"Nothing that can hurt you can live in beer"- Confirmed!

CornyKegs 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
HeadyKilowatt

HeadyKilowatt

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2012
Messages
249
Reaction score
43
Location
Glendie (outside Fredericksburg)
We've all heard it and read it, many of us have said it ourselves- your infected beer will not hurt you, as nothing pathogenic can live in beer. But I have never seen any hard data to back this up.

Which is why I was exited to see a paper being given at a regional archaeology conference this weekend in which the researcher was investigating the old hypothesis that fermentation was used historically, and dating back to ancient times, to make dirty or stagnant water potable.

The researcher made two one-gallon batches of unhopped wort with an OG of 1.054, pitched an appropriate amount of yeast, and infected one batch with E. coli. Fermentation proceeded for six days. After fermentation, he conducted two tests (which I can't really describe- I'm an archaeologist, not a biologist) for the presence of the pathogen in the infected batch. Both tests came back negative. Fermentation had killed the E. coli, or at least prevented it from establishing itself and ceased its reproductive cycle such that the colony died.

I went for a beer with the researcher later and talked about the experiment and knocked around ideas for what was happening here (is it the alcohol that "killed" the pathogen or something else in the fermentation process? and did it really "kill" it, or just out-compete it?) and ideas for future experiments that could refine the data and allow for a clearer picture of what's happening.

Anyway, even though the results are preliminary, I'm excited to see some hard data backing up the idea that nothing harmful can survive in beer (not that I ever doubted it, but it is cool to see it backed up with experimental data). I encouraged the researcher to publish his data and get it into the brewing literature in addition to the archaeology/history world, so hopefully we can all see some of this info soon. Also, if anyone is aware of any other experiments on this phenomenon that have been conducted, please post them here and I can pass them on to the fellow doing the research.

Keep on homebrewing- you never know what's in the water! :mug:
 
Over/under on the number of posts it takes for someone to point out that, hypothetically, you could create a wort starter, infect it with botulism, then can it incorrectly, thus creating a possible beerborne pathogen (not that such has ever been observed)?

Or the fact that beer doesn't kill norovirus, so if you crap in a bottle, you could potentially contract it.


Real world: beer is perfectly safe. But somebody invariably points out that you can't say its statistically impossible, since lab conditions can create a few situations where one might get sick.
 
homebrewdad said:
Over/under on the number of posts it takes for someone to point out that, hypothetically, you could create a wort starter, infect it with botulism, then can it incorrectly, thus creating a possible beerborne pathogen (not that such has ever been observed)?

Or the fact that beer doesn't kill norovirus, so if you crap in a bottle, you could potentially contract it.


Real world: beer is perfectly safe. But somebody invariably points out that you can't say its statistically impossible, since lab conditions can create a few situations where one might get sick.
Click to expand...

You know it......it happens in every thread. :mug:
 
homebrewdad said:
Real world: beer is perfectly safe. But somebody invariably points out that you can't say its statistically impossible, since lab conditions can create a few situations where one might get sick.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And that's the point of the research- that under "normal" conditions, nothing harmful is going to infect beer, and that fermentation can in fact make water of suspect quality potable. It's certainly possible that you could make a beer with a harmful pathogen, but you'd pretty much have to try to do it- it's very unlikely to happen through normal brewing processes and fermentation conditions.
 
HeadyKilowatt said:
Exactly. And that's the point of the research- that under "normal" conditions, nothing harmful is going to infect beer, and that fermentation can in fact make water of suspect quality potable. It's certainly possible that you could make a beer with a harmful pathogen, but you'd pretty much have to try to do it- it's very unlikely to happen through normal brewing processes and fermentation conditions.
Click to expand...

Yep. But we've seen it here time after time in these kinds of threads (I'm surprised that it hasn't happened yet), and I see it all the time on the homebrewing subreddit. It's possible under unusual/negligent/borderline criminal circumstances to possibly let some strands of bad microbes live in beer, and even though no one yet has ever managed to provide me the single documented case that I ask for, it doesn't stop them form harping on the remote possibilities.


My three homebrewing forum pet peeves (in no particular order):


1. Sure, you say that beer is safe to drink, but laboratory tests have proven that if you defecate in the bottle while being infected with norovirus, the virus will not die from the alcohol. If you throw botulism in a wort starter, then can that starter at too low of a temperature/too low of pressure, the botulism won't die and could kill you. Also, studies have shown that if you filter your break material out by using three day old roadkill, you could potentially pick up pathogens if you drink the beer very young.

2. OMG don't post about using a glass carboy! One day, when you least expect it, that glass will cut you, man... it will cut you good... but only after forcing you at knifepoint to empty your ATM. Think of the new brewers who could be swayed into harm by you posting mentions/photos of a glass carboy, YOU MONSTER!!!

3. Having problems with your bottling process? Just keg your beer!
 
"Hurt" is a relative term. I recall an infected batch in my early brewing days that kept me near the porcelain throne for a day or two.
 
HeadyKilowatt said:
The researcher made two one-gallon batches of unhopped wort with an OG of 1.054, pitched an appropriate amount of yeast, and infected one batch with E. coli (...) Fermentation had killed the E. coli

Anyway, even though the results are preliminary, I'm excited to see some hard data backing up the idea that nothing harmful can survive in beer (not that I ever doubted it, but it is cool to see it backed up with experimental data).
Click to expand...
ok, fine, i'll be the one to annoyingly nit-pick: this experiment proved that e. coli can't survive fermentation. while e. coli is incredibly common, we can't take this as universal proof that nothing harmful can survive in beer.

flame-proof undies are cinched tight...
 
Not to put a damper on the original experiment, but e-coli only reproduces inside a host organism (think mammal or bird). It's used to indicate the presence of fecal contamination specifically because it won't reproduce in the environment. Also, most strains of e-coli are not "harmful". So this might not have been the best of experiments for our purposes.

Besides, an infection at the beginning of a ferment could create toxic by-products that last well after the organisms themselves die a horrible, drunken death.

Then again, when was the last time you heard of someone being poisoned by a bad beer? Shellfish, over-easy eggs, and under washed lettuce on the other hand...
 
homebrewdad said:
1. Sure, you say that beer is safe to drink, but laboratory tests have proven that if you defecate in the bottle while being infected with norovirus, the virus will not die from the alcohol. If you throw botulism in a wort starter, then can that starter at too low of a temperature/too low of pressure, the botulism won't die and could kill you. Also, studies have shown that if you filter your break material out by using three day old roadkill, you could potentially pick up pathogens if you drink the beer very young.
Click to expand...

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!

I'm going to take a crap in a bottle. What else do I need?
 
HeadyKilowatt said:
Exactly. And that's the point of the research- that under "normal" conditions, nothing harmful is going to infect beer, and that fermentation can in fact make water of suspect quality potable. It's certainly possible that you could make a beer with a harmful pathogen, but you'd pretty much have to try to do it- it's very unlikely to happen through normal brewing processes and fermentation conditions.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately "normal" is completely subjective. I, for one, like crapping in my beer and feel it is normal to do so. I can't say why, because it just makes the beer taste like sh**.

Oh! oh! What if you're lactose intolerant and you have a beer with lactose in it?! That can hurt you! And lactose intolerance isn't so statistically improbable as to be three sigmas out from the bell curve and be rare! Gotcha! OP is lies.

:mug::drunk:
 
there are at least three people on the board with that avatar of the guy with the long white beard and big shoes wearing a robe and taking large happy steps. i feel like he may be interested in a handshake. what gives?
 
HeadyKilowatt said:
No, he wanted to do a taste test, but apparently the folks in the biology lab he was using get all weird about people drinking stuff that's been used in pathogen experiments.
Click to expand...

Two things came to my mind on this.

1 - They only tested for E.coli: Quick fast results

2 - Could E.coli have morphed into a strain they can not detect or something new never seen.

Murphys law; you would find the 0.01% that survived. :smack:

Thats enough micro biology for me to day.

RDWDHAHB :mug:
 
progmac said:
there are at least three people on the board with that avatar of the guy with the long white beard and big shoes wearing a robe and taking large happy steps. i feel like he may be interested in a handshake. what gives?
Click to expand...
Dude is Mr Natural. Comic book figure from the 70's by Robert Crumb. That's why I have it, can't speak for the other guys.
 
progmac said:
there are at least three people on the board with that avatar of the guy with the long white beard and big shoes wearing a robe and taking large happy steps. i feel like he may be interested in a handshake. what gives?
Click to expand...

MrNatural said:
Dude is Mr Natural. Comic book figure from the 70's by Robert Crumb. That's why I have it, can't speak for the other guys.
Click to expand...

:off: "uniondr" is another guy with that avatar.
 
KegWrangler said:
Not to put a damper on the original experiment, but e-coli only reproduces inside a host organism (think mammal or bird). It's used to indicate the presence of fecal contamination specifically because it won't reproduce in the environment. Also, most strains of e-coli are not "harmful". So this might not have been the best of experiments for our purposes.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. A friend of mine is doing very cutting edge research involving what she has deemed "gene shotgunning" (as opposed to splicing). She makes batches of E. coli in much the same way we make starters.
 
high5apparatus said:
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!

I'm going to take a crap in a bottle. What else do I need?
Click to expand...

You need an active norovirus infection (or, I suppose, a similar strain of nasty that is spread via fecal matter). After all, as dark corners of the internet could tell you, ingestion of fecal matter is not necessarily harmful in and of itself.

Dear God, I can't belive that I went there...
 
"Nothing that can hurt you can live in beer"- Confirmed!
Click to expand...

Mycotoxins can and do survive in beer, though they are not found at levels that are considered harmful because loads of barley brought from the farm to the maltster are screened for excess levels of these fungi and molds. Some places won't even feed cattle with reject loads of this stuff (it will kill them).

That's why such low levels of mycotoxins are found in beer today, of course it wasn't always that way.

White Labs will analyze your beer and tell you the levels of specific mycotoxins.

So it's not just the fermentation or brewing process that renders beer safe, it's the entire process from the farmer to the maltster to the brewer combined with the scientific knowledge gained over centuries (a lot of it coming from the larger beer companies).

We as homebrewers benefit from this knowledge, the modern luxurious malts it produces and the modern farming methods used to grow relatively disease free barley.
 
Oh god, not the old Mycotoxins scare again...seems whenever this one comes up someone has to throw in that one....it's been pretty much shot down on here already.

We've covered everything even with some citations in this thread. Dangers of Homebrewing

And some more info here as well.

It covers all the bugaboos that new brewers wanna fear, botulism, mycotoxins, e-coli, zombies....

One of our resident brainiacs posted this the LAST TIME the bugaboo reared it's scare mongering head.

pjj2ba said:
The upshot is, I would not worry about this as far as malted barley is concerned. The malsters are all up on this and every truckload of grain is being tested. Over the limit, and the maltsters won't buy it. Then if is sold as animal feed - as long as that higher limit is not exceded. The toxins are less of a problem for cows, and even less for chickens.

The mycotoxins are fairly stable and some ethanol plants have run into problems disposing of the used distillers grain (largely corn) as their processing results in an accumulation of the mycotoxins in the spent grain so there have been some issues with using that as animal feed. We know a fair bit about the fungus on wheat as we humans eat that directly. We know much less about it in corn and other crops. We need to do more research (and $$ to do said research)
Click to expand...


The bottom line is, you can choose to freak out about it OR you can realize that there are billions of folks drinking beer on this planet, and millions of them brewing their own, AND we're all still alive, aren't we?
 
Revvy said:
Oh god, not the old Mycotoxins scare again...seems whenever this one comes up someone has to throw in that one....it's been pretty much shot down on here already.

We've covered everything even with some citations in this thread. Dangers of Homebrewing

And some more info here as well.

It covers all the bugaboos that new brewers wanna fear, botulism, mycotoxins, e-coli, zombies....

One of our resident brainiacs posted this the LAST TIME the bugaboo reared it's scare mongering head.




The bottom line is, you can choose to freak out about it OR you can realize that there are billions of folks drinking beer on this planet, and millions of them brewing their own, AND we're all still alive, aren't we?
Click to expand...

Yes, Revvy, but here we go again... IF a truckload was horribly infected with mycotoxins, IF it wasn't tested, IF you got enough of that grain, it could conceivably make you sick.

Or something. :rolleyes:
 
homebrewdad said:
Yes, Revvy, but here we go again... IF a truckload was horribly infected with mycotoxins, IF it wasn't tested, IF you got enough of that grain, it could conceivably make you sick.

Or something. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yep, as usual. So I predict this turning nasty in 5 posts, and the mods shutting it down 9 posts after that. ;)

If...if....ifs don't cut it. The point is we're not dying of mycotoxins in our beer, or aluminum, or plastics or not boiling our water or whatever the fearmongers and "devils advocates" want to believe. We're dying because of alcohol consumption. ;)

And all these discussions do is scare the noobs who know just enough to be dangerous and are so scared of making that "one mistake" with their beer that will bring about the death of all their friends, and/or the zombipocalypse...

Which I worry more about that either of those other things. And I don't worry much about that at all. ;)
 
Revvy said:
Yep, as usual. So I predict this turning nasty in 5 posts, and the mods shutting it down 9 posts after that. ;)

If...if....ifs don't cut it. The point is we're not dying of mycotoxins in our beer, or aluminum, or plastics or not boiling our water or whatever the fearmongers and "devils advocates" want to believe. We're dying because of alcohol consumption. ;)

And all these discussions do is scare the noobs who know just enough to be dangerous and are so scared of making that "one mistake" with their beer that will bring about the death of all their friends, and/or the zombipocalypse...

Which I worry more about that either of those other things. And I don't worry much about that at all. ;)
Click to expand...

Hear, hear.

I dunno, I have (foolishly) high hopes for this thread. So far, we haven't really attracted one of "those guys". Of course, me stating it is probably the junx that will sumon them.
 
I work for a rather well respected research institution (Johns Hopkins) &, as such, I have access to, I believe the proper technical term is, an Imperial Arseload of scholarly research regarding just about everything you could think of in the field of health. And some things you wouldn't even begin to think of.
So, with that said;

Stand back! I'm going to use Science!

Perusing the journals, publications, et. al. at the medical institution I found, after a *brief* search, well over 100 studies relating to mycotoxins, specifically I limited my search to beer, barley & detection mechanisms.

Top level conclusions, backed up by multiple studies.

We have the ability to measure toxin levels on the close order of .005 ng/Kg
North American maltsters check, and reject, at a level of 0.5 ppm (.05 ug/Kg)
Beer contains a measurable, though medically completely insignificant amount of these toxins.

A fairly concise study of 347 random beers commercially available in North America showed the following data. Because I can't get the table to imbed properly I will document the values.

First value is Median (μg l−1)
Second value is Daily average exposure (μg kg−1 bw)
Third value is Tolerable daily intake (μg kg−1 bw)
Forth value is % of Tolerable daily intake
Code: 
    Ochratoxin A	0.009	0.000029  0.017	 0.17
    Deoxynivalenol	1.09	0.0036	      1	 0.36
    Fumonisin B1	1.45	0.00476	      2	 0.24

The key thing to note is that "tolerable intake" is a medical term that basically means "At this level & above we can possibly start to see some effects, maybe"

So it seems that beer contains, at worst, less than 1/4 of 1% of these toxins at the aforementioned tolerable intake level.

It worth noting that the medically accepted level for actual consumption is 10X the tolerable intake listed (according to the CDC)
For ground & tree nuts, it's even higher!

So I'm with Revvy.
I'll worry about them after I prepare for the Zombie Apocalypse. By eating a couple of cans of peanuts.

Cite:
"Mold and mycotoxin problems encountered during malting and brewing"
International Journal of Food Microbiology Vol 119 Issue 1 Oct 2007

"Mass spectrometry strategies for mycotoxins analysis in European beers"
Food Control, vol 30 issue 1, Mar 2013

"Analysis of multiple mycotoxins in beer employing (ultra)-high-resolution mass spectrometry"
Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry Vol 24 Issue 22 Nov 2011

"Transfer of Fusarium mycotoxins and 'masked' deoxynivalenol (deoxynivalenol-3-glucoside) from field barley through malt to beer"
Department of Food Chemistry and Analysis, Institute of Chemical Technology, Prague, Czech Republic ISSN: 19440049

Plus a host of others.
Anyone wishing more data, feel free to PM me.

Now let's put this silliness to bed once & for all.
 
tonyp063 said:
I work for a rather well respected research institution (Johns Hopkins) &, as such, I have access to, I believe the proper technical term is, an Imperial Arseload of scholarly research regarding just about everything you could think of in the field of health. And some things you wouldn't even begin to think of.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I work at a slightly less, though still rather well respected medical school and biomedical research institution and I too have access to (since we're less prestigious I'll go with) buttloads as well, that's why I've tended to be the guy posting the stuff from medline and pubmed.

Science trumps heresay once again!!

:mug:
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22004814

Let's hear it for hops! Boo for alcohol free and low pH beer.

"whereas the presence of hops ensured that the gram-positive pathogens (L. monocytogenes and S. aureus) were rapidly inactivated in alcohol-free beer. The pathogens E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium could not grow in the mid-strength or full-strength beers, although they could survive for more than 30 days in the mid-strength beer when held at 4°C. These pathogens grew rapidly in the alcohol-free beer; however, growth was prevented when the pH of the alcohol-free beer was lowered from the "as received" value of 4.3 to 4.0. Pathogen survival in all beers was prolonged at lowered storage temperatures.
 
When we boil the wort it gets hot enough to kill of many nasty things that could have been in the water and grain right? So the chances of something getting in that could harm us would be us doing it unintentionally right? Like if you decided to cook dinner and brew at the same time. Then decided to not wash your hands after handling some fish or meat and stick you hand in the wort. Does that make sense?
 
I have never understood the "Nothing that can hurt you can live in beer" statement. Clearly "good" things like yeast live in beer. What is unique about 'things that can hurt you' that keep them from living in beer? Doesn't make any sense. I think the statement requires quite a bit of qualification.
 
The fact is that the statement that "Nothing in beer can hurt you" is objectively false. If done correctly, nothing in beer will hurt you. If done correctly, nothing canned will hurt you either. While it's true that it is much harder to screw up beer than canning, it is still possible to grow something nasty up in your wort before you ferment it. Maybe you do no chill and your cube becomes contaminated by a toxin-producing organism, your beer will not be safe.

Realistically nothing in your beer is going to ever hurt you, but you absolutely can make a beer that will get you sick.
 
Actually, no it isn't.
If it can hurt you, as in cause actual, physical harm, then it's not beer.
By definition.
And canning vs fermenting is an invalid comparison. Two vastly different processes, results & caveats.

This thread, and all the other alarmist ones before it that this addresses, is about actual physical harm.

I attempted to educate about mycotoxins.
The OP posted science relating to a specific nasty bacteria.
These are things that cause actual harm, not just make you barf.

If you have *ANY* actual, peer reviewed science, that purports to show evidence to the contrary, please feel free to present it.

Else it's hearsay at best & chicken little syndrome at worst.

This is about facts, not opinions.
 
HIlife said:
The fact is that the statement that "Nothing in beer can hurt you" is objectively false. If done correctly, nothing in beer will hurt you. If done correctly, nothing canned will hurt you either. While it's true that it is much harder to screw up beer than canning, it is still possible to grow something nasty up in your wort before you ferment it. Maybe you do no chill and your cube becomes contaminated by a toxin-producing organism, your beer will not be safe.

Realistically nothing in your beer is going to ever hurt you, but you absolutely can make a beer that will get you sick.
Click to expand...

have you ACTUALLY bothered to read any of the OTHER threads I link to earlier in here, where we actually document how NOTHING PATHOGENIC CAN EXIST IN BEER? Actual quotes and citations from some of the most known scientists in the filed of brewing such as UC Davis's, Charles W. Bamforth the Anheuser-Busch Endowed Professor of Malting and Brewing Sciences, whose written a lot on the this topic?


Basically they all say, NOTHING THAT CAN HARM YOU CAN SURVIVE THE BOILING, HOPPING AND FERMENTATION PROCESS...

It's that simple.

I came across this from a pretty well known and award winning homebrewer railing against a fellow brewer (it was on one of those "color coded" brewboards where they are a little less friendly than we are.) I just cut and pasted it and stuck it in a file...here it is.

Hilife, I bolded something pertinent to your assertion....


Can you get a PATHOGEN from beer. No. NO *NO* Did I make that clear? You have a ZERO chance of pathogens in beer, wine, distilled beverages. PERIOD!

Pathogens are described as organisms that are harmful and potentially life threatening to humans. These are some 1400+ known species overall encompasing viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and helminths. Of that group, we are only interested in those that can be foodborne. Quite simply, if it can't survive in food, it isn't in beer. That knocks out all but bacteria and fungi. Viruses need very specific circumstances to be passed around... like on the lip of a glass or bottle, not the beer in it. **Ahhh...CHOOO!**

Pathogens as a rule are very fastidious beasts. Meaning that they want very specific temperatures, acidity, nutrients and other conditions to thrive.

Bacteria that *could* live in wort, cannot survive even a little bit of fermentation. There are several reasons for this. One is in the 'magic' of hops. It is the isomerized alpha acids that provide a preservative effect to the beer, which happens to inhibit pathogens! Good deal for fresh wort!

Another reason is the drop in pH from fermentation. Next, yeast emit their own enzymes and byproducts, all in an effort to make the environment hostile to other creatures. The major one is alcohol, of course, but their enzymes will break down less vigorous organisms and they become sources of trace nutrition. Now the latter is very minor compared to the effect of alcohol, but it exists! Most of the time these enzymes work on the wort, not organisms until late in the process. Good deal for beer! ...uh, wine too.

Oh, Botulism specifically... did you know that this is an anaerobic pathogen? It's toxin is one of the few that is broken down by boiling. Did you know tht it is strongly inhibited by isomerized alpha acids, even in water? Since fresh wort has a healthy amount of oxygen in it, the beastie cannot even get started, then once the O2 is used up, it doesn't have a chance against the hops or the yeast.

All that is left are a handful of acid producing bacteria that'll ruin a batch of beer. Overall, there are less than 200 organisms that can survive in beer and lend flavor effects. None of these for very long, or very often. Lambic being the sole exception, and if pathogens *could* survive, that'd be the style where you find 'em.
Click to expand...


It's important to remember that one of the reasons we have beer today (one of the oldest beverages in existence) is because it was made to be drunk in places where drinking the WATER was deadly....By boiling the wort, adding hops (which is an antiseptic), changing the ph, and pitching yeast, you killed of any microorganism that could be harmful.....in fact the third runnings of the brewing process was fermented at an extremely low gravit 1-2% ABV, and it was called "table beer" or "Kid's Beer" this is the stuff that people drank with meals...it was their water replacement, like Iced tea or soda pop...because again the fermentation process insured thatit was safer than the water.

He talks about it here;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAU4bhjCB08]YouTube - Ancestral Ale: Brewing In Colonial America[/ame]

So please, please, please, I can't stress this enough....don't fear you beer!!!

Or if you do, save us a lot of grief, and sell your gear now, I'm sure there's folks out there a lot less superstitious who could benefit from it.
 

Similar threads

Zippy123
Scottish Wee Heavy stuck fermentation or high FG?
Replies
17
Views
917
Zippy123
Zippy123
V
No sign of fermentation after 48 hrs
Replies
3
Views
346
odie
odie
T
Acetobacter recurring infections
Replies
7
Views
640
Tancred the Brewer
T
Langerz
First Fermentation with a Tilt - Questions
Replies
20
Views
2K
AZ Maverick
AZ Maverick
F
Powdered alpha amylase
Replies
6
Views
1K
doug293cz
doug293cz
InkBird 300

Latest posts

Back
Top