The Auswine Forum

It seems some wines from some countries may be hazardous to your health due to the amount of heavy metal ion contamination.
http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/620845.html
http://www.journal.chemistrycentral.com ... 2/abstract

Is anyone aware of any similar tests on Australian wine?

All these artciles, and there have been far more of them than the ones you have listed, are virtually a copy of the original press release. They almost all read exactly the same.

That makes me think that once again, we have sloppy journalism where papers insert any crap that is sent to them without checking what it is all about.

I seriously doubt if anyone has tested the varsity of these claims or the science behind the tests.

Just because its in the paper or on the net, does not make it true.

Ric, the second link is the actual research paper.... (link to the PDF is on that page).

Brian,

Let me think about for a second..... Now what is wine made from? Grapes.

So if the grapes have high concentrations of heavy metals, then surely it is not the only crop that has a problem.

What about all the other fruit and veg? What about the meat? Cows eat grass and that also has the ability to absorb minerals and metals out of the ground.

Industrial chickens are fed pellets that arfe partially made from grain. These grains should also contain those some metals.

If this report is true, the much of the food chain should suffer from the same problem.

If that is true, much of the world is then in the poo. If that's the case. then wine is the least of our worries.

So why hasn't a single journo that has reported on this asked these simple questions?

Well, yes, they haven't postulated the source of the heavy metal contamination and it could be widespread to other foods. But it doesn't necessarily come from the soil, it could be as bizarre as a particular brand of wine pump that releases the metals as it wears during use or water sources used for irrigation, the prevailing winds over the vineyards form nearby industry etc.

And much of the world is already in the poo, including Coogee Bay Hotel if you believe some people, but wine travels pretty widely and is consumed by people who are often otherwise careful about health issues.

That doesn't negate the research, only indicates a need for further research, or maybe people just don't want to know, it could be too scary, like the situation in China.

Red Bigot wrote:That doesn't negate the research, only indicates a need for further research, or maybe people just don't want to know, it could be too scary, like the situation in China.

Agreed mate.

One point about your proposed hypothesis on the possible causes.... Wines were tested from a number of countries.

OMG not the China Syndrome

Interesting subjetct Brian but I think I'd be more worried about any seafood you may eat when in Thailand?

Perhaps vineyard location may be a cause for concern if the vines are sitting on top on a potential lead mine.

Cheers

daz

Having had a quick look through the paper, two thoughts come to mind:

The "safe" threshold for heavy metals is defined as a THQ ratio of 1, based on what the environmental protection agency thinks is safe. However - the safe thresholds for many chemicals have not been adequately studied, so very safe margins are in place. If it transpires that many wines have very high THQs (over 200) from numerous countries, but the people who routinely drink that wine are not showing heavy metal poisoning, then perhaps the safe limit is simply wrong - empirically, it would appear that the wine is "safe" afterall.

Secondly, the study assesses levels of manganese, copper and vanadium - these are not good in very large quantities, but should not be confused as being like lead or mercury from a toxicology perspective - they are simply not that bad for you until you get to much higher doses - indeed, they are all an important part of the diet - we need these three metals for our normal physiology - unlike the elements we usually think of when we talk about "heavy metals".

And I couldn't let this go...

TORB wrote:I seriously doubt if anyone has tested the varsity of these claims...

veracity?

While not strictly on the subject of heavy metals in wine i have read in an old W.S.B.G. that some old wine in the late sixties or early seventies was fined with asbestos.... a metal/chemical that seems to have some nasty impacts when inhaled and i just wonder at the impact when ingested bon appetite
should it be necessary i will go back and find the issue and author as i have them shelved

If I recall my occ health lab days, there is no real substantiated problems with ingesting asbestos. Not that I recommend it!

Inhaling, of course, is certainly not a good idea. Indeed many winemakers succumbed to asbestosis when it was used as a filtration medium.

Heavy metals in wine.
Not as silly as it sounds.
There is some Copper (used to remove rotten egg gas) silver , Iron is always around (its stored in stainless steel for a start)
Copper is used to reduce powdery mildew.
The filter media do contain a bit of trace metals as well.
Now most of this is scavenged by yeast and very little remains...nothing to get the knickers in a knot anyway..but as a capacity to measure trace amounts gets better....we do find very low levels.

Theres probably heavy metals in antaartic ice to put in perspective!

BigBob wrote:If I recall my occ health lab days, there is no real substantiated problems with ingesting asbestos. Not that I recommend it!

Inhaling, of course, is certainly not a good idea. Indeed many winemakers succumbed to asbestosis when it was used as a filtration medium.

Actually, it can cause cancer wherever it lodges, including the gut.

Sorry, but that is wrong. There has been no conclusive study showing that ingestion of asbestos causes any serious issues. There have been studies showing some linkages, but these have been criticised for faulty methodology.

It's not something I would recommend, but the studies show it is way down the list of things that cause issues.

smithy wrote:8) Heavy metals in wine.
Not as silly as it sounds.
There is some Copper (used to remove rotten egg gas) silver , Iron is always around (its stored in stainless steel for a start)
Copper is used to reduce powdery mildew.
The filter media do contain a bit of trace metals as well.
Now most of this is scavenged by yeast and very little remains...nothing to get the knickers in a knot anyway..but as a capacity to measure trace amounts gets better....we do find very low levels.

Theres probably heavy metals in antaartic ice to put in perspective!

Stainless could be a source of chromium, nickel and vanadium as well.

BigBob wrote:Sorry, but that is wrong. There has been no conclusive study showing that ingestion of asbestos causes any serious issues. There have been studies showing some linkages, but these have been criticised for faulty methodology.

It's not something I would recommend, but the studies show it is way down the list of things that cause issues.

Really BigBob. You need to write to my patients then and inform them that they have the incorrect diagnosis and are not dying of asbestos induced cancer of the gut.

But then why believe me:-

4.2 Peritoneal mesothelioma
Around the outside of the coils of intestine and also lining the abdominal cavity is a membrane (the peritoneum), similar in character and thickness to the pleura. It is similar tissue to the pleura and, like it, can give rise to a malignant tumour called peritoneal mesothelioma.

Peritoneal mesotheliomas are associated with occupational, para-occupational and other inhalation, and possible ingestion of, asbestos fibres. Their incidence is less than that of pleural mesothelioma (about 10% of mesotheliomas are in the peritoneum). Opinion is not unanimous as to a relationship with any particular type of asbestos. Crocidolite would appear to be the most potent, but some views have been expressed that chrysotile may tend to produce peritoneal mesothelioma and crocidolite the pleural tumours.
Quoted from the Absestos Diseases Society of Australia website

Davo wrote:

BigBob wrote:Sorry, but that is wrong. There has been no conclusive study showing that ingestion of asbestos causes any serious issues. There have been studies showing some linkages, but these have been criticised for faulty methodology.

It's not something I would recommend, but the studies show it is way down the list of things that cause issues.

Really BigBob. You need to write to my patients then and inform them that they have the incorrect diagnosis and are not dying of asbestos induced cancer of the gut.

But then why believe me:-

4.2 Peritoneal mesothelioma
Around the outside of the coils of intestine and also lining the abdominal cavity is a membrane (the peritoneum), similar in character and thickness to the pleura. It is similar tissue to the pleura and, like it, can give rise to a malignant tumour called peritoneal mesothelioma.

Peritoneal mesotheliomas are associated with occupational, para-occupational and other inhalation, and possible ingestion of, asbestos fibres. Their incidence is less than that of pleural mesothelioma (about 10% of mesotheliomas are in the peritoneum). Opinion is not unanimous as to a relationship with any particular type of asbestos. Crocidolite would appear to be the most potent, but some views have been expressed that chrysotile may tend to produce peritoneal mesothelioma and crocidolite the pleural tumours.
Quoted from the Absestos Diseases Society of Australia website

You win, your sources are better than mine. Interesting stuff.

My source (online admittedly) is this paper:

Report on cancer risks associated with the ingestion of asbestos. DHHS Committee to Coordinate Environmental and Related Programs.


"Abstract

This report is an assessment of all available literature that pertains to the potential risk of cancer associated with ingestion of asbestos. It was compiled by a working group to assist policy makers in the Department of Health and Human Services determine if adequate information was available for a definitive risk assessment on this potential problem and evaluate if the weight of evidence was sufficient to prioritize this issue for new policy recommendations. The work group considered the basis for concern over this problem, the body of toxicology experiments, the individual epidemiologic studies which have attempted to investigate this issue, and the articles that discuss components of risk assessment pertaining to the ingestion of asbestos. In the report, the work group concluded: that no direct, definitive risk assessment can be conducted at this time; that further epidemiologic investigations will be very costly and only possess sufficient statistical power to detect relatively large excesses in cancers related to asbestos ingestion; and that probably the most pertinent toxicologic experiments relate to resolving the differences in how inhaled asbestos, which is eventually swallowed, is biologically processed by humans, compared to how ingested asbestos is processed. The work group believes that the cancer risk associated with asbestos ingestion should not be perceived as one of the most pressing potential public health hazards facing the nation. However, the work group does not believe that information was sufficient to assess the level of cancer risk associated with the ingestion and therefore, this potential hazard should not be discounted, and ingestion exposure to asbestos should be eliminated whenever possible."

Paper is from 87 - which coincidentally was about the time I had an involvement in occ health testing.

I'll bow to your superior current knowledge and experience though.

Plenty of other papers around on the net re peritoneal mesothelioma and ingested asbestos, I just grabbed the most readily available.

Don't eat molluscs or crustaceans, seafood of any kind and you'll reduce your exposure to heavy metals. An additional measure would be to make sure you have a sealed battery in your automobile so you (or your mechanic who may breathe heavy metals in your presence) don't need to top it up.

Don't eat anything, don't breathe - stay out of the sun, no wait - get in the sun for your bones, eat eggs, don't eat eggs..... I could go on.
I would prefer to die at 80 and be happy than "live" to 100 being scared of my shadow for fear it will give me cancer.....

Anyway - might add a new dimension to wines "this ballsy shiraz has rich cherry flavours, punctuated with chocolate and cadmium...."

Lee

big bob and davo. finalists in this years "who is the most right" awards

who will win the trophy???

Bick wrote:And I couldn't let this go...

TORB wrote:I seriously doubt if anyone has tested the varsity of these claims...

veracity?

Bick, I don't doubt a word you say in the first part, but I think you must be a stronger braver man than I, to tweak TORB's nose like that.

Lee Drury wrote:Don't eat anything, don't breathe - stay out of the sun, no wait - get in the sun for your bones, eat eggs, don't eat eggs..... I could go on.
I would prefer to die at 80 and be happy than "live" to 100 being scared of my shadow for fear it will give me cancer.....

Anyway - might add a new dimension to wines "this ballsy shiraz has rich cherry flavours, punctuated with chocolate and cadmium...."

Lee

Lee, there is a reputable study that indeed suggests that spending more than 2 hours a day in one's own shadow increases the risk of cancer by 54.2%, but it is the shadow that is at risk, apparently, and no doubt it can be removed.

I'm with you on this one, according to current fashions I spend too long in the sun, drink too much, and eat too much meat and fat. I at least exercise a lot, because it makes me feel happier (as do the eating, drinking, and getting out in the sun).

Don't you know that 61.3% of all statistics are statistically meaningless....

Don't you know that 61.3% of all statistics are statistically meaningless....

pfft. you are quoting from a 1989 study??? Get up with the play. According to the latest journals you will find 62.5% of all statristics are meaningless.

I'm here for a good time, not a long time.

Craig(NZ) wrote:

Don't you know that 61.3% of all statistics are statistically meaningless....

pfft. you are quoting from a 1989 study??? Get up with the play. According to the latest journals you will find 62.5% of all statristics are meaningless.

That is probably well within the confidence interval. Would need to know the sample size to be certain though

cheers

Carl