November, 23 2010, 11:45am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity, (510)
499-9185
Anthony Prieto, Project Gutpile, (805) 729-5455
Karen Schambach, PEER, (530) 333-2545
Lawsuit Filed Over EPA Refusal to Address Lead Poisoning of Wildlife
Suit Seeks to Prevent Annual Deaths of Millions of Wild Birds, Wildlife From Toxic Lead in Ammunition, Fishing Gear
WASHINGTON
Conservation and hunting groups today sued the Environmental Protection
Agency for failing to regulate toxic lead that frequently poisons and kills
eagles, swans, cranes, loons, endangered California condors and other wildlife
throughout the country. The EPA recently denied a formal petition to ban
lead in fishing tackle and hunting ammunition despite long-established
science on the dangers of lead poisoning in the wild, which kills millions
of birds each year and also endangers public health.
"The
EPA has the ability to protect America's wildlife from
ongoing preventable lead poisoning, but continues to shirk its
responsibility," said Jeff Miller, conservation advocate with the
Center for Biological Diversity. "The EPA's failure to act is
astonishing given the mountain of scientific evidence about the dangers of
lead to wildlife. There are already safe and available alternatives to lead
products for hunting and fishing, and the EPA can phase in a changeover to
nontoxic materials, so there's no reason to perpetuate the epidemic
of lead poisoning of wildlife."
In
August, a coalition of groups formally petitioned the EPA to ban lead in
bullets and shot for hunting and in fishing tackle under the Toxic
Substances Control Act. The petition referenced nearly 500 peer-reviewed
scientific papers illustrating the widespread dangers of lead poisoning to
scavengers that eat lead ammunition fragments in carcasses, and to
waterfowl that ingest spent lead shot or lost lead fishing sinkers. The
groups filing the lawsuit today are the Center for Biological Diversity,
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and Project Gutpile, a
hunters' organization. Since the original petition was filed, more
than 70 organizations in 27 states have voiced support for the lead ban,
including those representing veterinarians, birders, hunters, zoologists,
scientists, American Indian groups, physicians and public employees.
"Having
hunted in California
for 20 years I have seen firsthand lead poisoning impacts to wildlife from
toxicity through lead ammunition," said Anthony Prieto, a hunter and
cofounder of Project Gutpile, a hunters' group that provides
educational resources for lead-free hunters and anglers. "Although
many more sportsmen are now getting the lead out, the EPA must take action
to ensure we have a truly lead-free environment. It's time to make a
change to non-lead for ourselves and for future generations to enjoy
hunting and fishing with a conscience."
"Over
the past several decades Americans chose to get toxic lead out of our
gasoline, paint, water pipes and other sources that were poisoning people. Now
it's time to remove unnecessary lead from hunting and fishing sports
that is needlessly poisoning our fish and wildlife," said Karen
Schambach of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
"Today's action is a step to safeguard wildlife and reduce
human health risks posed by lead."
The
EPA denied the portion of the petition dealing with regulation of lead
ammunition based on an incorrect claim that the agency lacks the authority
to regulate toxic lead in ammunition. The EPA asserted that shells and
cartridges are excluded from the definition of "chemical
substances" in the Act. That claim is contradicted by the legislative
history of the Toxic Substances Control Act, which provides clear and
specific authority to regulate hazardous chemical components of ammunition
such as lead. Earlier this month the EPA also issued a final determination
denying the portion of the petition on fishing sinkers, even though the
agency itself had proposed banning certain lead fishing weights in 1994.
"The
EPA has known for years it has the authority to regulate lead," said
Miller. "Lead shot was eliminated in 1991 by federal regulation to
address widespread lead poisoning of ducks and secondary poisoning of bald
eagles. And in 1994, the EPA even proposed banning lead fishing weights
that were being eaten by waterfowl."
Hunters
and anglers in states that have restricted or banned lead shotgun
ammunition or lead fishing gear have already made successful transitions to
nontoxic alternatives, and fishing and hunting in those areas remains
active. Alternatives continue to be developed, including the U.S.
military's transition toward bullets made of non-lead materials.
"This
is clearly not an anti-hunting initiative, it is about using less toxic
materials for the sake of wildlife and our human health," said
Prieto. "When I hunt, I want to make sure I kill only my target
animal, and I want to use the least toxic ammunition possible since I will
be feeding the game to my family."
For
more information, read about the Center's Get the Lead Out campaign.
Read Frequently Asked Questions about
the lead ban petition.
View photo images and video of
wildlife poisoned by lead ammunition and sinkers.
The Center for
Biological Diversity (www.biologicaldiversity.org) is a national, nonprofit
conservation organization with more than 315,000 members and online
activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild
places.
Project
Gutpile is an educational organization comprised of hunters that provides
resources for lead-free hunters and anglers. Project Gutpile has been
promoting non-lead ammunition and raising lead awareness in the hunting
community since 2002.
Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is a 10,000 member
national alliance of local, state and federal resource professionals
working to protect the environment. PEER members include government
scientists, land managers, environmental law enforcement agents, field
specialists, and other resource professionals committed to responsible
management of America's
public resources.
Background
Lead is an extremely toxic substance that is dangerous to people and
wildlife even at low levels. Exposure can cause a range of health effects,
from acute poisoning and death to long-term problems such as reduced
reproduction, inhibition of growth, and damage to neurological development.
Animals are poisoned when they scavenge on carcasses shot and contaminated
with lead bullet fragments or pick up and eat spent lead shot pellets or
lost fishing weights, mistaking them for food or grit. Animals can die a
painful death from lead poisoning or suffer for years from its debilitating
effects.
Lead
ammunition also poses human-health risks since lead bullets explode and
break into minute particles in shot game and can spread throughout meat
that humans eat. Studies using radiographs show that numerous
imperceptible, dust-sized particles of lead can contaminate meat up to a
foot and a half away from the bullet track, causing a greater health risk
to people consuming lead-shot game than previously thought. A recent study
found that up to 87 percent of cooked game killed by lead ammunition can
contain unsafe levels of lead. Some state health agencies have had to
recall venison donated to feed the hungry because of lead contamination
from bullet fragments. Nearly 10 million hunters, their families and
low-income beneficiaries of venison donations may be at risk, as well as
the estimated 1 million or more people who manufacture lead fishing weights
in their homes, leading to inhalation of lead dust and fumes.
There
are now numerous commercially available, nontoxic alternatives to lead
rifle bullets, shotgun pellets and fishing weights. Nontoxic steel, copper
and alloy bullets and non-lead fishing tackle are readily available in all
50 states. More than a dozen manufacturers of bullets now market many
varieties of non-lead, nontoxic bullets and shot. The California Department
of Fish and Game has certified nontoxic ammunition from 24
manufacturers for hunting big-game and
non-game species in the range of the California condor. The Arizona Game
and Fish Department publishes a list of non-lead rifle
ammunition available for big-game hunters, including
120 bullets in various calibers produced by 13 ammunition manufacturers, as
well as seven manufacturers who provide custom-loaded nonlead rifle
ammunition. The federal Fish and Wildlife Service has approved 12 nontoxic shot types for
hunting waterfowl. At least 10 alternatives to lead fishing weights are now
available made from non-poisonous materials such as tin, bismuth, steel,
ceramics and recycled glass.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
With Food Aid Suspended for Millions of Families, Trump Brags of 'Statuary Marble' Bathroom Makeover
"He’s a psychopath, humanly incapable of caring about anyone or anything but himself," one critic said of Trump.
Oct 31, 2025
As millions of families across the US are about to lose their access to food aid over the weekend, President Donald Trump on Friday decided to show off photos of a White House bathroom that he boasted had been refurbished in "highly polished, statuary marble."
Trump posted photos of the bathroom on his Truth Social platform, and he explained that he decided to remodel it because he was dissatisfied with the "art deco green tile style" that had been implemented during a previous renovation, which he described as "totally inappropriate for the Lincoln Era."
"I did it in black and white polished Statuary marble," Trump continued. "This was very appropriate for the time of Abraham Lincoln and, in fact, could be the marble that was originally there!"
Trump's critics were quick to pan the remodeled bathroom, especially since it came at a time when Americans are suffering from numerous policies the president and the Republican Party are enacting, including tariffs that are raising the cost of food and clothing; expiring subsidies for Americans who buy health insurance through Affordable Care Act exchanges; and cuts to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) programs in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
"Sure, you might not be able to eat or go to the doctor, but check out how nice Trump's new marble shitter is," remarked independent journalist Aaron Rupar on Bluesky.
Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman who has become a critic of Trump, ripped the president for displaying such tone deafness in the middle of a federal government shutdown.
"Government still shutdown, Americans not getting paid, food assistance for low-income families and children about to be cut off, and this is what he cares about," he wrote on X. "He’s a psychopath, humanly incapable of caring about anyone or anything but himself."
Don Moynihan, a political scientist at the University of Michigan, expressed extreme skepticism that the White House bathroom during Abraham Lincoln's tenure was decked out in marble and gold.
"Fact check based on no research but with a high degree of confidence: This is not the marble that was originally in the Lincoln Bedroom," he wrote. "It is more likely to the be retrieved from a Trump casino before it was demolished."
Fashion critic Derek Guy, meanwhile, mostly left politics out of his criticisms of the remodeled bathroom, instead simply observing that "White House renovations are currently being spearheaded by someone with famously bad interior design taste."
Earlier this month, Trump sparked outrage when he demolished the entire East Wing of the White House to make way for a massive White House ballroom financed by donations from some of America’s wealthiest corporations—including several with government contracts and interests in deregulation—such as Apple, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Meta, Google, Amazon, and Palantir.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Khanna Warns Any Trump Attack on Venezuela Would Be 'Blatantly Unconstitutional'
"Congress must speak up now to stop another endless, regime-change war," said Democratic US Rep. Ro Khanna.
Oct 31, 2025
US Rep. Ro Khanna on Friday demanded urgent congressional action to avert "another endless, regime-change war" amid reports that President Donald Trump is weighing military strikes inside Venezuela.
Such strikes, warned Khanna (D-Calif.), would be "blatantly unconstitutional."
"The United States Congress must speak up and stop this," Khanna said in a video posted to social media. "No president, according to the Constitution, has the authority to strike another country without Congress' approval. And the American people have voted against regime change and endless wars."
Watch:
Trump is getting ready to launch strikes inside Venezuela per the @WSJ & @MiamiHerald.
This is blatantly unconstitutional.
Congress must speak up now to stop another endless, regime-change war. @RepThomasMassie @RandPaul. pic.twitter.com/LrnPPUVZaU
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) October 31, 2025
Khanna's remarks came in response to reporting by the Miami Herald and the Wall Street Journal on internal Trump administration discussions regarding possible airstrike targets inside Venezuela.
The Herald reported early Friday that the administration "has made the decision to attack military installations inside Venezuela and the strikes could come at any moment." The Journal, in a story published Thursday, was more reserved, reporting that the administration "has identified targets in Venezuela that include military facilities used to smuggle drugs," but adding that "the president hasn't made a final decision on ordering land strikes."
Citing unnamed US officials familiar with the matter, the Journal reported that "the targets would send a clear message to Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro that it is time to step down."
Following the reports, the White House denied that Trump has finalized plans for a military strike on Venezuela. Trump himself told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday that he has not made a final decision, signaling his belief he has the authority to do so if he chooses.
Last week, the president said publicly that land strikes are "going to be next" following his illegal, deadly strikes on boats in waters off Central and South America.
Trump has said he would not seek approval from Congress before attacking Venezuela directly.
"The American people oppose being dragged into yet another endless war, this time in Venezuela, and our constitutional order demands deliberation by the U.S. Congress—period."
A potentially imminent, unauthorized US attack on Venezuela and the administration's accelerating military buildup in the Caribbean have thus far drawn vocal opposition from just a fraction of the lawmakers on Capitol Hill, currently embroiled in a shutdown fight.
Just three senators—Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)—are listed as official backers of a resolution aimed at preventing Trump from attacking Venezuela without congressional authorization. Other senators, including Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), have spoken out against Trump's belligerence toward Venezuela.
"Trump is illegally threatening war with Venezuela—after killing more than 50 people in unauthorized strikes at sea," Sanders wrote in a social media post on Friday. "The Constitution is clear: Only Congress can declare war. Congress must defend the law and end Trump's militarism."
Dylan Williams, vice president of government affairs at the Center for International Policy, wrote Friday that "most Americans oppose overthrowing Venezuela's leaders by force—and an even larger majority oppose invading."
"Call your senators and tell them to vote for S.J.Res.90 to block Trump's unauthorized use of military force," Williams added. "The Capitol switchboard can connect you to your senators' offices at 202-224-3121."
A similar resolution led by Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) in the US House has just over 30 cosponsors.
Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) announced his support for the House resolution on Thursday, saying in a statement that "Trump does not have the legal authority to launch military strikes inside Venezuela without a specific authorization by Congress."
"I am deeply troubled by reports that suggest this administration believes otherwise," said Neguse. "Any unilateral directive to send Americans into war is not only reckless, but illegal and an affront to the House of Representatives' powers under Article I of our Constitution."
"The American people oppose being dragged into yet another endless war, this time in Venezuela, and our constitutional order demands deliberation by the U.S. Congress—period," Neguse added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No Question' More People Will End Up With Fake Insurance If ACA Subsidies Expire: Expert
"This is what happens when we design systems for insurance companies instead of humans."
Oct 31, 2025
Time on Thursday published reporting about "how fake health insurance is luring people in," and along with sharing stories of Americans tricked into paying for plans that aren't compliant with the Affordable Care Act, the article features an expert's warning that more could be fooled if Congress lets ACA subsidies expire.
The ongoing federal government shutdown stems from congressional Democrats' efforts to reverse recent GOP cuts to Medicaid and extend the ACA tax credits, which set to expire at the end of the year. Open enrollment for 2026 plans sold on ACA marketplaces starts Saturday, and Americans who buy insurance through these platforms now face the looming end of subsidies and substantial monthly premium hikes.
"Confusion about navigating insurance writ large and the Affordable Care Act marketplace in particular has led many people to end up with plans that they think are health insurance which in fact are not health insurance," Time reported. "They mistakenly click away from healthcare.gov, the website where people are supposed to sign up for ACA-compliant plans, and end up on a site with a misleading name."
ACA plans are required to cover 10 essential benefits, the outlet detailed, but consumers who leave the official website may instead sign up for short-term plans that don't span the full year, fixed indemnity plans that pay a small amount for certain services, or "healthcare sharing ministries, in which people pitch in for other peoples' medical costs, but which sometimes do not cover preexisting conditions."
Claire Heyison, senior policy analyst for health insurance and marketplace policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told Time that "there's no question that more people will end up with these kinds of plans if the premium tax credits are not extended."
According to the outlet:
These non-insurance products "have increasingly been marketed in ways that make them look similar to health insurance," Heyison says. To stir further confusion, some even deploy common insurance terms like PPO (preferred provider organization) or co-pay in their terms and conditions. But people will pay a price for using them, Heyison says, because they can charge higher premiums than ACA-compliant plans, deny coverage based on preexisting conditions, impose annual or lifetime limits on coverage, and exclude benefits like prescription drug coverage or maternity care.
Often, the websites where people end up buying non-ACA compliant insurance have the names and logos of insurers on them. Sometimes, they are lead-generation sites... that ask for a person's name and phone number and then share that information with brokers who get a commission for signing up people for plans, whether they are health insurance or not.
To avoid paying for misleading plans, Heyison advised spending a few days researching before buying anything, steering clear of companies that offer a gift for signing up, and asking for documents detailing coverage to review before payment.
On the heels of Time's reporting and the eve of open enrollment, Data for Progress and Groundwork Collaborative published polling that makes clear Americans across the political spectrum are worried about skyrocketing health insurance premiums.
The pollsters found that 75% of voters are "somewhat" or "very" concerned about the spikes, including 83% of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 66% of Republicans. While the overall figure was the same as last week, the share who said they were very concerned rose from 45% to 47%.
As the second-longest shutdown ever drags on, 57% of respondents said they don't believe that President Donald Trump and Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress are focused on lowering healthcare costs for people like them and their families. More broadly, 52% also did not agree that Trump and GOP lawmakers "are fighting on behalf of" people like them.
A plurality of voters (42%) said that Trump and congressional Republicans deserve most of the blame for rising premiums, while 27% blamed both parties equally, and just a quarter put most of the responsibility on elected Democrats.
"While President Trump focuses on the moodboard for his gilded ballroom and House Republicans refuse to show up for work in Washington, a ticking time bomb is strapped to working families’ pocketbooks," said Elizabeth Pancotti, Groundwork Collaborative's managing director of policy and advocacy, in a Friday statement.
Pointing to the Trump administration's legally dubious decision not to keep funding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during the shutdown, she added that "healthcare premiums are set to double and food assistance benefits are on the brink of collapse in a matter of hours, and voters know exactly who's to blame."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


