Seems as though some wines now have high levels of arsenic and,,,

In California, businesses are required to alert consumers if a product
contains €œa 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.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
Seems as though some wines now have high levels of arsenic and,,,


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.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...296946211.html

On 3/20/2015 12:26 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
Seems as though some wines now have high levels of arsenic and,,,


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.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...296946211.html


Regardless of cost, 28 California wineries are defendants and I would
say much more cheap wine is sold and consumed that more expensive wine.

http://www.laweekly.com/restaurants/...rsenic-5444149

On 03/20/2015 10:34 AM, Leon wrote:
On 3/20/2015 12:26 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
Seems as though some wines now have high levels of arsenic and,,,


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.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...296946211.html



Regardless of cost, 28 California wineries are defendants and I would
say much more cheap wine is sold and consumed that more expensive wine.

http://www.laweekly.com/restaurants/...rsenic-5444149

We're all doomed!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&u act=8&ved=0CDQQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.livescien ce.com%2F41504-wine-and-beer-arsenic.html&ei=gWEMVY_gAdPaoATmioCADA&usg=AFQjCNG 6jh2vHDz_EJ3NhkMO5dzrGOZG9Q&sig2=lqLrY1ByIh9danFiD Ko4Qw&bvm=bv.89060397,d.cGU


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 1:07:38 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
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.

Hi! My name is Franzia and I'm an arsenicholic.

1 - We admitted we were powerless over arsenic -- that our Moscato had become unmanageable.

Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 03/20/2015 10:34 AM, Leon wrote:
On 3/20/2015 12:26 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
Seems as though some wines now have high levels of arsenic and,,,


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.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...296946211.html



Regardless of cost, 28 California wineries are defendants and I would
say much more cheap wine is sold and consumed that more expensive wine.

http://www.laweekly.com/restaurants/...rsenic-5444149

We're all doomed!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&u act=8&ved=0CDQQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.livescien ce.com%2F41504-wine-and-beer-arsenic.html&ei=gWEMVY_gAdPaoATmioCADA&usg=AFQjCNG 6jh2vHDz_EJ3NhkMO5dzrGOZG9Q&sig2=lqLrY1ByIh9danFiD Ko4Qw&bvm=bv.89060397,d.cGU


If you store the cheap wine in a crystal decanter, the lead from the
glass will replace the arsenic.

--
 GW Ross 

 People who live in stone houses 
 shouldn't throw glasses. 

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

Seems as though some wines now have high levels of arsenic and,,,

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

On 3/20/2015 2:25 PM, G. Ross wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 03/20/2015 10:34 AM, Leon wrote:
On 3/20/2015 12:26 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
Seems as though some wines now have high levels of arsenic and,,,


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.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...296946211.html




Regardless of cost, 28 California wineries are defendants and I would
say much more cheap wine is sold and consumed that more expensive wine.

http://www.laweekly.com/restaurants/...rsenic-5444149


We're all doomed!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&u act=8&ved=0CDQQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.livescien ce.com%2F41504-wine-and-beer-arsenic.html&ei=gWEMVY_gAdPaoATmioCADA&usg=AFQjCNG 6jh2vHDz_EJ3NhkMO5dzrGOZG9Q&sig2=lqLrY1ByIh9danFiD Ko4Qw&bvm=bv.89060397,d.cGU



If you store the cheap wine in a crystal decanter, the lead from the
glass will replace the arsenic.


Good Thank'n!