Arsenic?

Ok, I'll be the one to broach the subject. What do you folks think about the lawsuit regarding high levels of arsenic in cheap California wines. The stories I have seen seem to think it will be a huge blow to the whole California wine business...especially with the export business.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/w ... cid=HPCDHP

Glenn

[David M. Bueker]

Frivolous.

Arsenic is a relatively abundant element in the Earth's crust. This is a lawsuit looking for a problem.

I agree that the lawsuit is bonkers. I also see a big media hullabaloo coming up.

arsenic also found in brown rice but that doesn't make for as juicy a headline..or lawsuit..as finding it in Franzia wines (deep pockets) and other wines..I suspect if you analyze enough things deeply enough, most of them will have some levels of arsenic..Have not seen any documented illnesses or deaths arising from the arsenic levels in wine as yet.

[Robin Garr]

Alder Yarrow does a fine job of taking this one down. Its source is a company that profits from ... analyzing and finding trace elements in wine!

http://www.vinography.com/archives/2015 ... t_ars.html

[Robin Garr]

Here's a list of the 83 wines purportedly found to have high arsenic levels (although what the FDA considers "high" in wine it considers "normal" in fruit juice, curiously, raising memories of the regulators' selective use of trigger levels for sulfites.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/ ... s-29798211

Initially upon seeing this I thought, "Hmm, horrifying cheap industrial wineries put in nasty additives."

But a seemingly knowledgable comment on Vinography suggests that the testing company only checked these wines. Perhaps constrained by costs, they simply didn't test the fancier stuff.

[David M. Bueker]

Even with industrial wineries, I sort of hesitate to even think they would add something with arsenic. I know you have the patent on big business cynicism, but that's a pretty tough thought.

I would just like to mention re: the gentleman who chimed in with the knee-jerk populist inference that "the Media will now do bad things" (since we're all one body and act in lockstep), my own network (IHeartMedia, formerly Clear Channel) has taken great pains when airing this story to remind people of the difference between organic and inorganic arsenic, and how this was an issue several years ago when confusion between the two (courtesy of a particularly loathsome and profiteering television doctor celebrity) wreaked havoc for a while in the apple industry.

We're not all FOX, you know.

Arsenic in its pure form is a silver gray brittle metal, even though it is one of the few elements that can be found naturally in its “pure form”, we as humans are not generally exposed to arsenic in its pure form. Usually we as humans are exposed to arsenic when it is combined with other chemical elements or compounds (in our water, foods. and the air we breathe). The inorganic types of arsenic are the most harmful and toxic to humans, the organic types of arsenic (those usually found in water and other foods) are less harmful and toxic to humans.

CBS actually had four of the wines retested (different “batch” or “vintage”) that BeverageGrade tested and found that the arsenic levels were lower than what BeverageGrade reported. (One actually came in below what is allowed in water).

Salute

Here's a list of the 83 wines purportedly found to have high arsenic levels (although what the FDA considers "high" in wine it considers "normal" in fruit juice, curiously, raising memories of the regulators' selective use of trigger levels for sulfites.

.

Robin - I haven't been able to find any info on what the FDA considers to be a high level of arsenic in wine,. Is there a regulatory limit?

I think it's worth pointing out that "up to 4 and 5 times" the legal limit for drinking water means 40 to 50 parts per billion arsenic. Up until recently (2006, I think) it was OK for water systems to deliver 50 ppb, then the limit dropped to 10 ppb. It's a problem particularly in well water, particularly in the western US. I know of local neighborhood water systems that spent a lot of money complying, their 12 ppb water going from just fine to just out of compliance with the rule change.

So the "worst" wines here would have met drinking water limits a decade ago. For obvious reasons, it's crazy to apply drinking water standards to wine. A few years ago there was a similar scare about fruit juices, in particular apple and grape. At least in that case you could argue that some kids drink a lot of apple juice. This "story" is IMHO 99% scaremongering.

[Robin Garr]

Even with industrial wineries, I sort of hesitate to even think they would add something with arsenic. I know you have the patent on big business cynicism, but that's a pretty tough thought.

If that's a response to my post, David, you may not have read it closely (or I expressed myself fuzzily). My point was that the released list of wines that purportedly failed the arsenic test consisted mostly (entirely?) of cheap industrial wine. My initial reaction was, "aha, cheap industrial crap!" But then a commenter on Alder's blog indicated that they tested only cheap industrial crap, so the pricey blends simply weren't part of the survey universe. Which in itself was questionable because it appears that the flap was generated by a firm that sells arsenic-testing services.

Hi all,

I hope this adds a bit of clarity;

Wine Institute Fact Sheet on Arsenic



Mar 20, 2015



FACT SHEET


Wine Institute is the association of 1,000 California wineries. In recent days, unfounded litigation has raised questions about the safety of California wine. We want to assure you that the health and safety of consumers is of the greatest importance to our wineries and that the wine produced by our members is perfectly safe.
•The lawsuit claims that certain wines contain unsafe levels of arsenic based on the limit set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for drinking water – 10 parts per billion (ppb). However there is no scientific basis for applying the EPA drinking water standard to wine.
•The U.S. government has not published a limit for arsenic in wine but several countries including Canada, the EU, and Japan have set limits ranging from 100ppb up to 1000ppb – 10 to 100 times the level the EPA determined to be safe for drinking water.
•When the U.S. government considers limits for arsenic in food and beverages, they take into account how much of that food or beverage an average person may consume in a day and the age of people who likely consume that food/beverage. Daily intake levels for water are significantly higher than for wine.
•The risks from potential exposure to arsenic in wine are lower than the risks the EPA considers safe for drinking water. For perspective, eight 8-ounce glasses of water a day is the recommended daily amount, whereas one to two 5-ounce glasses of wine a day is defined as moderate wine consumption according to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines.
•Arsenic is prevalent in the natural environment in air, soil and water and food. As an agricultural product, wines from throughout the world contain trace amounts of arsenic as do juices, vegetables, grains and other alcohol beverages and this is nothing new.
•The U.S. government, both TTB and FDA as part of its Total Diet Study, regularly tests wines for harmful compounds including arsenic as does Canada and the European Union to ensure that wine is safe to consume.

Contact: Communications@wineinstitute.org

[David M. Bueker]

Robin,

I was referring to your statement as follows:

"Initiallly upon seeing this I thought, "Hmm, horrifying cheap industrial wineries put in nasty additives."

That is not very fuzzy.

[Robin Garr]

Robin,

I was referring to your statement as follows:

"Initiallly upon seeing this I thought, "Hmm, horrifying cheap industrial wineries put in nasty additives."

That is not very fuzzy.

Seriously, David? But how about the paragraph that immediately follows, where I took back my "initial" impression?

But a seemingly knowledgable comment on Vinography suggests that the testing company only checked these wines. Perhaps constrained by costs, they simply didn't test the fancier stuff.

[David M. Bueker]

Doesn't change your base reaction which inevitably is the "real" one. Let's face it, it's been clear for a number of years that you have the pitchfork and torches out for any and all corporations. While I generally agree with you, it is becoming a bit of a meme.

[Robin Garr]

Doesn't change your base reaction which inevitably is the "real" one. Let's face it, it's been clear for a number of years that you have the pitchfork and torches out for any and all corporations. While I generally agree with you, it is becoming a bit of a meme.

David, I'm having a hard time seeing how this advances the arsenic discussion. With your permission, I'll leave this up for now. but ( plan to delete this sub-thread before I link the arsenic conversation to the outside world in Friday's Wine Advisor.

[David M. Bueker]

So you are going to eliminate disagreement so you can post a clean version of a story that is already highly questionable?

Let's just say that I don't give my permission and leave it at that.

[Robin Garr]

So you are going to eliminate disagreement so you can post a clean version of a story that is already highly questionable?

Let's just say that I don't give my permission and leave it at that.

Just to clarify, and then I will shut up:

1. Fair enough. Lacking your permission, I won't delete.

2. However, I won't link to it either. I'm not going to publicize this forum to outsiders via a thread in which anyone is acting like an AH. (That could be me, but I don't think so.)

3. It's not my intention to hold up this stupid story as truth. But if you could see my mailbox, you'd understand that sharing Alder's report around (and to a lesser extent, the response from Wine Institute, recognizing that it's an industry association with an ax to grind) is worth doing.

So, I'll write it. I just won't link to the forum, and that's too bad.

Thomas's post of fact sheet sums up all of my opinions!

TomNJ, off topic, but I have to say IMHO switching from Clear Channel to IHeartMedia does not seem to me to be a brilliant marketing/branding move!

TomNJ, off topic, but I have to say IMHO switching from Clear Channel to IHeartMedia does not seem to me to be a brilliant marketing/branding move!

You can only imagine how often I've heard that exact sentence since the switch was announced - often coming out of my own mouth (out of earshot of the evil ant overlords, of course). They did offer some kind of rationale, along the lines of "all our different companies have different names, so we're not getting the benefits of branding". Since their streaming radio and concert service was named "I Heart Radio", and they figured everyone knew that as their main brand, they would bring the entire network into the fold.

But, yeah. Doesn't exactly flow as trippingly off the tongue as "Clear Channel", does it. Amazing what can happen when corporate minds get together....