Over the last few weeks, there have been reports of a lawsuit where BeverageGrades has found that many California wine producers are distributing wine containing elevated levels of arsenic. Here is the list of the wines included in the lawsuit. The question is, should we be afraid of the health risks associated with Arsenic poisoning and should we avoid drinking California wine all together?
This is definitely concerning considering that some of our favorite inexpensive wine producers are on the defense such as Charles Shaw, Beringer, Cupcake, Franzia and even wines that we recommended for our Guide to Rose back in February. So how did arsenic get into the wine? The Plantiffs’ attorneys are not sure how arsenic got into the wine, but believe it is from the use of clarifying agents and use of pesticides over the years, and California has elevated levels of arsenic in the soil compared to other states in the U.S. Currently the FDA allows 10 parts per a billion of arsenic in 1 liter of water. There are wines that are coming out at over 500 percent over the legal limit, if this was in water; however, there is no law mandating how much arsenic can be in wine in the U.S. In Canada, the legal limit for wine containing arsenic is 100 parts per a billion and in parts of Europe it is 200 parts per a billion. Some of the wines found contained well over either of these legal wine limits.
http://grapeencountersradio.com/podcast/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Arsen…
We have negative connotations associated with arsenic because we know it as rat poison, and is definitely dangerous for us, as it is a known carcinogen with serious health risks. Arsenic is an inorganic compound present in soil all over the world. There are trace amounts of arsenic in the water we drink and the food we eat, but not at concentrated levels like there are in wine. The Wine institute has come out and stated that these allegations are “false and misleading,” and that California wine is safe for consumption. The consumption of concentrated Arsenic wine can have a negative health impact on the people and this lawsuit could have a major impact on California wine sales and consumption.
What we recommend.
We recommend awareness and moderation. We are a generation fueled by environmentalism and organic farming. We should let friends and family be aware, especially if they indulge in too much Two-Buck Chuck. There are other options out there, and everything is okay in moderation. It is difficult to accept the response from the wine institute that “there is no research that shows that the amounts found in wine pose a health risk to consumers,” and this is justifiable to mean that it is safe. It is justifiable for them to protect their biggest clients interests, but isn’t there a point where corporate greed is enough and the safety of the population is a greater need? There are organic, also known as biodynamic in the wine world, options out there. These wines may cost you more, but in theory, will be safer since pesticides are not used. Moderation is also key in consuming wine, consuming alcohol daily will most likely have more adverse effects than the arsenic in the wine, but that is now the new question that judges, lawmakers and scientists will have to figure out.
http://www.ourquadcities.com/media/lib/57/6/7/6/676f0e23-e16f-4fea-be9b-…
Wine is an experience-meant to be shared with others.