Calling in the Chemistry Squad

[Jeff Grossman]

So there's bunch of noise over a big-deal chemical assay performed on a bunch of French wines - mainly Bordeaux but including some big names - that found them chock-a-block with pesticides and known toxic agents of various kinds. The irony is that all the tested wines carry the HVE certification, which is some kind of "we are natural, really we are, but we haven't made it all the way to organic yet" certification.

Now, I'll assume that those fifty-syllable compounds are likely to be bad for me, and I'll happily assume that the certification means only that money changed hands, but what I won't accept is why anyone is surprised.

Their unswerving faith in other certifications makes me wonder whose axe is really being ground here.

Anyway, for those who prefer table to words: wines, toxins, the detailed per-wine reports are provided in the article.

Does anyone know any statistics of people who have bad reactions to wine, other than from the alcohol?

 

[mark e]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Calling in the Chemistry SquadSo there's bunch of noise over a big-deal chemical assay performed on a bunch of French wines - mainly Bordeaux but including some big names - that found them chock-a-block with pesticides and known toxic agents of various kinds. The irony is that all the tested wines carry the HVE certification, which is some kind of "we are natural, really we are, but we haven't made it all the way to organic yet" certification.

The problem with almost every level of certification short of organic (bio) or biodynamic (including Biodyvin and Respekt) is that they allow some amount of synthetic pesticides and herbicides. If you see terms such as sustainable, natural (as applied to vineyard practices), LIVE certified, lutte raisonée or best-practices IPM (integrated pest management), you're talking about conventional agriculture. So it is no surprise if that is the case for HVE that there are toxic residues. Alas, even the highest level of organic farming is sometimes thwarted by spray drift, GMO pollen and aerial-sprayed pest abatement programs.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

With regard to GMO pollen, it might leave a change in the DNA of the grape but it wouldn't leave a chemical trace. As I understand it GMOs are verboten in France, so that isn't the issue here in any case.

 

[mark e]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
With regard to GMO pollen, it might leave a change in the DNA of the grape but it wouldn't leave a chemical trace. As I understand it GMOs are verboten in France, so that isn't the issue here in any case.

There are no GMO grapes right now, though I thought there had been some attempts. So you are correct. The issue is both residues and, to my mind, the loss of both organic certification (say in the US if GMO material is found on an organic vegetable or grain farm) and heirloom seed varieties owing to inadvertent cross-pollination.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

Whatever your thinking about GMOs--and I have said on other threads, though I don't particularly want to revive that argument here, that I consider the opposition to it mostly knee-jerk given the lack of evidence that it causes harm--I think you would need new regulations to cover how to control for it since the GMO plants are organic and not non-organic chemicals. They are obviously not pesticides.

 

[mark e]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Whatever your thinking about GMOs--and I have said on other threads, though I don't particularly want to revive that argument here, that I consider the opposition to it mostly knee-jerk given the lack of evidence that it causes harm--I think you would need new regulations to cover how to control for it since the GMO plants are organic and not non-organic chemicals. They are obviously not pesticides.

Whatever your view, loss of certification for some growers is devastating, particularly if they have established markets, CSAs, etc. Either way, it is pollution, though I am not going to argue the harm question. Look, you are welcome to eat all the conventional vegetables you want and drink wines from vineyards that have been sprayed with synthetic chemicals. No one is questioning that.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

I was questioning your classification of GMOs as non-organic. As of now, certifying organic in France has nothing to do with GMOs because they are banned outright. Were they to be allowed, I think you would need a new form of certification since a vineyard of GMO grapes would still be an organic vineyard. Of course, laws can define things as they will, but that doesn't change the facts.

I would feel about GMO grapes as I feel about packaged yeast. I would never use it myself to make bread and I would seek out wines that use ambient yeast. But I wouldn't be for legally banning it. I would be fine, on the other hand, all other things being equal, with banning pesiticides that have been proven to cause harm.

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Whatever your thinking about GMOs--and I have said on other threads, though I don't particularly want to revive that argument here, that I consider the opposition to it mostly knee-jerk given the lack of evidence that it causes harm--I think you would need new regulations to cover how to control for it since the GMO plants are organic and not non-organic chemicals. They are obviously not pesticides.

Not entirely true. BT corn pollen contains a bacterial insecticide. Drift of BT corn pollen has been linked to the decline in butterfly populations as the toxin ends up on the wildflowers that butterflies feed on.

Mark Lipton

 

[mark e]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I was questioning your classification of GMOs as non-organic. As of now, certifying organic in France has nothing to do with GMOs because they are banned outright.

Umm, no bio/organic/BD certified farm in the world can use GMOs. Period. And I have not been referring only to France. My initial response was regarding the various faux-eco certifications and terminology in Europe and the US.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Whatever your thinking about GMOs--and I have said on other threads, though I don't particularly want to revive that argument here, that I consider the opposition to it mostly knee-jerk given the lack of evidence that it causes harm--I think you would need new regulations to cover how to control for it since the GMO plants are organic and not non-organic chemicals. They are obviously not pesticides.

Not entirely true. BT corn pollen contains a bacterial insecticide. Drift of BT corn pollen has been linked to the decline in butterfly populations as the toxin ends up on the wildflowers that butterflies feed on.

Mark Lipton

A bacterial insecticide, in other words, a bacteria that is a naturally occurring insecticide, is still organic.

Without knowing the rules, I cede your point about bio and organic certification. As I said, you can define anything legally or according to your certification group's desires. It doesn't change the facts.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by mark e:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I was questioning your classification of GMOs as non-organic. As of now, certifying organic in France has nothing to do with GMOs because they are banned outright.

Umm, no bio/organic/BD certified farm in the world can use GMOs. Period. And I have not been referring only to France. My initial response was regarding the various faux-eco certifications and terminology in Europe and the US.

To bridge the debate, I do think it will ultimately benefit the world to have a more nuanced view of GMOs and what it means to be organic in light of a GMO but Mark is right that currently “organic” certifications don’t allow GMOs.

There are a lot of rabbit holes this could lead down (again) and I find it hard to leave alone. The release of the GM mosquito in Florida that is happening now (already happened?) is an uncontrolled science experiment on a very large scale. I am much less concerned about GM cultivars on agricultural sites and vineyards that are already under human control and manipulation as to what grows there than releasing a GM mosquito that is intended to effect population control but has unforeseable consequences potentially for countless other plant and animal species.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

All organisms are GMOs. The only difference is that some were genetically modified faster than others.

 

[mark e]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
All organisms are GMOs.

Horseshit. Gene splicing or some "natural" version of that vis-à-vis organisms from different phyla just does not occur faster or slower. But when you say slower I'm guessing you are referring to geologic time.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

Leave it to Keith to make a straightforward position indefensible. GMO stands for genetically modified organism. The term was introduced precisely to capture organisms produced by modifying its DNA directly rather than breeding for a genetic mutation. It's the reverse that is true: All GMOs are organic (since they are genetically modified organisms and not some other kind) but not all organisms are GMOs.

I hadn't heard about the mosquito business that Jayson mentions. If this was done before controlled experiments on the ecological results, it is, of course, indefensible given the type of organism a mosquito is. And I'm not sure I would be able to figure out what kinds of experiments would be reliable, also given what mosquitoes and ecosystems are. I would probably feel the same way,therefore, though ,about the release of a mosquito from outside an area's ecosystem for some benefit or other.

 

[Christian Miller (CMM)]

originally posted by mark e:

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Calling in the Chemistry SquadSo there's bunch of noise over a big-deal chemical assay performed on a bunch of French wines - mainly Bordeaux but including some big names - that found them chock-a-block with pesticides and known toxic agents of various kinds. The irony is that all the tested wines carry the HVE certification, which is some kind of "we are natural, really we are, but we haven't made it all the way to organic yet" certification.

The problem with almost every level of certification short of organic (bio) or biodynamic (including Biodyvin and Respekt) is that they allow some amount of synthetic pesticides and herbicides. If you see terms such as sustainable, natural (as applied to vineyard practices), LIVE certified, lutte raisonée or best-practices IPM (integrated pest management), you're talking about conventional agriculture. So it is no surprise if that is the case for HVE that there are toxic residues. Alas, even the highest level of organic farming is sometimes thwarted by spray drift, GMO pollen and aerial-sprayed pest abatement programs.

Spray drift is a huge issue in some regions. Have to disagree about calling LIVE or similar certifications "conventional" agriculture - big differences from conventional in amount, frequency and toxicity of the inputs. But back to initial posting - isn't copper sulfate allowed in French or EU organic viticulture? Or was that not part of the assay?

 

[mark e]

originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):

originally posted by mark e:

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Calling in the Chemistry SquadSo there's bunch of noise over a big-deal chemical assay performed on a bunch of French wines - mainly Bordeaux but including some big names - that found them chock-a-block with pesticides and known toxic agents of various kinds. The irony is that all the tested wines carry the HVE certification, which is some kind of "we are natural, really we are, but we haven't made it all the way to organic yet" certification.

The problem with almost every level of certification short of organic (bio) or biodynamic (including Biodyvin and Respekt) is that they allow some amount of synthetic pesticides and herbicides. If you see terms such as sustainable, natural (as applied to vineyard practices), LIVE certified, lutte raisonée or best-practices IPM (integrated pest management), you're talking about conventional agriculture. So it is no surprise if that is the case for HVE that there are toxic residues. Alas, even the highest level of organic farming is sometimes thwarted by spray drift, GMO pollen and aerial-sprayed pest abatement programs.

Spray drift is a huge issue in some regions. Have to disagree about calling LIVE or similar certifications "conventional" agriculture - big differences from conventional in amount, frequency and toxicity of the inputs. But back to initial posting - isn't copper sulfate allowed in French or EU organic viticulture? Or was that not part of the assay?

EU organic allows for copper sulfate use, but though LIVE is better than the worst conventional it is not organic by a long shot as herbicide use is allowed.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

The use of copper sulfate to fight mold is a cases of a longstanding traditional use overcoming our knowledge of the case. Copper sulfate may be allowed by EU organic rules, but it isn't organic. And given what we know it does to biodiversity in the soil, it is manifestly not without harm. In the few discussion I have followed, I have not been persuaded that it is not more harmful than certain other disallowed treatments. I am insufficiently knowledgeable to defend that position against actual reports of comparative experiments. But the definitional case is clear. It is non-organic and it does do harm. EU organic allowing for it is thus an historical anomaly.

 

[Jay Miller]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Leave it to Keith to make a straightforward position indefensible. GMO stands for genetically modified organism. The term was introduced precisely to capture organisms produced by modifying its DNA directly rather than breeding for a genetic mutation. It's the reverse that is true: All GMOs are organic (since they are genetically modified organisms and not some other kind) but not all organisms are GMOs.

I hadn't heard about the mosquito business that Jayson mentions. If this was done before controlled experiments on the ecological results, it is, of course, indefensible given the type of organism a mosquito is. And I'm not sure I would be able to figure out what kinds of experiments would be reliable, also given what mosquitoes and ecosystems are. I would probably feel the same way,therefore, though ,about the release of a mosquito from outside an area's ecosystem for some benefit or other.

If you're interested in the mosquito thing here's an article:

Loading…

www.cnn.com

Apparently a similar mosquito was released in the Cayman Islands, Panama and Brazil and has been very effective in curbing mosquito populations.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Jay Miller:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Leave it to Keith to make a straightforward position indefensible. GMO stands for genetically modified organism. The term was introduced precisely to capture organisms produced by modifying its DNA directly rather than breeding for a genetic mutation. It's the reverse that is true: All GMOs are organic (since they are genetically modified organisms and not some other kind) but not all organisms are GMOs.

I hadn't heard about the mosquito business that Jayson mentions. If this was done before controlled experiments on the ecological results, it is, of course, indefensible given the type of organism a mosquito is. And I'm not sure I would be able to figure out what kinds of experiments would be reliable, also given what mosquitoes and ecosystems are. I would probably feel the same way,therefore, though ,about the release of a mosquito from outside an area's ecosystem for some benefit or other.

If you're interested in the mosquito thing here's an article:

Loading…

www.cnn.com

Apparently a similar mosquito was released in the Cayman Islands, Panama and Brazil and has been very effective in curbing mosquito populations.

This article makes it sound like a closer call. I don't know where I stand, but I'd have to know more before I either opposed it or supported it. Neither decision would be much changed by finding out that this mosquito occurs in nature somewhere else or doesn't, though.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by mark e:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
All organisms are GMOs.

Horseshit. Gene splicing or some "natural" version of that vis-à-vis organisms from different phyla just does not occur faster or slower. But when you say slower I'm guessing you are referring to geologic time.

Yes. The term GMO has no coherent meaning unless you are a creationist. The "natural" version of gene splicing is otherwise known as: "how babies are made."