The simplest, yet most confusing, answer is…possibly. However let me start by saying that this arsenic controversy only seems to pertain to the least expensive, most highly produced California wines and if you are drinking a good amount of it. I’m not going to dive into all the details regarding the actual lawsuit, but if you are interested Forbes has an article with a run down of the situation…see below.
But the basics of the lawsuit (remember, it is still just an allegation) state that many inexpensive wines in California have higher than acceptable levels of arsenic. You can check the link below to see if any of your favorite wines are on that list:
What is arsenic? It is basically a metal that is found in various natural resources, namely soil and water, but can also be a result of certain forms of manufacturing. So if proper care is not taken during wine production, or the soil or water used is not the best quality, then it seems reasonable that elevated levels of arsenic could be found in cheaply made wines that don’t utilize the most thorough production methods.
So then the question comes down to how toxic, if at all, are the wines you enjoy on a daily/weekly/monthly basis? If you find that your favorites include some of California’s most frugal selections, then it is possible that there are increased amounts of arsenic in that juice (we won’t know for sure until the lawsuit lends definitive results). But no need to panic until this is all resolved by the powers that be. In the meantime, there is an old saying which states “Life is too short to drink cheap wine”… I think that is fairly applicable to ALL wine drinkers right about now.