Dangers of Homebrewing

Pathogen: An agent of disease. A disease producer. The term pathogen most commonly is used to refer to infectious organisms. These include bacteria (such as staph), viruses (such as HIV), and fungi (such as yeast). Less commonly, pathogen refers to a noninfectious agent of disease such as a chemical.

The term pathogen was devised about 1880 and was compounded from patho- meaning disease + -gen indicating a producer. Hence, a disease producer.

Click to expand...

Acetobacter aceti is a benign microorganism that is ubiquitous in the environment, existing in alcoholic ecological niches such as flowers, fruits, honey bees, as well as in water and soil. It has a long history of safe use in the fermentation industry for the production of acetic acid from alcohol. There are no reports in the literature suggesting that A. aceti is a pathogen of humans or animals. It also is not considered a plant pathogen. The potential risks to human health or the environment associated with the use of this bacterium in fermentation facilities are low. Since the taxonomy of the genus was recently revised, some older production strains in use for acetic acid production may, in fact, not meet the current taxonomic designation of A. aceti.

Click to expand...

Breweries then proliferated in the 14th and 15th centuries, as beer became a popular beverage. Around this time, it was commonly believed that it was better to drink beer than water, because epidemics like cholera and the plague could be transmitted by water, while the cause of these diseases was eliminated in the brewing process.

Click to expand...

Johnson’s book deals primarily with cholera, outbreaks of which were usually caused by unsanitary drinking water. By the time Darwin and (Abraham) Lincoln were hitting their strides professionally, it was commonly known that people who drank beer instead of water were less likely to contract cholera. The reasons were twofold. First, the alcohol in beer possessed antibacterial properties. Second, brewing involved boiling water, thereby killing bacteria.

The problem was that many of our ancestors lacked the ability to produce alcohol dehydrogenases, the enzymes needed to digest alcohol. (Likewise, many of them were also lactose intolerant, meaning they couldn’t digest dairy products.) Over the years, the genetic ability to tolerate alcohol became more dominant in society because those who lacked it were more likely to die from cholera. As a result, the beer drinkers of today are probably the descendants of survivors of cholera epidemics from whom we inherited the ability to produce alcohol dehydrogenases.

Click to expand...

Small beer
Small beer[16] (also small ale) is a beer that contains very little alcohol. Sometimes unfiltered and porridge-like, it was a favoured drink in medieval Europe and colonial North America, where George Washington had a recipe for it involving bran and molasses.[17] It was sometimes had with breakfast, as attested in Benjamin Franklin's autobiography. In those times of lower public sanitation, water-transmitted diseases were a significant cause of death. Because alcohol is toxic to most water-borne pathogens, and because the process of brewing any beer from malt involves boiling the water, which also kills germs, drinking small beer instead of water was one way to escape infection. Small beer was also produced in households for consumption by children and servants. It was not unknown for workers in heavy industries and physical work to consume more than ten pints or five litres of small beer during a working day to maintain their hydration levels. This was usually provided free as part of their working conditions, it being recognised that maintaining hydration was essential for optimum performanc

Click to expand...

Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the factors affecting the survival and growth of four food-borne pathogens (Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella Typhimurium, Listeria monocytogenes, and Staphylococcus aureus) in sweet and fermenting brewery wort. The Gram-negative pathogens (E. coli and Salm. Typhimurium) were capable of growth during the initial stages of fermentation in hopped wort, although they were quickly inactivated when added during the later stages of fermentation. When the wort was left unpitched, the two Gram-negative pathogens grew unabated. Pathogen growth and survival was enhanced as the pH was increased, and as both the ethanol and original gravity were decreased. Although having no effect on the Gram-negative pathogens, low levels of hop iso-α-acids were sufficient to inhibit L. monocytogenes, and a synergistic antimicrobial effect between iso-α-acids and pH was observed. S. aureus failed to initiate growth in all of the test worts. There appears to be no reason for concern of the safety of a “typical” wort during fermentation, however due attention should be paid when wort is stored or antimicrobial hurdles are lowered, for example in the production of reduced and alcohol-free beer, and in unpasteurised products.

Click to expand...

Revvy said:

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....

...because again the fermentation process insured thatit was safer than the water.

Click to expand...

mullenite said:

and the reason it is one of the oldest beverages, is because barley and wheat are the oldest domesticated crops. :

Click to expand...

mullenite said:

Beer may have been brewed later because it was safer than water but the reason beer was first brewed, and the reason it is one of the oldest beverages, is because barley and wheat are the oldest domesticated crops. It also didn't have hops in it 10,000 years ago and it probably was never boiled. The best theory is that they either had surplus porridge or traded some porridge that ended up fermenting and enjoyed the effects so did it intentionally. By comparison, ancient breweries in Egypt have only existed for about 4000-5000 years, or roughly half the time that beer has been made.

Click to expand...

Zamial said:

In any case homebrew is safe to drink. It may not taste good but it will not make you sick or kill you.

Click to expand...

Revvy said:

There's historical precident that even before the understanding of germ theory there still was limited understanding about the antiseptic qualities of beer, "The Good, The Bad, and the Belly: The Facts About Ancient Beer."

Early evidences of beer existence have been found in Iran and Iraq and date back to around 3500 BC, and we know that the Egyptians and Nubians also favoured the drink. The Nubians most likely borrowed the Egyptian recipe of fermenting barley. Barley, a cereal grain, is nowadays used in some health food, and is known for its vitamins, minerals and antioxidants. Analysis of modern beer has shown that hops contain antioxidants, which might protect against cancer.

In 2005, research showed that Nubians, in what is now Sudan, also used beer as antibiotic. In bones found in North Africa, anthropologists discovered traces of the antibiotic tetracycline, a substance used nowadays to treat acne and urinary infection. According to the National Geographic, Nubian beer was “made from grain contaminated with the bacteria streptomycedes, which produces tetracycline”. The drinkers were probably not aware of the benefits of their beverage. The researcher “believes the tetracycline protected the Nubians from bone infections, as all the bones he examined are infection free.” Recent research at at King’s College and St Thomas’ Hospitals in London has shown that beer could limit the risk of osteoporosis. The ethanol in the beer suppresses the hormones responsible for bone loss even better than calcium.

The Egyptians also believed beer to be helpful in fighting gum infections, and it was used as part of recipes for ailments such as snakebite. On the other bank of the Mediterranean, Hippocrates, the Greek “father of medecine”, thought it could bring fever down and had healing properties. The presence of alcohol in the beverage could explain why the Greeks (and the Egyptians) used it on wounds.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

In the UK, beer likely appeared during the Neolithic era, and would have been brewed by women, and drunk by the whole family. Imagine those prehistoric men having a pint after a day work moving stones around Stonehenge. Thanks to its weather, Britain is better for the culture of cereals than vineyards. The Roman attempts at making wine failed in Britain, but only partly because of the rain. Beer was a popular drink, part of the nation’s folklore and no introduction of cider or wine by various invaders could change that. Beer also had its practical advantages - it was easy to keep, and the alcohol in it prevents the development of bacteria found in unsanitary water, making it the ideal drink when clean water wasn't available.

Click to expand...

Revvy said:

Aw buddy, I'm sure your homebrew tastes better than that. :rockin:

Click to expand...

kaiser423 said:

My wife is a public health researcher, and this is absolutely not true. All of the latest research shows that at any and all stages in development, alcohol is detrimental to development. A half beer may not be enough to raise cause measurable harm, but the literature shows that it will almost definitely cause *some* harm. The studies have enough data now that they're able to track a half glass of wine to an IQ point or two, and it's showing that no amount of alcohol is safe.

Click to expand...

rico567 said:

I absolutely don't buy a word of that without citations.

Citations:

Click to expand...

Until scientists showed a negative link between alcohol and pregnancy, expecting and nursing women were encouraged to drink beer as part of a healthy pregnancy diet. Brewers like Guinness and Mackesons did not hesitate to market the beverage as good for you. If Mad Men were shot in England, no doubt Betty Draper would pour Don a pint after his day's work.

Click to expand...

D0ug said:

Home brew = safe for adults as long as it doesn't smell like "Satan's Anus"

Click to expand...

Zamial said:

And some argue that beer is the reason it WAS domesticated. The deal is we go from hunter gather to a agricultural society at nearly the same point. Since this was not documented and happened a LONG time ago, all we can do is speculate at which came 1st.

In any case homebrew is safe to drink. It may not taste good but it will not make you sick or kill you.

Click to expand...

Torg said:

Revvy, you are still missing my point. Not all pathogens need to be alive to cause problems. Some leave behind toxins after they are dead. True, most pathogens can not live though the fermentation process. But they can thrive at the beginning, which in some cases is all that is needed.

And there actually ARE germs that can live in beer. In fact there is a strain of e. coli (O157:H7) that will thrive in it. It is possible, but not likely. What is more likely however is some clostridum left behind butyric acid. And that can definitely make you sick. You would have to ignore the fact it smells and tastes awful, but it can occur.

To claim no fermented drink can be infected is plain silliness and ignores science. And if you want to read about some tests with beer and its antimicrobial properties here is one of many papers on the subject.

http://www.ftb.com.hr/48/48-384.pdf

Click to expand...

Revvy said:

So unless someone shoves a bottle up their a$$ THEN pours their beer from said bottle, into a glass and drinks it. I'm not too concerned about e-coli in my beer. If that is indeed the case then I think there's a little more going on than worrying about beer.

Click to expand...

jeffmeh said:

How long before someone puts that in his signature? Classic.

Click to expand...

Beer Science; And A Cancer Research Report
In this episode, University of California, Davis, professor Charles Bamforth talks about beer science. And journalist Kevin Begos discusses the centennial meeting of the American Association For Cancer Research. Plus we'll test your knowedge of some recent science in the news.

Charlie Bamforth who knows as much about beer as any one and has one of the great titles in all of academia. He is the Anheuser-Busch professor of malting and brewing sciences at the University of California, Davis; and journalist Kevin Begos joins us. He reports on the recent conference of the American Association for Cancer Research.

First up, Charlie Bamforth. He is the author of "Beer: Tap into the Art and Science of Brewing." He spoke at the New York Academy of Sciences in late February, and I wrote about his talk in the May issue of Scientific American, but since Charlie is so entertaining and my column is so short, I thought there was plenty more to explore.I called Bamforth at his office at U.C., Davis.



.....Steve: Until very recently, wasn't water dangerous to drink? Is that part of why wine and beer were the drinks of choice throughout the last 8,000 years or so?

Bamforth: Yeah! Beer is certainly not hospitable for the growth of microorganisms. You know, we don’t have coli scares in beer. Pathogens will not grow in beer and the beer—of course during production it's boiled—beer contains hops which has got antimicrobial components, and so, you know, ales and beers over the years have been safer to drink rather than the water because of these reasons. You know, the early settlers in this country, you know, the story is told of those guys landing up from the rocks. Why? Because of victuals were much spent especially of beer, and, you know, the people, they kept enough beer for the sailors to go back on the Mayflower. The people who were settling there were drinking the local water, and they were getting sick because, you know, if they’ve [they'd] been drinking the ale, and they would've been much healthier.

Steve: Right! You tell that story in the book. You also mention that the first paved street in America, in New York City—in what is now New York City was paved so that the beer wagons could get through better.

Click to expand...

Click to listen

FLATOW: You're listening to SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow. My guest is Charlie Bamforth, author of "Beer is Proof God Loves Us: Reaching for the Soul of Beer and Brewing." And if you'd like to read some of that, you'll find an excerpt on our website, at sciencefriday.com.

Is it hard to brew beer for yourself? Would you like to try it, Charlie?

Prof. BAMFORTH: Well, I don't brew by myself. I've always been professionally involved in the industry. So I've never gone home and brewed beer. But it's not easy. You know, you want to get it right. And the golden rule if you're going to brew at home is hygiene, hygiene, hygiene, make sure everything's nice and clean. Although beer...

FLATOW: I'm sorry, go ahead.

Prof. BAMFORTH: Although beer is resistant to pathogenic organisms, no pathogens will grow in beer, there are some bacteria that will grow in beer. As far as I know, none that use arsenic. (Soundbite of laughter)

Prof. BAMFORTH: But there are some that will grow in beer, and you've got to make sure you don't introduce them.

Click to expand...

mullenite said:

Revvy, I will search EBSCO tonight when I get home and I can see if I can find aticles about pathogen survival in beer. Maybe I can find the whole paper of that abstract you posted.

Click to expand...

petey_c said:

So Revvy, if I'm reading you right, Jesus was actually doing everybody a favor by turning that water into wine.

Click to expand...

Golddiggie said:

Interesting... More so that you know what Satan's anus smells like...

Click to expand...

Retarded_Penguin_Brewing said:

why convince him? plenty more for you! :cross:

Click to expand...

MBasile said:

This is my theory! But when new people do ask if its safe to drink I go "Well, I haven't gone blind yet!"

Click to expand...