Seems as though some wines now have high levels of arsenic and,,,
In California, businesses are required to alert consumers if a product contains ?a chemical known to the state to cause cancer.? The lawsuit, which was filed in Los Angeles Superior court, seeks unspecified damages and a court order requiring wineries to address the arsenic levels in their products.
Now what are they going to do, I think that was a prize export.
Not sure how the actual facts of the case jibe with your subject line. This suit was filed by four people looking for a class action payout. It has nothing to do with the state of California other than being the venue for the lawsuit.
As the plaintiffs are targetting cheap wines (e.g. two buck chuck); the premier california wines (cabernets, merlots, sirrahs, Chards) are uneffected.
Regardless of cost, 28 California wineries are defendants and I would say much more cheap wine is sold and consumed that more expensive wine.
Hi! My name is Franzia and I'm an arsenicholic.
1 - We admitted we were powerless over arsenic -- that our Moscato had become unmanageable.Leon wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:
Depends on your definition of "high levels". There is no standard in the US for arsenic in wine, but there is one for water - the wines in question tested at
3 to 4 times the allowable level.But, there is a standard for arsenic in wine in Canada. The wines in question are less than 1/2 the allowable level by that standard.
So, high by one standard, low by another...
John
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.