On the one hand, we have the wine industry and the wine business itself, which has been in the business of selling alcohol since the late 19th century.
On the other hand, there are a lot of people who are buying bottles of wine in the name of wine.
And there are some really bad wines out there.
In fact, according to the Wine Spectator, there’s a bottle wine market worth $8.3 billion in the U.S. The good news is, we can take a step back and say that wine is still in its infancy, so the wine wars aren’t really going to affect our drinking habits any time soon.
It’s worth noting that the wine market is a global one, and there are many other markets for the stuff.
But there’s also a growing number of people buying bottles for the sake of the “crowd” and “sophistication” they believe they can get out of it.
For some people, the bottle wine wars may be the reason why they aren’t going to get much out of their wine.
“People are buying because they like the wine and they like to drink it,” says Jim Dolan, president of the American Beverage Association.
“I think people are also getting away from buying the bottle.”
But for those of us who are serious about the health of our body, there is another side to the wine-buying equation: There’s the issue of pollution.
Many of the wines in the market come from areas that are known for their toxic emissions, and they have also become a source of pollution for the United States.
When people buy a bottle of wine, they’re paying for the toxic products they’re consuming, according a study by the nonprofit Clean Air Task Force.
And that pollution can be a problem.
One of the most famous examples of this is the California-based company, Pernod-Ricard, which uses chemicals called dioxins to make the wine they sell.
Pernod Ricard has made headlines for its wine making process.
“There’s no doubt that the environmental benefits of Perno-Racard’s wine making processes and practices have been well documented, including in a 2009 review of the scientific literature,” wrote Dr. Robert Ritz in a 2012 review of environmental studies in Wine Science and Technology.
But there are also concerns about how these chemicals are being used, as well as the way they are being distributed.
Researchers at Cornell University, for example, found that nearly half of the pesticides they tested in their study had been detected in the wines of Pronod Ricards vineyard in the California foothills.
Other researchers have found that some of the chemicals were used in some of Parnod Ricarded’s wine production methods.
The chemical company, for its part, has responded to the concerns by calling the study flawed and saying it’s a fact that its wine does not contain dioxin.
But the researchers, who also wrote in the study, are still not convinced.
So the wine companies are pushing back.
They’ve issued statements that the studies they cite don’t show the products are harmful to consumers, and that the company is confident that the products have been thoroughly vetted for any known problems.
Some people, though, say the industry is ignoring its own research.
We need to get back to the science, says Dr. Dolan.
“The real science is that the chemicals in wine are not causing cancer.”
This is a big deal.
There are about 300,000 cancer deaths in the United State every year, and a recent study found that the U;s wine industry is responsible for more than 90% of those.
To date, there has been no research linking the use of the toxic chemicals to cancer.
If you’re worried about the wine, it may be worth going to a restaurant or an out-of-the-way spot, rather than buying bottles in your home, says Dolan .
But don’t feel too bad if you do.
Wine is good for you.
The industry, which is worth about $100 billion, has been investing billions of dollars in new technology, like new wines and new packaging, to make sure it stays fresh.
What do you think?
Does this mean you’re going to avoid buying a bottle?
Do you like the idea of spending money on a bottle in the hopes that it will help you get healthy?
Or do you want to avoid purchasing a bottle for the long haul?