There's untold levels of chemicals in wine. Organic wine is BS in Europe, organic vineyards actually use more chemicals like giant quantities of copper sulphate. The US is actually a lot better than Europe in this regard.
Source: My father owned a vineyard in France before he keeled over with a subarachnoid haematoma after drinking 3 glasses of Rose at lunchtime.
No one doubts that, but statistics are pretty clear, that those who do not do that, have a longer life.
I didn't draw any conclusions or make a link, you assumed the link.
Let's look at some evidence instead. There are very high levels of TFA in wine:
https://www.pan-europe.info/press-releases/2025/04/study-rev...
It'll be decades before we know the true effects of the chemicals other than alcohol that are evidently present in wine, but TFA is known to pose serious health risks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trifluoroacetic_acid
I find there's a lot of cognitive dissonance in people who are partial to a bottle or two, they tend to hang on to the myths that it's good for them.
But I do raise my eyebrow at the suggestion that US wine is somehow in a better situation and am not inclined to believe it unless someone provides sources.
[0] "Alarming’ increase in levels of forever chemical TFA found in European wines"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/23/alarming...
https://www.winespectator.com/articles/us-and-europe-have-di...
I used the anecdote to illustrate I have some experience in the wine industry, having worked hands on for a few years. My father studied chemistry at Cambridge so his understanding of wine chemistry is, or was, expert level.
I’d say the burden of proof is on you though, can you supply epidemiological evidence that wine isn’t harmful to health, if you’re going to advocate for the alcohol industry?
Apologies; that was not my intention; I was reacting to your chemicals claim only.
I am not advocating; I am saying that I don’t believe it’s the other chemicals, it’s just alcohol, which is the poison in wine. They have 0.0 wine here which is just real wine with the alcohol removed after; that has then, I assume, the same chemicals and drinking that is harmful?
I do not think anyone would argue that alcohol consumption is good for your health, regardless of what kind of alcohol.
https://www.winespectator.com/articles/us-and-europe-have-di...
They're making a far stronger counter claim:
> there are plenty people who drink a bottle of white, red and/or rose for lunch here their entire lives to old age.
The “source” you do mention seems rather anecdotal, and linking it to the discussed topic requires a fair number of other assumptions, too.
But I do raise my eyebrow at the suggestion that US wine is somehow in a better situation and am not inclined to believe it unless someone provides sources.
[0] "Alarming’ increase in levels of forever chemical TFA found in European wines"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/23/alarming...
My purpose was to draw people's attention to some lesser known aspects of the wine industry which I think are consequential, and I was illustrating I have some insignts into this that people that haven't worked in the industry probbaly don't.
Most notably the chemical alcohol is known to cause all sorts of health problems and is present in wine.
If you are going to talk about "chemicals", you should be more specific. Most chemicals are harmless, some aren't. Most likely alcohol is the most toxic chemical in wine by a wide margin.
You could also have just glanced at the rest of the thread where I've given far more specific evidence.
I'm rather glad I've drawn people's attention to the issue, despite having to endure extremely patronising comments like yours.
Second, I clearly have skin-in-the-game here because you did read the first comment, so everyone that thinks it's OK to make jokes like the dihydrongen monoxide one (well done that was clever in 2015) can go forth and multiply.
You have not. Maybe you think you have, but just linking to the name of a chemical is not a cogent argument that that chemical in the quantities present in wine, are harmful in any way, and certainly not an argument for it being more harmful than the primary ingredient.
> having to endure extremely patronising comments
Apparently not patronising enough...
> so everyone that thinks it's OK to make jokes like the dihydrongen monoxide one
You really believe that alcohol is equivalent to water in its toxicity?
Look, i'm sorry for your loss. However you are basically spreading pseudo-science here. Doing so has potential to harm a lot of other people too.
No! At what point did I imply that? Can you please stop trolling.
If you want to discuss, let's go point-by-point. What do you think about TFAs in wine?
Of course, this was decades ago and today would be called "artisanal" wine making.
Partly. There is some natural level of sulfites present in wines - very dependent on the terroir, and then the rest comes during the manufacturing process; some sulfites may be added directly so the wine does not spoil.
There are wines that do not contain any added sulfites and even then may cause trouble to the sensitive persons if the sulfur content of soil is naturally high. Some manufacturers therefore also add info about total measured sulfite content to the label.
And nowadays, not only demijohns or wooden barrels are used to hold wine; of course stainless steel vessels, but also concrete vessels and even things like the Georgian qvevri underground clay vessels or amphorae are having a comeback.
Copper sulphate is a fungicide used for centuries and is pretty safe (so safe that my chemical engineer father was willing to use it in his otherwise completely sans-chemicals garden). Organic wine not only does not use (other) fungicides and herbicides; it also does not use other chemicals and processes in later stages of winemaking.
Such as dihydrogen monoxide?