Glyphosate can be found in almost everything we eat, and a new study released by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group has confirmed that the herbicide is also in what we’re drinking. In a look at 20 popular beers and wines, the study confirmed that 19 of the 20 beverages reviewed contained glyphosate residue. The beverage that showed the highest levels of glyphosate was Sutter Home Merlot, with a concentration of 51.4 parts per billion (ppb). Bayer toxicologist William Reeves said via a spokesperson,

The reality is that regulatory authorities have strict rules when it comes to pesticide residues…The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sets daily exposure limits at least 100 times below levels shown to have no negative effect in safety studies.”

CBS News

He goes on to say,

Assuming the greatest value reported, 51.4 ppb, is correct, a 125-pound adult would have to consume 308 gallons of wine per day, every day for life to reach the US Environmental Protection Agency’s glyphosate exposure limit for humans. To put 308 gallons into context, that would be more than a bottle of wine every minute, for life, without sleeping.”

An Incomplete Picture

At 51.4 ppb, the Sutter Home Merlot is well below what the EPA considers to be a safe level of glyphosate.

Related: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

Wines

1. Sutter Home Merlot: 51.4 ppb
2. Beringer Founders Estates Moscato: 42.6 ppb
3. Barefoot Cabernet Sauvignon: 36.3 ppb
4. Inkarri Malbec, Certified Organic: 5.3 ppb
5. Frey Organic Natural White: 4.8 ppb

Beers

1. Tsingtao Beer: 49.7 ppb
2. Coors Light: 31.1 ppb
3. Miller Lite: 29.8 ppb
4. Budweiser: 27.0 ppb
5. Corona Extra: 25.1 ppb
6. Heineken: 20.9 ppb
7. Guinness Draught: 20.3 ppb
8. Stella Artois: 18.7 ppb
9. Ace Perry Hard Cider: 14.5 ppb
10. Sierra Nevada Pale Ale: 11.8 ppb
11. New Belgium Fat Tire Amber Ale: 11.2 ppb
12. Sam Adams New England IPA: 11.0 ppb
13. Stella Artois Cidre: 9.1 ppb
14. Samuel Smith’s Organic Lager: 5.7 ppb
15. Peak Beer Organic IPA: N/A

That doesn’t mean it’s safe, though.

Mr. Reeves, the toxicologist for Bayer, mentions that the EPA’s limits are at least 100 times below levels examined in safety studies. Yet that agency allows much higher concentrations of glyphosate than other safety regulators. The regulations set by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) are much more severe. According to the EPA, a daily dose of 2 mg of glyphosate per kg of body weight should cause no ill effects. OEHHA’s safe daily level recommendations are 1,100 micrograms. OEHHA’s levels are nearly half of those put forth by the EPA.

Related: Microplastics In Tap Water and Beer Around the Great Lakes, and Everywhere Else

Causing Cancer

California has classified glyphosate as a carcinogen since 2017. The World Health Organization (WHO) was even earlier in linking the herbicide and cancer when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released a statement labeling glyphosate “probably carcinogenic to humans.” The EPA has resisted that label for years. In fact, evidence in the recent verdict against Monsanto for 289 million dollars contained correspondence between the agro-giant and a high ranking EPA official promising to derail a glyphosate safety study. 

The recent verdict against Monsanto (now Bayer) is only the first of more than 5000 lawsuits awaiting the company. Advertisements seeking participants for class-action lawsuits against Round-up are now commonplace on mainstream television. But it’s hard to believe we can come back from this without some serious change. Ninety-five percent of the drinks examined for this study had glyphosate residue. Glyphosate is showing in food, water, feminine hygiene products…the herbicide is everywhere.

Recommended: How To Heal Your Gut 

What’s Your Damage?

Finding glyphosate in beer and wine has consequences beyond how much you’re drinking. Though the herbicide is often found in organic products studies have found that people who consume greater amounts of organic food are less likely to develop cancer. On the flip side, Napa County, the heart of California wine country and an area with unusually high pesticide use, boasts the highest rates of childhood cancer. Perhaps the amount of glyphosate measured in these beverages is well below the recommended limit for consumptions, but that ignores the enviromental and health impacts of applying the pesticide in the first place.

Sources:

• Glyphosate Found in 19 of 20 Beers and Wines Tested – EcoWatch
• Consumer watchdog finds traces of Roundup weed killer in beer and wine – CBS
• Glyphosate pesticide in beer and wine – US PIRG
• California’s Proposed Limit Vs. The Amount Allowed by EPA – EWG
• Monsanto’s EPA-Manipulating Tactics Revealed in $289 Million Case – Rolling Stone

Resveratrol is a natural antioxidant found in the skin of red grapes. Many studies suggest that resveratrol is the reason for the French paradox, the observation that the French suffer considerably low incidence of heart disease, while enjoying a diet rich in of saturated fats. While we at OLM have our own theory as to why the French do not suffer from high incidence of heart disease, that’s another article.

Resveratrol is a natural antioxidant found in the skin of red grapes. Many studies suggest that resveratrol is the reason for the French paradox, the observation that the French suffer considerably low incidence of heart disease, while enjoying a diet rich in of saturated fats. While we at OLM have our own theory as to why the French do not suffer from high incidence of heart disease, that’s another article.

There are two common types of studies supporting red wine consumption. One kind is where animals and/or humans are given resveratrol, not actual red wine. Red wine consumption is said to “possibly” reduce chances of coronary heart disease,1 fight diabetes,2 aid in weight loss,3 prevent prostate cancer,4 kill pancreatic cancer,5 increase one’s lifespan,6 and more. But with the many studies claiming resveratrol has these benefits, note the usual little bit of “fine print” that reads something to the effect, “Researchers warn that you would have to drink three liters of red wine a day in order to receive the benefits of…” (this is not an actual quote, but the messages are similar).

The other kind of studies that lead us to believe red wine may be good for us are statistical correlation studies, or epidemiology. These studies will say things such as, “Among men who consumed four or more 4-ounce glasses of red wine per week, we saw about a 60 percent lower incidence of the more aggressive types of prostate cancer.”7 Consider the problems with such studies, specifically in the case of red wine. A person who drinks one to two glasses of red wine a day, typically no more, no less, is an individual who generally shows restraint, has refined taste, and is likely to be more affluent than the average person. This individual could be healthier than the average person who doesn’t drink alcohol at all due to multiple factors. I would venture to guess that the average single malt scotch drinker is healthier than the average Budweiser drinker. Does this mean that Scotch is healthier? Maybe, maybe not. Does this mean that Scotch is healthy? Certainly not.

And then there are other studies that suggest red wine is not all it’s touted to be.8 It’s interesting to note that some research indicates one or two glasses of red wine a day may prevent cancer, other research tells us the opposite is likely true.9

So is red wine good for you? OLM believes that alcohol is not good for you, period. In some cases the ends justify the means, such as the alcohol content in tinctures, which are used as herbal remedies, but we do not recommend consuming red wine. If resveratrol and/ or other antioxidants are what you seek, seek elsewhere. There are better and more natural ways of getting them—like eating grapes.

That said, if you want to enjoy an alcoholic beverage every now and then, provided you do not suffer from Candida, and your health is better than most people’s overall, red wine may be the best choice.

Editor’s Note

I love a good red wine. While I’m picky about the quality, I am not stuck on any one kind, such as cabernet or merlot. I’ve tried many different varieties; I once fancied myself a bit of a connoisseur. But while I still love a nice red on occasion, it has become rarer for me. Why? I am simply too in tune with my body to enjoy things that do not make me feel good. Every now and then, with the right social circumstances, I can turn off that warning in my head, but it’s rare. And even after only one glass, I tend to ask myself, “Was that really worth it?” It just plain doesn’t make me feel good. Well, mentally, yeah, it feels great, at the time of consumption. But physically and mentally, hours later or a day later, even one glass feels makes me feel as though I just abused my body.