Page 1 of 1
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 12:51 pm
by Malcolm
Why you don't cheap out.
Kabateck said tests showed the arsenic found was "inorganic" or not naturally occurring. He said it might have been introduced in the vinting process. He noted nearly all of the affected wines sell for between $5 and $10 a bottle.
"Out of 1,306 tests only 83 came back," he said. "We know that the vast majority of the wine business is safe. If you're spending $20 on a bottle of wine you're not going to have concerns most likely."
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 2:07 pm
by GORDON
I thought arsenic naturally occurred (I refuse to call that 'organic') in apple seeds.
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 2:16 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:I thought arsenic naturally occurred (I refuse to call that 'organic') in apple seeds.
Yeah. But not to the extent they found in this. And this ain't apple wine.
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 2:54 pm
by GORDON
As soon as I hear someone using the word "organic" wrong I usually stop paying attention to them at that point.
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 7:23 pm
by TPRJones
He might be using it correctly, actually. The article doesn't have enough information to verify either way.
If the arsenic was bound in inorganic chemicals then it could indeed be called inorganic. They don't say who that "Kabateck" is, but if it's a chemist that was probably what he/she meant. It would certainly explain how they could be certain it was introduced and not part of the original ingredients.
If "Kabateck" is some lawyer, then who knows if they got it right or not.
Edited By TPRJones on 1427153090
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 7:55 pm
by GORDON
I was going by the original quote in which the guy explained that inorganic meant not naturally occurring
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 8:08 pm
by TPRJones
Oh, well if "Kabateck" is a chemist then that mistake is probably the result of the reporter trying to summarize and screwing it up. Reporters are pretty dumb, and that bit isn't in quotes.
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 8:20 pm
by GORDON
That was my guess as well, but I can only respond to what they print, not what was meant. Ergo, I stop listening to the reporter when he says that particular stupid thing.