Results of CDC Blood Lead Levels in Hunters Study

[308Mike]

Linkarooni to the Press Release:

To: ALL MEDIA
For immediate release

November 7, 2008

For more information contact:

Ted Novin
203-426-1320

[center]Firearms Industry Statement on Results of CDC Blood Lead Levels in Hunters Study[/center]

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) -- the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry -- issued the following statement in response to study results from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), released by the North Dakota Department of Health, showing no evidence that lead or "traditional" ammunition pose any health risk to those who consume harvested game meat.

Recognizing that hunters and their families may be concerned or confused by recent news reports about the study, NSSF encourages every individual who may consume harvested game meat to read the NSSF statement, fact box and CDC report made available in this news release.

Facts Hunters Should Know from the CDC Study . . .

1. Consuming game harvested using traditional hunting ammunition does not pose a human health risk.

2. Participants in the study had readings lower than the national average and well below the level the CDC considers to be of concern.

3. Children in the study had readings that were less than half the national average and far below the level the CDC considers to be of concern.

4. The study showed a statistically insignificant difference between participants who ate game harvested using traditional hunting ammunition and the non-hunters in the control group.

5. Hunters should continue to donate venison to food pantries.

--------------------------------------

Read the CDC report (PDF)

The CDC report on human lead levels of hunters in North Dakota has confirmed what hunters throughout the world have known for hundreds of years, that traditional ammunition poses no health risk to people and that the call to ban lead ammunition was nothing more than a scare tactic being pushed by anti-hunting groups.

In looking at the study results, the average lead level of the hunters tested was lower than that of the average American. In other words, if you were to randomly pick someone on the street, chances are they would have a higher blood lead level than the hunters in this study.

Also of note, the lead levels of children under 6 in the study had a mean of just 0.88, less than half the national average. Children over 6 had even lower lead levels. The CDC's level of concern for lead in children is 10.

A media advisory released by the North Dakota Department of Health cited the highest lead level reading of an adult study participant as still being lower than the CDC lead level threshold of concern for a child, and significantly lower than the CDC accepted threshold of concern for an adult. Furthermore, during a tele-press conference hosted by the ND Department of Health, officials stated they could not verify whether this adult even consumed game harvested with traditional ammunition. Correspondingly, the study only showed an insignificant 0.3 micrograms per deciliter difference between participants who ate wild game harvested with traditional ammunition and non-hunters in the non-random control group.

Also demonstrating their understanding that game harvested with traditional ammunition is safe to consume, the ND Department of Health, following the release of the CDC study results, encouraged hunters to continue donating venison to local food banks as long as processing guidelines were adhered to.

NSSF was critical of the ND Department of Health when earlier this year the Department overreacted to a non-peer reviewed study by a dermatologist who claimed to have collected packages of venison from food banks that contained lead fragments. North Dakota health officials did not conduct their own study, but merely accepted the lead-contaminated meat samples from the dermatologist. The ND Department of Health then ordered all food banks to discard their venison. Serious questions were raised in a subsequent investigative journalism piece published this summer about the scientific validity of the testing of venison samples from the ND food pantries, including concerns regarding the non-random selection of the samples.

It has since come to light that the dermatologist's efforts were not the independent actions of a concerned hunter, as he claimed. It was an orchestrated strategy by the Peregrine Fund -- an organization dedicated to eliminating the use of lead ammunition for hunting. The dermatologist serves on the Fund's Board of Directors.

For more than a century, hundreds of millions of Americans have safely consumed game harvested using traditional hunting ammunition, and despite there being no scientific evidence that consuming the game is endangering the health of individuals, special interest groups like the Peregrine Fund and anti-hunting groups are continuing to press state legislatures around the country to support a ban on this common, safe and effective ammunition.

These politically driven groups understand that while an outright ban on hunting would be nearly impossible to achieve, dismantling the culture of hunting one step at a time is a realistic goal. Banning lead ammunition is the first step of this larger political mission. We can only hope that with the conclusive CDC results concerning the safety of traditional ammunition, legislatures across the country will listen to science and not anti-hunting radicals.

The notion by some, that any amount of lead is a "concern," is scientifically unfounded rhetoric that runs contrary to nationwide, long-standing standards of evaluation. The NSSF is pleased that hunters and others can now comfortably continue consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition that has been properly field dressed and butchered, yet we remain unsettled that for so many months good and safe food was taken out of the mouths of the hungry as nothing more than a political gambit by special interest groups.

[center]###[/center]

[FastRope71]

Beautiful. And I love the smack on the hand offered with that last line.

Time to go get some woodcow (venison).

[SeekHer]

I'm so glad to hear that as I didn't want to throw out the eight half deer in the form of cut, wrapped and labeled rear haunches I have in the freezer because they were shot with rifles bullets...<<was the sarcasm too subtle?>>

The about dozen food banks I know of got donations of at least thirty whole deer from portions from various hunters and probably another thirty, maybe even forty half deers, just front haunches (we gave six ourselves).

That's just from our sportsman group...

It really warms the cockles of your heart and brings a smile to your face knowing that our donations will help out around eight hundred to a thousand families to have a couple, three meals of, very lean, nutritious and "organic" meat this Thanksgiving or Xmas...

[Old Grafton]

The sonsabitches of the Peregrine Fund responsible for this fraud should be required to donate an amount of beef filet mignon, purchased at retail, equivalent to the amount of venison discarded to all foodbanks which were affected. Any personal assets should be stripped to accomplish this first and then any corporate assets of the Peregrine Fund should be attached to make an equivalent donation.

[Erik]

The sonsabitches of the Peregrine Fund responsible for this fraud should be required to donate an amount of beef filet mignon, purchased at retail, equivalent to the amount of venison discarded to all foodbanks which were affected. Any personal assets should be stripped to accomplish this first and then any corporate assets of the Peregrine Fund should be attached to make an equivalent donation.

I might not put it like that, but I do think it would be a good idea to make these groups "put their money where their mouth is". It's just way too easy to come up with a new alarm report and force people to spend time, money and effort to disprove it. Then they just move on to another gambit and try that one, with no repercussions. It's too easy and cheap for them to do this.

I think that if they are so sure about what they claim, they should be forced to pay all costs it took to disproove them. Here they are still running the "lead in the ground at shooting ranges", and it forces all active shooters to spend lots of time and energy on fighting them, time that could otherwise be used for shooting, and other fun and productive things.
It's nothing different than nuisance lawsuits, and they really should be forced to pay the cost for the work and expenses they cause.

[Erik]

That just reminded me of a somewhat fun story.
There's a range in the west of the country where all local shooters, as well as the police, practise. It's the only range in the area, and it was adjacent to a national park. When they expanded the park area, the range suddenly came inside the park. This worked for a few years, then suddenly an envirogroup came up with the idea to try to ban it, since the shooters were "putting lead in the ground in a national park", and they had discovered that a rare beetle lived in the berms. And shooting supposedly hurt this beetles habitat.

That's when one of the shooters pointed out the obvious:
The beetle had moved in after the range was constructed, so obviously the use of the range was critical for it's habitat, and banning shooting would cause irreparable harm to it's habitat.
I havn't heard from the enviros since then.

[randy]

Knowing how anti-gun and politically activist the CDC has been in the past, this must have really hurt for them to release. Kudos to them for their integrity for releasing a study that undermines their natural political tendencies.