Mom, Apple Pie and Lead Ammo
On August 3, 2010, several environmental groups, led by the Center for Biological Diversity, filed a petition with EPA seeking a ruling from the Agency to ban the use of lead in hunting ammunition and fishing tackle. As noted by the petition, EPA has authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) to regulate chemical substances that “present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.” (15 U.S.C. § 2601).
EPA has declared that lead is a toxic substance and has regulated it in other instances, most recently with regard to lead-based paint. According to the CBD petition (page 3), requiring the use of non-toxic shot gun shot, bullets and fishing gear can be accomplished by having EPA prohibit the manufacture, processing or distribution in commerce of the chemical substance for a particular use as allowed under 15 U.S.C. § 2605(a)(2)(A)(i).
In setting out its case, the petitioners contend that there are hundreds of scientific studies showing the danger of lead in the environment for both wildlife and human health. Interestingly, the petitioners acknowledge that EPA is specifically prohibited from regulating ammunition or firearms under TSCA (petition at page 3), but they contend that lead can be banned from ammunition and lures if there are alternatives that are commercially available that are non-toxic:
The petitioners have waited until non-toxic alternatives have become available to submit this petition in an effort to clearly indicate that this petition is not an attempt to regulate ammunition or fire arms.
I have trouble seeing how the fact that there are alternatives means it is not an "attempt to regulate ammunition." It seems to me that it's an "attempt to regulate ammunition via alternatives," but maybe that's just the nit-picker in me. In any event, a quick response was made by sporting groups. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., through President Steve Sanetti, stated:
There is simply no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations that would require restricting or banning the use of traditional ammunition beyond current limitations, such as the scientifically based restriction on water fowl hunting.
In support he cites the fact that the number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the United States increased 724% between 1981 and 2006.
Further, fishing proponents have objected on the basis that the cost of reasonable alternatives are three to ten times as expensive as their lead counterparts. Objection has also been made on the grounds that there is very little evidence that lead shot or lead lures have caused human health issues.
EPA has 90 days to issue its ruling either accepting or rejecting the petition. If
it is accepted, there will be an opportunity for public comment. While EPA received little opposition to its lead paint rules and virtually no opposition to phasing out the use of lead wheel weights for balancing car tires, this new proposal is different – these are hunters and fishers. For these groups, when you mess with ammunition and lures, you're messing with religion (or, at the very least, a commandment).
I think that this might be an interesting debate to watch.
UPDATE: It appears that EPA has decided not to consider a lead ban for bullets, but lead fishing sinkers are still at risk. The fisher-people of the country have until September 15th to voice their opposition, or switch to a more innovative form of fishing.
