Legal Firms Now Suing Wineries for Billions Over Arsenic Content

October 2, 2015 – Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, a Los Angles firm that has joined the suit filed last March by Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh and Jardine, has amended the class action lawsuit against several California wineries concerning the presence of arsenic in their wines.  The amended complaint filed in California Superior Court on September 16 seeks billion of dollars in civil penalties.

WINES & VINES, a trade publication, reported details of the lawsuit.  The new complaint says the wineries violated Proposition 65, a California law passed in 1986 with the goal of protecting consumers from noxious substances from leather dust to arsenic.  The wineries are accused of “negligent, reckless and/or knowing sale of inorganic arsenic-contaminated wines” and that they failed to alert consumer of the risks of arsenic.

As we reported on March 22, Wine Institute, a trade organization representing more than 1,000 California wineries and affiliated businesses, said the allegations were false and misleading and that all wines in the marketplace are safe.  Spokeswoman Gladys Horiuchi pointed out that while the U.S. does not have specific acceptable levels for arsenic in wine, other countries do and California wines have never come close to exceeding those levels.  For example, the highest reading for a wine in the lawsuit is only half of Canada’s standard of 100 parts per billion for wine.

http://www.wineandspirits.com/lawsuit-filed-over-arsenic-in-california-wines/

Arsenic is a naturally occurring element, and it does turn up in wine as well as in apple juice, rice, bottled water, cereal bars, infant formula, salmon and tuna and other foods. According to a study conducted by electrical engineering professor Denise Wilson at the University of Washington, “Unless you are a heavy drinker consuming wine with really high concentrations of arsenic, of which there are only a few, there’s little health threat if that’s the only source of arsenic in your diet.”

Professor Wilson went on to say that consumers should consider what else is in their diet such as contaminated rice, or organic brown rice syrup, seafood and apple juice.
The UW study looked at 65 wines from California, Washington, New York and Oregon.  Red wines were the principal focus because of contact with the skins, which is where arsenic, absorbed from the soil, concentrates.  Washington wines had the highest levels averaging 28 parts per billion.  Oregon the lowest at 13 parts per billion.

The very readable report from the University of Washington will put your mind at rest if you are concerned about arsenic in various foods, including wine http://www.washington.edu/news/2015/09/29/arsenic-found-in-many-u-s-red-wines-but-health-risks-depend-on-total-diet/

The amended complaint in punishing the wine industry is asking for $2,500 per day for every bottle of “offending” wine manufactured, distributed, marketed and sold with a warning to consumers.  That’s $2.5 billion per million cases distributed each day, according to WINES & VINES.  The lawyers, on behalf of four plaintiffs – Doris Charles, Alvin Jones, Jason Peltier and Jennifer Peltier – also demand that the wineries “identify and locate each individual to whom the offending wines were sold in the past four years, and to provide a warning to such person that consumption of the offending wines will expose them to chemicals known to cause cancer.”

So the folks who drank the wine get a warning.  Who gets the billions of dollars?

Professor Wilson said, “The whole idea that you would sue a winery for having arsenic in their wine is like suing someone for having rocks in their yard.”  Her goal is to educate consumers to be more aware of their diets rather than look for someone to blame.

Details of the litigation can be found at http://www.winesandvines.com/template.cfm?section=news&content=158389