As regular readers know, I write a free, twice monthly wine column that’s distributed to newspapers across the country.

These columns are hosted by Grape Collective. If you don’t see my column in your local newspaper, please send an email to your paper’s editor and CC me (David – at – Terroirist.com).

In my latest column, I find some good news in the allegation that some of the nation’s top-selling low-cost wines contain unsafe levels of arsenic.

Worry About Wine, Not Arsenic

In late March, two couples filed a class action lawsuit in California alleging that some of the nation’s top-selling low-cost wines contain unsafe levels of arsenic. “Just a glass or two” of wine from producers like Cupcake, Charles Shaw, Franzia, Rex Goliath, and Korbel “could result in dangerous arsenic toxicity,” according to the suit.

Many media outlets jumped on the story. CNN asked, “Should you be worried about arsenic in California wine?” Local CBS affiliates terrified viewers with breathtaking stories about “high levels of deadly arsenic.” But the coverage was grossly overblown.

For starters, the plaintiff’s analysis considered the EPA’s standard for arsenic in drinking water. If your Franzia consumption rivals your water consumption, you have bigger concerns than arsenic. Plus, as the Wine Institute, a trade group representing California wineries, explained, “arsenic is prevalent in the natural environment in air, soil and water… [so] wines from throughout the world contain trace amounts.”

So consumers should rest easy; winemakers aren’t topping up their tanks with the toxin. But the collective freak-out demonstrates that consumers are starting to pay attention to what’s in their wine. That’s worth celebrating.

Check out the rest of the piece on Grape Collective!