jamie goode's wine blog: Pesticides in wine: a problem?

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Pesticides in wine: a problem?

The recent press release (here) by Pesticide Action Network (PAN) makes for rather alarming reading. Titled Message in a bottle, it reports the results of tests on 40 bottles of wine purchased within the European Union. ‘European wines systematically contaminated with pesticide residues’, is the conclusion. The report comments: ‘Together the 34 bottles of conventional wine contained 148 pesticide residues. All 34 bottles contained at least one pesticide, while the mean number of pesticides per bottle was more than four. The highest number of residues found in a single bottle was 10.’ Does this mean wine drinkers are in danger, and that there is a systematic failure by regulatory bodies to do the appropriate monitoring?
Anxious to get to the bottom of all this, I did a bit of research on the pesticides involved and the concentrations that were found in the wine... read more on this

Labels: ,

8 Comments:

At 1:32 PM, Anonymous keith prothero said...

Thanks for putting this into perspective Jamie. Although we are primarily organic farmers,there is no question,that a lot of rubbish is written about the dangers of chemicals used in winemaking.
To me the wines often taste better,which is why we prefer organic winemaking

 
At 3:18 PM, Anonymous Morton Leslie said...

The PAN Europe study is a political document, not a scientific one relating to human health. Otherwise they would have tested for copper sulfate residue.
CuSO4 has been a concern in Europe and the subject of considerable study. With an LD50 of 1mg per liter for fish and 30 mg. per kg. for rats and a history of vineyardists showing liver disease after years of exposure to it, you would think PAN would have shown some interest. Particularly since we know Copper has a role in supporting cancerous tumor growth, copper sulfate residue has been linked to heart disease, linked to anemia, is mutagenic, kills bees and is highly corrosive. We know the EPA sets a 1 part per million limit for drinking water, but European finished wine has been shown to have more than 10 times the EPA limit.

Yet the pesticide police didn't test for it because they knew what the results would be on "organic" wines. Can't bite the hand that feeds you.

It is interesting to compare CuSO4 toxicity to Dimethomorph's LD50 of 3900 mg. per kg. in rats and 10 mg/liter with fish. The fact that it is not mutagenic, not carcinogenic, has not been associated with heart disease or to be toxic to bees.

 
At 11:51 PM, Anonymous Doug said...

PAN Europe studies the incidence of pesticides in food and wine and the impact of organophosphates on the environment and people. In this particular document they are not concerned with copper sulphate residue, which is not to say that it is not part of their overall remit. They are not one group with one agenda but a confederation of 600 organisations throughout the world dedicated to the promotion of sustainable farming and monitoring public health. In fact they often use and analyse government data. If you read beyond the headlines, their conclusions are extremely reasonable. They make no claim in their press release about the actual harm of pesticide residues to humans, but note that there has been a considerable increase in the use of pesticides in the EU in the last few years. If you're happy that to know that vines are sprayed with a cocktail of chemicals, then you won't be concerned by this; if you believe that it is wrong to contaminate the environment when more thoughtful and ethical solutions could be found you will find this more disturbing. I have to say that if you put chemicals into the soil you are bound to disrupt the eco-system - these are toxins designed to eliminate pests. I have seen too many vineyards where there are no flowers, no plants, no bugs or worms, no life whatsoever, just a monoculture of vines.

Back to the original article I think it is bad science to misinterpret its conclusions. The study is legitimate and states that it should not "be taken as providing a comprehensive overview"; it gives the measurements of contamination but does not assert that consumption of these residues are injurious to human health. However, it does indicate what goes in the vineyards in the name of industrial agriculture. None of this obviates the interesting point about copper sulphate residues - whatever is injurious to the environment and human beings should first be publicised, then targeted and eventually eliminated.

 
At 7:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If this study is a serious scientific document and not a political one, why does it not include any permittet residue levels and the relations?

Of course it´s a legitimate interest of PAN to point at the agrocemicals, but it´s a question of credibility not to show only the contents found but also the values that are tolerated by EC and WHO after serious scientific tests.

Without doing this PAN has to live with the allegation that they are more interested in headlines than in serious scientific work.

It´s a little bit like talking about vineyards without any flowers, bugs, plants and worms without talking about the other reasons (wrong soil management etc.) that may be responsible for that.

 
At 11:49 PM, Anonymous Doug said...

I have to take issue with the last comment. If you read the document carefully there are no sensationalist, headline-seeking claims; PAN simply examined a particular range of agrochemicals present in a sample selection of wines. The terminology in the report is measured; results are presented, rather than skewed to fit an agenda. They do not even mention the health implications of finding a cocktail of up to ten pesticide residues in a single bottle of wine. Why? Precisely, because it would be unscientific to draw definitive conclusions from this particular research.

The remark about the "pesticide police" is also misleading. Police implies a dedicated official body; PAN fulfils a wide variety of functions amongst its loosely affiliated groups around the world (which includes health councils, consumer bodies and organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth). There is no question of "biting the hand that feeds them". As with many organisations staffed by concerned people the main objective is to research, disseminate information and give advice to the best of their ability.

They do point out quite rightly that farming practice is changing with greater reliance than ever on synthetic pesticides.

No-one has answered the overarching question why it is considered sound practice to spray vines with contaminating chemicals. It is an invasive procedure, harming the eco-system and weakening the health of the vines. PAN proposes a "reasoned approach" - what the French call lutte raisonnee - to agriculture.

Rather than taking PAN to task for things they didn't say I think we should call for closer scrutiny on the agrochemicals industry, which as a lobby has massive political clout, and the most obvious agenda of all: profit.

 
At 11:49 PM, Anonymous Doug said...

I have to take issue with the last comment. If you read the document carefully there are no sensationalist, headline-seeking claims; PAN simply examined a particular range of agrochemicals present in a sample selection of wines. The terminology in the report is measured; results are presented, rather than skewed to fit an agenda. They do not even mention the health implications of finding a cocktail of up to ten pesticide residues in a single bottle of wine. Why? Precisely, because it would be unscientific to draw definitive conclusions from this particular research.

The remark about the "pesticide police" is also misleading. Police implies a dedicated official body; PAN fulfils a wide variety of functions amongst its loosely affiliated groups around the world (which includes health councils, consumer bodies and organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth). There is no question of "biting the hand that feeds them". As with many organisations staffed by concerned people the main objective is to research, disseminate information and give advice to the best of their ability.

They do point out quite rightly that farming practice is changing with greater reliance than ever on synthetic pesticides.

No-one has answered the overarching question why it is considered sound practice to spray vines with contaminating chemicals. It is an invasive procedure, harming the eco-system and weakening the health of the vines. PAN proposes a "reasoned approach" - what the French call lutte raisonnee - to agriculture.

Rather than taking PAN to task for things they didn't say I think we should call for closer scrutiny on the agrochemicals industry, which as a lobby has massive political clout, and the most obvious agenda of all: profit.

 
At 7:45 PM, Anonymous S Andrews said...

Organic all the way!! Simply, they taste better and with out all the un-nessasary pesticides.

 
At 4:06 PM, Anonymous Fabius said...

Very interesting post. As a producer of organic wine and as a grower of organic grapes I'm obviously against the use of systemic chemicals both in the winery and in the vineyard. Even if the levels of pesticides in the wine are very low and "safe" what about the run-off that ends up in the groundwater, rivers and eventually the seas.
Common sense, please, everybody. The only reason that these chemicals are used is obviously for economic profit-seeking. It costs a lot less to grow grapes and make wine 'industro-chemically' than to actually respect the environment and use skill and knowledge to make interesting, complex, heathful and tasty wines.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home