The Lead Ammunition Group (LAG) has agreed to consider both unpublished and non-peer-reviewed evidence in making its risk assessment of lead shot. The minutes of the group’s second meeting, which were put up on its website on 23 June, stated that, in addition to published, peer-reviewed science, the group had agreed to take into account unpublished reports of recognised quality such as internal reports that have been commissioned but not necessarily published.

The group then decided to go further, agreeing to consider articles from other journals or other sources that contain evidence of recognised quality and relevance but not falling within the other two categories, i.e, “grey literature”.

LAG also agreed to widen the scope of the evidence used to assess the risks posed by lead shot to animal and human health to include research from countries outside the UK. The Group discussed in further detail the use and applicability of research from sources outside the UK. Examples of research, influencing factors and considerations from biological, human health and veterinary fields were considered… It was determined that research in the fields of physiology, human and veterinary health and in the technological fields such as ballistics might be especially relevant whatever its origin… medical or veterinary research into the physiology or clinical effects of lead on animals or people could be relevant wherever it had been conducted.

The rest of this article appears in 30th June issue of Shooting Times.

What is YOUR opinion?

Join other ST readers in our forums to discuss your views.

Like this article? Mark this page on a social bookmarking website…

What are social bookmarking sites?