"Bi!!" > wrote in message
...
On Oct 28, 1:08 pm, DaleW > wrote:
> On Oct 27, 3:14 pm, "Borg Master" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "James Silverton" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > Anders wrote on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:55:45 +0200:
>
> > >> "Borg Master" > skrev i melding
> > ...
> > >>> 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. >
> > >> You cannot import anything to another country..., you export
> > >> to it...
> > >> :-) Anders
>
> > > 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.
>
> > Heavy metals can become a long term health risk if one drinks wine every
> > day, so it is safer and wise to skip the worse offenders.
> > B.M.
>
> 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—France, 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?"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
~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.
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/fo...-found-in-wine
"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
to WebMD."
So if a country has a lower contamination rate its seems sensible to
purchase wines overall from those countries.
http://www.decanter.com/news/wine-ne...se-health-risk
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."
Wise move!
B.M.