Instead of the adage "life's too short to drink cheap wine," the new mantra should be "life's too health conscious to drink cheap wine." According to CBSNews.com, a class action lawsuit has been filed against two dozen California wine makers claiming their wine has high levels of arsenic. Cheaper wines from grapes grown in the Central Valley of California are the issue. The vines have been irrigated with water containing arsenic which passes through the plant to the grapes and ends up in the wine like Trader Joe's Two Buck Chuck.
Kevin Hicks, attorney for the "class," claims some inexpensive wines contain up to five times the arsenic level the Environmental Protection Agency permits in drinking water. In testing over 1300 bottles of wine of all types and price ranges, only 83 demonstrated high levels of arsenic. Of course if your wine happens to be in that cache of 83 bottles your level of concern is higher, isn't it?
The brands being sued respond that the claims are misleading and that Hicks has a conflict of interest. His company is involved in wine testing for quality. The Wine Group suggest permissible arsenic levels in water reflect the greater quantity of water we drink, ergo wine can have higher levels of arsenic since we drink less wine.
I don't think that argument "holds water." How do they know how much wine I drink? How little water I consume? How much chicken I eat with my wine, which also is said to contain high levels of arsenic. Even rice and it's by-products add to my arsenic consumption. I don't want to have to buy more expensive Napa Valley wine but I don't want arsenic in my two dollar (now three dollars) bottle of Zinfandel. Why not? It's not enough arsenic to kill you... But arsenic is a carcinogen. You don't smoke, use sunscreens, avoid air pollution...now you can't even have a glass of wine without worrying about cancer!
Life's too short to drink wine laced with arsenic.
Kevin Hicks, attorney for the "class," claims some inexpensive wines contain up to five times the arsenic level the Environmental Protection Agency permits in drinking water. In testing over 1300 bottles of wine of all types and price ranges, only 83 demonstrated high levels of arsenic. Of course if your wine happens to be in that cache of 83 bottles your level of concern is higher, isn't it?
The brands being sued respond that the claims are misleading and that Hicks has a conflict of interest. His company is involved in wine testing for quality. The Wine Group suggest permissible arsenic levels in water reflect the greater quantity of water we drink, ergo wine can have higher levels of arsenic since we drink less wine.
I don't think that argument "holds water." How do they know how much wine I drink? How little water I consume? How much chicken I eat with my wine, which also is said to contain high levels of arsenic. Even rice and it's by-products add to my arsenic consumption. I don't want to have to buy more expensive Napa Valley wine but I don't want arsenic in my two dollar (now three dollars) bottle of Zinfandel. Why not? It's not enough arsenic to kill you... But arsenic is a carcinogen. You don't smoke, use sunscreens, avoid air pollution...now you can't even have a glass of wine without worrying about cancer!
Life's too short to drink wine laced with arsenic.
No comments:
Post a Comment