http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/...any-Wines.html

David Christainsen

On Jan 7, 12:40*pm, Dave > wrote:
> http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/...vy-Metals-Foun...
>
> David Christainsen

Fortunately you can read the complete article in this case. The
authors seem to be using the experimental data of others to evaluate a
very crude index that, if exceeded, may indicate some health concern.
However there seems to be no consideration of in what compounds and
in what valence state the heavy metals exist in wine. To take one
extreme example, mercury exists commonly in 2 valence states in
compounds. In one valence state, you do not have extremely high
toxicity, although one of the more effective laxatives used in the
earlier days of medicine was a mercury compound. In another common
valence state, mercury is extremely toxic and can even result in a
very painful death. Also some metals combine with organic materials,
and the toxicity of these can be greater or lower than that of ionic
solutions of metal compounds. Thus, to evaluate the importance of
trace metals in wine or other drinks or foods, one needs to do
detailed studies to determine what valence state the metal is in, if
present in ionic water soluble compounds, and any organic compounds
containing trace metals need to be detected, and if new compounds are
detected, the toxity vs concentration of these need to be determined.
Only then can one determine which metals in wine may be of concern.

Some crude oils contain high concentrations of trace metals. I have
seen results for a very few crude oils that contain several hundred
ppm of vanadium and over 50 ppm nickel. Part, but not all, of these
metals are in a class of organic compounds called metallo porphyrins
Although most people do not ingest crude oil, these metals have been
of concern to the petroleum industry, because they can "poison"
expensive catalysts, often made from precious metals, that often are
used in refining heavy crude oil to result in more lighter
hydrocarbons to use in gasoline and other fuels and to produce less
material most useful for paving roads.

The main conclusion I draw from the complete paper is that it
indicates much more research of the type I mentioned is needed.

"cwdjrxyz" wrote .......

> However there seems to be no consideration of in what compounds
> and in what valence state the heavy metals exist in wine.

Let alone what already exists inside *my* body.

After 61 years of general wear and tear - and a whole lot of abuse, consider
what I have already been exposed to, in greater or lesser amounts....

Mercury (via tooth fillings)
Silver (same source)
Copper (timber treatment)
Chromium (same source)
Arsenic (ditto - also cancer treatment)
Cobalt (agricultural fertiliser)
Molybdenum (same source)
Vanadium (basic slag fertiliser)
Cadmium (inhalation from combustion of fossil fuels)
Lead (paint)
Selenium (ag fertiliser - and supplimentation)
Zinc (oysters, red meat, pumpkin seeds!)

Not to mention, personal exposure over the years to -

Organochlorides DDT (common agricultural use in 50s/60s)
Chlorinated hydrocarbons (Dieldrin - again, common agricultural insecticide)
Organophosphates (common use in agriculture)
Synthetic pyrethroids (ditto)

And what about -

2,4,5,-T
2,4,-D (used extensively in agriculture)

Frankly my dear, I don't give a stuff if my wine has that something extra by
way of body!

It ain't going to make one iota of difference to my life expectancy!

--

st.helier

On Jan 7, 9:20*pm, "st.helier" > wrote:
> "cwdjrxyz" wrote .......
>
> > However there seems to be no consideration of *in what compounds
> > and in what valence state the heavy metals exist in wine.
>
> Let alone what already exists inside *my* body.
>
> After 61 years of general wear and tear - and a whole lot of abuse, consider
> what I have already been exposed to, in greater or lesser amounts....
>
> Mercury (via tooth fillings)
> Silver (same source)
> Copper * *(timber treatment)
> Chromium (same source)
> Arsenic (ditto *- *also cancer treatment)
> Cobalt (agricultural fertiliser)
> Molybdenum (same source)
> Vanadium (basic slag fertiliser)
> Cadmium (inhalation from combustion of fossil fuels)
> Lead (paint)
> Selenium (ag fertiliser - and supplimentation)
> Zinc (oysters, red meat, pumpkin seeds!)
>
> Not to mention, personal exposure over the years to -
>
> Organochlorides DDT (common agricultural use in 50s/60s)
> Chlorinated hydrocarbons (Dieldrin - again, common agricultural insecticide)
> Organophosphates (common use in agriculture)
> Synthetic pyrethroids (ditto)
>
> And what about -
>
> 2,4,5,-T
> 2,4,-D * *(used extensively in agriculture)
>
> Frankly my dear, I don't give a stuff if my wine has that something extra by
> way of body!
>
> It ain't going to make one iota of difference to my life expectancy!

I don't know the reputation of the journal in which this paper was
published. Before I retired and sometimes peer reviewed some papers
for a few top tier journals, I likely would have suggested to the
journal editor that the article not be published in the present form,
because it offers no useful results other than a very crude index,
only an indication that there might be concern for metals content in
some wines. I would in addition suggest that instead of a publication,
the material in this report might be better used in a grant
application for research in this area as outlined in my previous
discussion.

Analytical chemistry has improved to the point that one often can
measure concentrations of metals far below the parts per million
level. Taken to the extreme, nearly everything contains a bit of many
metals. The important thing from the health viewpoint is in what form
the metal exists and what is the concentration level at which there
are harmful effects. It is of interest to note that several of the
metals are absolutely necessary for human life in very minute amounts,
although sometimes rather toxic at higher levels. Many vitamin-mineral
supplements contain added trace amounts of several metals in compounds
that can be used by the human body.

I likely could top you with the number of things I have been exposed
to, although I do not know of any large exposures. I have worked with
metallo organic compounds of lead, mercury, arsenic, vanadium, nickel
etc, some of which are very toxic. I have used very high intensity x-
rays that could give a gross overdose of radiation in a matter of a
second or so of direct exposure. I had to have a radiation physical
every year at work just in case radiation monitors did not catch a
problem in time. I had to be around high voltage power supplies that
could output about 2000 watts of DC power at up to about 100000 volts.
Of course this never caused a problem, because I am still here to
write this.

cwdjrxyz wrote:

> I don't know the reputation of the journal in which this paper was
> published.

Neither do I, and that's a bit worrisome given our profession.

> Before I retired and sometimes peer reviewed some papers
> for a few top tier journals, I likely would have suggested to the
> journal editor that the article not be published in the present form,
> because it offers no useful results other than a very crude index,
> only an indication that there might be concern for metals content in
> some wines.

It certainly is a bit shy on data. Perhaps that's why it ended up in
the journal that it did.

>
> Analytical chemistry has improved to the point that one often can
> measure concentrations of metals far below the parts per million
> level. Taken to the extreme, nearly everything contains a bit of many
> metals. The important thing from the health viewpoint is in what form
> the metal exists and what is the concentration level at which there
> are harmful effects. It is of interest to note that several of the
> metals are absolutely necessary for human life in very minute amounts,
> although sometimes rather toxic at higher levels. Many vitamin-mineral
> supplements contain added trace amounts of several metals in compounds
> that can be used by the human body.

This was my reaction, too. Copper, zinc and manganese all are needed in
small quantities for proper enzymatic function. And the term "heavy
metal" is ill-defined and overly alarmist. None of the metals cited in
the paper is nearly as toxic as those most commonly associated with the
term "heavy metal" (lead, mercury and cadmium).

Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/...any-Wines.html
>
> David Christainsen

You may also want to check this item from Scientific American, in
particular, the response from Andrew Waterhouse, a wine chemist from the U
of California.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=wine-metal-health

--
Don Eagle
To reply personally, drop the Latin "not more"

On Jan 8, 10:39*am, Mark Lipton > wrote:
> cwdjrxyz wrote:
> > I don't know the reputation of the journal in which this paper was
> > published.
>
> Neither do I, and that's a bit worrisome given our profession.
>
> > Before I retired and sometimes peer reviewed some papers
> > for a few top tier journals, I likely would have suggested to the
> > journal editor that the article not be published in the present form,
> > because it offers no useful results other than a very crude index,
> > only an indication that there might be concern for metals content in
> > some wines.
>
> It certainly is a bit shy on data. *Perhaps that's why it ended up in
> the journal that it did.
>
>
>
> > Analytical chemistry has improved to the point that one often can
> > measure concentrations of metals far below the parts per million
> > level. Taken to the extreme, nearly everything contains a bit of many
> > metals. The important thing from the health viewpoint is in what form
> > the metal exists and what is the concentration level at which there
> > are harmful effects. It is of interest to note that several of the
> > metals are absolutely necessary for human life in very minute amounts,
> > although sometimes rather toxic at higher levels. Many vitamin-mineral
> > supplements contain added trace amounts of several metals in compounds
> > that can be used by the human body.
>
> This was my reaction, too. *Copper, zinc and manganese all are needed in
> small quantities for proper enzymatic function. *And the term "heavy
> metal" is ill-defined and overly alarmist. *None of the metals cited in
> the paper is nearly as toxic as those most commonly associated with the
> term "heavy metal" (lead, mercury and cadmium).

Just to give an indication of how many metals and other elements are
essential to human health, I give some of the quantities contained in
Equate(trademark) multivitamin/multimineral USP dietary supplement per
tablet. The percentage of the DV(daily value) also is given when
established. Some of these elements, can be toxic in amounts only a
little above the DV and others can be taken in a huge excess of that
needed without problems.

Zinc 11 mg, 73%;
Selenium 55 mcg, 79%;
Copper 0.9 mg, 45%;
Manganese 2.3 mg, 115%;
Chromium 45 mcg, 38%;
Molybdenum 45 mcg. 60%;
Boron 150 mcg, DV not established;
Nickel 5 mcg, DV not established;
Silicon 2 mg, DV not established;
Vanadium 10 mcg, DV not established;

The label states "Made to U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP quality, purity and
potency standards. Laboratory tested to dissolve within 60 minutes"

Thus to have a desired effect on health, the important thing is that
the elements are present in a form that will dissolve and be absorbed
into the body through the digestive system, or sometimes through the
skin. For an extreme example, many people, often children, have
swallowed copper, gold or silver coins, chrome or nickel plated
buttons, etc. These often pass through the digestive system without
problem, although sometimes they get hung up and have to be removed.
However since the mentioned metals do not dissolve well, no toxic
effects usually result, although the total amount of metal in the
object swallowed may greatly exceed the DV and greatly top safe dosage
of the metal (if it is dissolved).