Seen in passing:
Safe Metal Levels in Wines From Italy, Brazil, Argentina
Wines from three of the 15 nations studied had safe levels of heavy metals:
Italy, Brazil, and Argentina.
Based on the maximum THQs for wines from each nation, here's the list of the
i.. Czech Republic
Hungary and Slovakia had maximum potential THQ values over 350. France,
Austria, Spain, Germany, and Portugal -- nations that import large
quantities of wine to the U.S. -- had maximum potential THQ values over 100.
Anders wrote on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:55:45 +0200:
Justified grammatical quibbles aside :-), I think I will be staying away
from Old World Wines. You can do very well and save a lot of money by
drinking US, Argentinian, Chilean, New Zealand and Australian wines.
On Oct 26, 4:42=A0pm, "James Silverton"
Not exactly a study that merits any decision making. If article below
is correct, they studied 16 wines- one from each country, with no clue
how wine was chosen.
As noted, they used a standard developed for seafood, which may or may
not be applicable to wine. As since they didn't test US, Chilean, NZ,
or Australia, using this study to determine where to drink from is a
But how are you determining worst offenders? From this report
( published in an "online journal", not sure if peer reviewed) There's
no clue WHAT wines were studied. Maybe one wine from Italy is free,
but another loaded. And since the study totally ignored US, NZ, Au,
are you making assumption they're somehow free- without any results?
The article I quoted had comments from someone who actually tests wine
for metals for the LCBO:
"We buy wines from Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic, as well
as the usual suspects from the Old World=97France, Italy, Greece," said
Soleas, who has degrees in clinical biochemistry and enology. "We buy
from 68 countries, and rarely find dangerously high levels of metals.
Maybe if we find arsenic with lead, then it's due to the use of the
two in combination in the 1980s and '90s when it was an approved
fungicide. You still get remnants of it, but it hasn't been used for
10 to 15 years. It's rare and we reject it."
Soleas said he found the study results to be "wishy-washy" based on
his experience testing wines for heavy metals and expressed
disappointment in both the way the results were published and the
extended coverage in the press. The levels of heavy metals the
scientists found, he added, are actually lower than what is allowable
in tested water reservoirs across the western world.
"Drinking water is sometimes higher in metals than these wines,"
Soleas said. "I'm not trying to minimize the fact that contaminants
get into wine, but they are targeting the wrong contaminants. Most
people will drink two glass of wine a night, but eight glasses of
water per day, and if they take a multivitamin tablet they get two
milligrams of manganese on top of that, so how is the metal obtained
from wine going to kill anyone?"
~This is why I still love reading AFW. So many folks with a real
~passion for and the skills set to debunk myths and innuendo.
I say it's still worth considering, it's the accumulative effect over many
years that can cause the problems.
Parkinson's disease, cancer, etc.
"If you buy a bottle of wine, the only thing it tells you on the label is
the amount of alcohol. I like the idea of labeling wines with the amounts of
heavy metals they contain. Many wines don't have these metals. So let
customers vote by choice whether they want the heavy metals", Naughton said
So if a country has a lower contamination rate its seems sensible to
purchase wines overall from those countries.
And sensibly...."Professor Declan Naughton, co-author of the report, called
for consumers to be made aware of the risks. ‘Levels of metal ions should
appear on wine labels,’ he said, ‘along with the introduction of further
steps to remove key hazardous metal ions during wine production."