Hacker News Reader

Comment by anonzzzies | Hacker News Reader

And these things were cause and effect by some proof? Because there are plenty people who drink a bottle of white, red and/or rose for lunch here their entire lives to old age.

View on HN

The point is the chemical levels in the wine. The anecdote about my father is just that. Please don’t trivialise that just to point score, it’s bad taste.

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?

> Please don’t trivialise that just to point score, it’s bad taste.

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?

It's harmful as it tastes awful. At least compared to a good traditional wine.

> 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

I do not think anyone would argue that alcohol consumption is good for your health, regardless of what kind of alcohol.

The burden is never on the person not making the claim. Come on man.

I'm not really making any strong claims except that people should look into the chemicals in wine. It's a complicated story. Unfortunately many of the USDA links are dead so this is the best evidence I have for the difference in wine standards in Europe vs the US.

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.

" Because there are plenty people who drink a bottle of white, red and/or rose for lunch here their entire lives."

No one doubts that, but statistics are pretty clear, that those who do not do that, have a longer life.

But is that alcohol or the other chemicals was my point; GP seem to imply it was the other chemicals; I doubt that. But yes, no alcohol would on average make you live longer.

> GP seem to imply it was the other chemicals

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.

Not the parent, but I have heard of this as well.[0] The advice in the article is to try to drink wine that is 2010 or older.

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...

The labelling standards are a lot stricter in the US:

https://www.winespectator.com/articles/us-and-europe-have-di...

Thanks, it'd be interesting if there was an empirical testing study that reflected how much the labeling prevents the chemical contamination like the one observed in europe.

Do they? Or does it just seem like it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com