Cheap California Wines Contain High Arsenic Levels, Class Action Says

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Almost 30 California winemakers were hit with a class action lawsuit, alleging that they did not warn the public that they were selling wine that is contaminated with a significant amount of inorganic arsenic.

The California winemakers class action lawsuit filed on March 18 in a California state court includes 28 wineries including Trader Joe’s Co.,F. Korbel & Bros Inc. and Woodbridge Winery Inc., which includes popular brands such as Sutter Home, Concannon, Beringer, Smoking Loon and Charles Shaw.

“Inorganic arsenic is an odorless, colorless, and highly toxic poison known to cause illness and death when ingested by humans. During the Middle Ages, arsenic was a favored form of intentional poisoning among the privileged classes, primarily because it was both virtually undetectable and extremely lethal (even in trace amounts over time),” the arsenic wine class action lawsuit begins.

“The deaths of Napoleon Bonaparte, Simon Bolivar, King George III, Francesco De Medici, King Faisal I, and many other prominent historical figures, whose deaths were believed at the time to have other mysterious causes, were all, through the course of history, proven later to have been caused and/or accelerated by arsenic poisoning,” it adds.

Plaintiffs Doris Charles, Alvin Jones, Jason Peltier and Jennifer Peltier claim in their class action lawsuit that “the majority of responsible California wineries” work to “limit the amount of inorganic arsenic present in their wines to ‘trace’ levels considered acceptable (if not completely safe) for human consumption.”

However, after wine from several California wineries was tested at three different laboratories, it was discovered that they “contain dangerously high levels of inorganic arsenic, in some cases up to 500 percent or more than what is considered the maximum acceptable daily intake limit,” the California wine class action lawsuit explained.

“Put differently, just a glass or two of these arsenic contaminated  wines a day over time could result in dangerous arsenic toxicity to the consumer,” the class action lawsuit continues.

While responsible wineries have been able to take measures “to limit inorganic arsenic levels in their wines to acceptable legal limits . . . the defendant wineries do not,” the class action lawsuit alleges.

On the contrary, they “manufacture, distribute, and/or sell these arsenic-contaminated wines and conceal and do not disclose, warn, or otherwise advise, to their customers or to the ultimate consumers, the existence and/or dangers/risks posed by the toxic excessive levels of inorganic arsenic contamination in their wine.”

The California winery arsenic class action lawsuit explains that “California wineries typically do not disclose the ingredients or chemicals (beyond alcohol content and sulfites) that are present in the wine they are selling.”

In addition, no government agency such as the Food and Drug Administration requires monitoring or “testing of wine for toxic ingredients such as inorganic arsenic, leaving wineries to police their own wines, and wine consumers to fend for themselves.”

According to the class action lawsuit, inorganic arsenic is “substantially more toxic and dangerous to humans” than organic arsenic. Such toxicity can lead to various dangerous symptoms and prolonged exposure can reportedly cause various cancers, among other diseases.

“The wines at issue in this case contain toxic inorganic arsenic at levels that exceed California standards, resulting in human ingestion/exposure to Class I carcinogens without any disclosure or warning to the consumer,” the California wine class action lawsuit says.

The plaintiffs are proposing a class that includes all California residents “who purchased any of the wines listed [in the class action lawsuit] of any vintage from Jan. 1, 2011 through the present.”

These labels and the types of wine include:

• Acronym (GR8RW Red Blend)
• Almaden (Heritage White Zinfandel, Heritage Moscato, Heritage Chardonnay, Mountain Burgundy, Mountain Rhine, Mountain Chablis)
• Arrow Creek (Coastal Series Cabernet Sauvignon)
• Bandit (Pinot Grigio, Chardonnay, Cabernet Sauvignon)
• Bay Bridge (Chardonnay)
• Beringer (White Merlot, White Zinfandel, Red Moscato, Refreshingly Sweet Moscato)
• Charles Shaw (White Zinfandel)
• Colores Del Sol (Malbec)
• Glen Ellen by Concannon (Glen Ellen Reserve Pinot Grigio, Glen Ellen Reserve Merlot)
• Concannon (Selected Vineyards Pinot Noir)
• Cook’s (Spumante)
• Corbett Canyon (Pinot Grigio, Cabernet Sauvignon)
• Cupcake (Malbec)
• Fetzer (Moscato, Pinot Grigio)
• Fisheye (Pinot Grigio)
• Flipflop (Pinot Grigio, Moscato, Cabernet Sauvignon)
• Foxhorn (White Zinfandel)
• Franzia (Vintner Select White Grenache, Vintner Select White Zinfandel, Vintner Select White Merlot, Vintner Select Burgundy)
• Hawkstone (Cabernet Sauvignon)
• HRM Rex Goliath (Moscato)
• Korbel (Sweet Rose Sparkling Wine, Extra Dry Sparkling Wine)
• Menage A Trois (Pinot Grigo, Moscato, White Blend, Chardonnay, Rose, Cabernet Sauvignon, California Red Wine)
• Mogen David (Concord, Blackberry Wine)
• Oak Leaf (White Zinfandel)
• Pomelo (Sauvignon Blanc)
• R Collection By Raymond (Chardonnay)
• Richards Wild Irish Rose (Red Wine)
• Seaglass (Sauvignon Blanc)
• Simply Naked (Moscato)
• Smoking Loon (Viognier)
• Sutter Home (Sauvignon Blanc, Gerwurztraminer, Pink Moscato, Pinot Grigio, Moscato, Chenin Blanc, Sweet Red, Riesling, White Merlot, Merlot, White Zinfandel)

Plaintiffs are charging the wineries with violating the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, with unfair business practices, with misleading and deceptive advertising, unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and negligent misrepresentation/omission.

The Wine Institute, an industry group, told the Law360 that the claims in the class action lawsuit were false and misleading.

“As an agricultural product, wines from throughout the world contain trace amounts of arsenic, as do juices, vegetables, grains and other alcohol beverages,” the Wine Institute said in a statement. “There is no research that shows that the amounts found in wine pose a health risk to consumers.”

The Wine Group LLC, which is a named defendant in the California winery class action lawsuit, said that a single person would need to consume almost three bottles of one of the named wines per day to take in what is required safe levels of arsenic in drinking water, as stated by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The plaintiffs are represented by Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine PC and Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor PA.

Counsel information for the wineries wasn’t immediately available.

The California Arsenic Wine Class Action Lawsuit is Charles v. The Wine Group LLC et al. in the Los Angeles Superior Court of California. The case number wasn’t immediately available on Thursday.