Promise to phase out lead from UK game shooting has failed, study finds

A voluntary promise to phase out toxic lead shot in the UK has failed, meaning wildlife and human health are being put at risk, a study has found.

The vow, made in February 2020 by the UK’s nine leading game shooting and rural organisations, aimed to benefit wildlife and the environment and keep toxic lead out of the human food chain. They aimed to phase lead shot out by 2025, and hoped to avoid a full government ban. It is recommended birds are shot with non-toxic cartridges made of metals such as steel instead.

A study of 171 pheasants killed in the 2024-25 shooting season found that where any shot was still in the carcass all but one had been killed with lead ammunition. The team also analysed shotgun pellets found in red grouse carcasses shot in the same 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.

Birds often mistake toxic lead pellets for seeds and eat them, charities have said, and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) has estimated that lead poisoning kills up to 100,000 waterbirds every winter in the UK.

Lead is toxic to humans even in very small concentrations, and is particularly harmful to young and unborn children. Many food safety agencies advise that young children and pregnant women should avoid or minimise eating game meat from animals killed using lead ammunition.

The government has to make a decision on whether to ban lead ammunition by 13 March.

The Health and Safety Executive has recommended to Defra that the use of lead shot for live quarry shooting and target shooting be prohibited, to stop an estimated 7,000 tonnes of lead entering the environment each year. The use of lead shot in wetlands is already banned in Europe.

The WWT, RSPB, Wildlife and Countryside Link, Chem Trust and Wild Justice have also written to the government asking it to instate a full ban.

Scientists from the University of Cambridge and the University of the Highlands and Islands have published a study in the journal Conservation Evidence which found the intended transition had failed.

Researchers have monitored the impact of the promise every year since its introduction, recruiting volunteers to buy whole pheasants from butchers, game dealers and supermarkets across Britain and recover embedded shotgun pellets for analysis.

“Many members of the shooting community had hoped that the voluntary pledge away from lead ammunition would avert the need for regulation. But the voluntary route has now been tested – with efforts made by many people – and it has not been successful,” said Prof Rhys Green of the University of Cambridge’s zoology department and lead author of the report.

Some shooting groups have suggested they do not want a full ban and expressed concerns that outlawing lead shot would put people off the activity.

Green said: “Private individuals pay a lot of money to shoot pheasants on some private estates – and people don’t like to change their habits. It’s a bit like wearing car seatbelts, or not smoking in pubs. Despite the good reasons for doing these things, some people were strongly against using regulation to achieve those changes, which are now widely accepted as beneficial. The parallel with shooting game with lead shotgun ammunition is striking.”

The study co-author Dr Mark Taggart, of the University of the Highlands and Islands, said: “Shooting organisations did a lot of questionnaire surveys when the pledge was introduced in 2020, and the results suggested many shooters thought the time had come to switch away from lead ammunition. Those responses stand in contrast to what we’ve actually measured for both pheasant and grouse.”

A Defra spokesperson said: “This government supports shooting that is sustainable and conducted in full accordance with the law. We are currently assessing the Health and Safety Executive’s advice on restricting lead in ammunition. The use of lead shot in England is already prohibited in specific circumstances, including some sites of special scientific interest.”