn’t lying when it made these claims in March 2025?
We already know how consuming toxic lead ammunition can lead to a wide range of health risks in humans (e.g. see here). It seems to me there’s scope for examining its effect on short and long-term memory loss, too.
Raptor Persecution UK 
while I am happy to hear about the ban on the sale of toxic heavy metals, which are designed to be spread liberally over large areas to slowly poison the ground, I am pissed off that the ban is four years away (which means that a tory party could get in power and scrap the ban), and that it is not a total ban. All of which, means that this is going to be like the so called ban on hunting with hounds, which is not a ban in any way shape or form, so it’s just another case of Labour shaming itself, by being incredibly ineffective yet again . . .. …
They are not going down without a fight
[Ed: Andrew966, please stop spamming the site with these links. They don’t add anything to the discussion]
Fishing moved away from lead shot many moons ago. Don’t see why they are making such a big deal about it
Hi Ruth
Great article as usual.
Remember not everyone knows the meaning of the recent term ‘gaslighting’.
Better to avoid jargon if you can.
I seem unable to comment to any articles these days, quite a few hoops to negotiate.
You nevertheless have my unswerving support for all you do.
Best
Steve
Sent from my Galaxy
[Ed: Thanks, Steve]
Doesn’t go far enough. What about the tons of lead that is already in the environment and that will remain there slowly degrading and poisoning the environment? The polluter should be made to pay for the clean ups! That would make them change without a fuss very quickly I believe.
“Doesn’t go far enough.”
True.
“What about the tons of lead that is already in the environment and that will remain there slowly degrading and poisoning the environment?”
I not believe lead, as an element, ever ‘degrades’: once there, in the environment, it is there forever(*)
(*) There is this proviso: increased atmospheric CO2 leads to increased acid rain (carbonic acid, which is relatively weak) and increased acid rain (including other acids, from other industrial processes and some natural ones) does react with lead in the environment (increasing lead solubility and mobility within the soil, transporting it into and contaminating ground water and surface water sources. The lead is still there, in one form or another, but moved around… incredibly slowly).
I think old fishing lakes in the UK still pose a lead poisoning risk, especially to bottom feeders…
https://todaysveterinarynurse.com/toxicology/lead-toxicity-threat-to-wildlife/#:~:text=Direct%20Lead%20Exposure,that%20are%20contaminated%20with%20lead.
“Twenty-six years after the (USA) 1991 ban on lead ammunition to hunt waterfowl, the lasting effects of lead in the environment continues to affect wild animals worldwide.”
If you ever get the chance (and/or inclination) an examination of the surface/spoil from old lead mining works of Swaledale will reveal plant life that is tolerant of lead pollution. Vegetation can be rather sparse and restricted in diversity.
I had never given a single thought to the effect of lead contamination on plants. In fact – had I been asked – I would have guessed: none.
I would have been wrong: “The uptake of lead by the primary producers (plants) is found to affect their metabolic functions, growth, and photosynthetic activity. The accumulation of lead in excess can cause up to a 42% reduction in the growth of the roots.”
Which has worrying implications…
“Thus, consumers who take 100 g of fresh blackberries which consist of 8.51 mg Pb are at high risks…”
“The governmental regulatory bodies need to enforce strict actions for the industrial sector which is responsible for the release of toxic chemicals into the ecosystem.”
In the future, might a victim try to sue BASC et al?
Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters – Bioaccumulation of Lead and its effects on plants: A review (2022).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266691102200017X
Visit the Peak Distict. The whole of the White Peak is scarred by historic lead mining, and one plant even gets its common name from being able to live on the spoil. And,no, I’m not blaming this lead in the environment for the paucity of raptors in the Peak District. But its true that lead mining is an important part of the fascinating history and heritage of the area, and must have been to blame for the undocumented ill health of many long-gone workers. https://floraofderbyshire.kevinhutchby.uk/index-2235.html?SpeciesID=1127
Thanks! Great set of pictures:-)
if you ever get the chance or inclination, maybe you will think about the difference between Galena (which is relatively stable, as is shown by the fact that pieces of galena can be found undegraded in tailings that haven’t been added to in a hundred years or so) plus the other elements that are found in mine tailings, and, processed lead, which is easily turned into lead oxide by acid, such as the acids found in the modern rainfall, and the speed at which processed lead starts to break down, is shown by how rapidly it goes dull, compared to the incredibly shiny metal you get when it is freshly processed . . .. …
Two very intelligent comments Keith, as always (also your one regarding plants) Thanks tuwit for reminding of vegetation. (I find both the articles + majority of comments on here to be intelligent)
Hi Ruth, do you have an email address that I can use to send some information about a newspaper article you might find interesting, it’s not entirely relevant to lead ammunition but it concerns grouse moors. If I can’t send it directly to you do I post it in Comments? Yours, Mike Brown.
[Hi Mike – my email address is on the About page. Many thanks]