Quantcast

Dangers of Homebrewing

HomeBrewTalk.com - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Community.

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

smarek82

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
212
Reaction score
1
Location
Hazleton, PA
That video that Revvy posted with the colonial times guy, I've seen his demonstration at a local Beerfest in Hershey, PA. The way this guy made beer with the equipment he had looked like a teppid pool of swine flu. He is still living and the 2 years I've gone to it...he was doing the same thing.
 

smarek82

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
212
Reaction score
1
Location
Hazleton, PA
P.S. the beerfest this year was a HOT april sunday afternoon and this guy was sweating bullets....I'm assuming he is still alive!
 

kaiser423

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
478
Reaction score
6
Location
Albuquerque, NM
And the only amount of alcohol we know to be safe to a human is also zero, yet here we all are...
That's just a silly statement.

No, we have absolute mountains of information telling us that that what you just said is false. We have practically every man alive since before the Egyptians, and have thousands of studies tracking hundreds of thousands of people throughout their whole lives telling us that, generally, alcohol is pretty safe after you get past a certain age.

I'm the last person to be a nanny about anything, but from the last set of studies that I've read about alcohol and fetus developments, I've been a) impressed with the amount of data, and quality of the study and b) scared at just how small of effects they can track.

However, after reading the studies, I still have no problem letting pregnant women knock back a glass of wine after the first two months, or a beer here or there. The kid will most likely be perfectly healthy.

But the statement that it's generally considered to have no effects on a fetus, is at this point, quite debunked, and all I feel is that you should put as truthful information as possible as you can out there and let people figure it out. Just doing some public service, or something :cross:
 

carl spakler

Banned
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
294
Reaction score
2
Location
MA
But the statement that it's generally considered to have no effects on a fetus, is at this point, quite debunked, and all I feel is that you should put as truthful information as possible as you can out there and let people figure it out.
I would hardly say it is debunked, there are strong points on both sides of the argument, you just happen to have a vested interest in one side. ;) Is there a clinical trial that shows direct causality between 1 drink and fetal development problems?
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,298
Reaction score
3,686
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
I think the specific issue the poster of the pregnancy question was not whether a small amount of alcohol during the final trimester was bad, but whether or not unpasteurized alcohol was bad.

Rather than debating pregnancy and alcohol, does anyone actually have anything substantial to offer on the original premise of the question?

No, well I'll take a stab at it....

Looking at google, it appears that they only reason unpasturized things are to be avoided is because of the risk of things that otherwise cannot exist in beer/alcohol.

(see my original post about no pathogens being able to live in beer.)

Unpasteurized Milk: Unpasteurized milk may contain bacteria called listeria, which can cause miscarriage. Listeria has the ability to cross the placenta and may infect the baby leading to infection or blood poisoning, which can be life-threatening. Make sure that any milk you drink is pasteurized.
Drinking unpasteurized juice has been associated with foodborne disease caused by E. coli 0157H7 or Salmonella species that can make people seriously ill. Especially vulnerable are the young, the elderly, and people whose immune systems are compromised by a disease or immunosuppressive medication.
None of those things can exist in beer....I'm not advocating anything, but it appears that the reasons unpasturized foods/beverages are a no-no, are because of the risk of pathogens, that for the reasons I have already posted, cannot live in beer.

It should be noted that, in the late 19th and earlier 20th centuries, doctors often prescribed Milk Stouts to pregnant and lactating women to aid in the production of milk for breast feeding their babies (or perhaps just to sooth their frazzled nerves).

I think I might have some of those old adds lying around.
 

taylornate

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
224
Reaction score
2
Location
Springfield, IL
I would hardly say it is debunked, there are strong points on both sides of the argument, you just happen to have a vested interest in one side. ;) Is there a clinical trial that shows direct causality between 1 drink and fetal development problems?
We know for a fact alcohol is very bad for the fetus. We just haven't found a threshold for safety. As far as I know, the strongest point on your side is a lack of data, which is not very compelling. If you have something stronger then please share.
 

taylornate

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
224
Reaction score
2
Location
Springfield, IL
I think the specific issue the poster of the pregnancy question was not whether a small amount of alcohol during the final trimester was bad, but whether or not unpasteurized alcohol was bad.

Rather than debating pregnancy and alcohol, does anyone actually have anything substantial to offer on the original premise of the question?

No, well I'll take a stab at it....

Looking at google, it appears that they only reason unpasturized things are to be avoided is because of the risk of things that otherwise cannot exist in beer/alcohol.

(see my original post about no pathogens being able to live in beer.)





None of those things can exist in beer....I'm not advocating anything, but it appears that the reasons unpasturized foods/beverages are a no-no, are because of the risk of pathogens, that for the reasons I have already posted, cannot live in beer.

It should be noted that, in the late 19th and earlier 20th centuries, doctors often prescribed Milk Stouts to pregnant and lactating women to aid in the production of milk for breast feeding their babies (or perhaps just to sooth their frazzled nerves).

I think I might have some of those old adds lying around.
I agree. I don't think unpasteurized beer would be any worse than pasteurized.

Edit: Pregnancy and alcohol is still an important thing to discuss, albeit a bit off topic from the original point of this thread.
 

carl spakler

Banned
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
294
Reaction score
2
Location
MA
We know for a fact alcohol is very bad for the fetus. We just haven't found a threshold for safety. As far as I know, the strongest point on your side is a lack of data, which is not very compelling. If you have something stronger then please share.
You cite no data that shows a single drink will directly cause harm either. This only proves that it is speculation or bias that leads one to make their conclusion.

Revvy - thanks for some science as opposed to speculation.
 

jerryodom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
132
Reaction score
1
Location
Baton Rouge
My homebrew did make me go blind. I boosted the alcohol in this Ale to around 12% and after several pints I couldn't find my way out of my bathroom. Woke up in the bathtub.
 

taylornate

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
224
Reaction score
2
Location
Springfield, IL
You cite no data that shows a single drink will directly cause harm either. This only proves that it is speculation or bias that leads one to make their conclusion.

Revvy - thanks for some science as opposed to speculation.
I never intended to imply that a single drink will cause harm. We just do not know it to be safe. Currently the only way to know with 100% certainty that there will be no detrimental effect of alcohol is to abstain completely. That is all I have been saying and I don't think we are in disagreement.

This fact, combined with the fact that we know alcohol as a substance is harmful, leads me to my opinion that the best course of action would be to abstain. I agree it is unlikely that there would be detriment from a single drink later in pregnancy. However, I don't think the pleasure from a single drink is enough to outweigh that small chance. It is my opinion and not a fact, but it is not based on speculation or unwarranted bias.

edit: I should add that I won't judge someone for having said drink. I just wouldn't do it myself.
 

kaiser423

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
478
Reaction score
6
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Looking at google, it appears that they only reason unpasturized things are to be avoided is because of the risk of things that otherwise cannot exist in beer/alcohol.
Si Senor. I don't see why an unpasteurized beer would be any more harmful. I can understand unpasteurized products in general, but beer's a special case. Of couse, beer is always special to me :tank:

:off:
On the other derail, both sides have good points, and the large majority of the evidence suggests that a drink or two here and there during pregnancy won't affect anything. So give it a go, I have no problem with my wife slowly drinking a beer or a glass of wine while pregnant. But at BAC's consistent with a single drink, it has been shown can block the binding of certain proteins in the fetus. Is it likely to really cause a problem? Probably not, us humans are incredibly resilient. But is it putting additional (however small) stress on the fetus? Most likely. But for all the care taken by some people to make sure their yeasts never get stressed in order to avoid off-flavors, you'd think that they might consider the same for the wee-ones. We have enough off-flavor people around here anyways :fro:
 

Makeyermark

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
163
Reaction score
2
Location
Southern California
I've heard tale of a mama beer, papa beer and baby beer that invaded this chick named Goldie Locks house. They ate all of her food, slept in her bed and didn't clean up after themselves. The nerve of those beers....
 

Torg

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
150
Reaction score
6
Location
DFW, TX
About the closest a home brewed alcohol can get to being harmful is if it is infected (mainly with one of the Clostridium), and you ignored the fact it smelled and tasted very foul. It would not kill you, but you could get sick. But to do that would require you were totally oblivious to the smell of the beer.
 

Zamial

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
3,171
Reaction score
190
Location
WI
About the closest a home brewed alcohol can get to being harmful is if it is infected (mainly with one of the Clostridium), and you ignored the fact it smelled and tasted very foul. It would not kill you, but you could get sick. But to do that would require you were totally oblivious to the smell of the beer.
This beer thread wont die so why would you from drinking beer? There is NO known pathogens that can live in beer. There is NO exception to that rule that I am aware of.
 

Torg

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
150
Reaction score
6
Location
DFW, TX
This beer thread wont die so why would you from drinking beer? There is NO known pathogens that can live in beer. There is NO exception to that rule that I am aware of.
It does not have to live in the beer. All it has to do is lived (as in past tense) when it was brewing. The germs leave the toxins behind them, the same as they yeasts do. Yeast is not alcohol, alcohol is what the yeast makes. Pathogens do not make you sick, it is what they leave behind that does.

Were the fact that no pathogens could live in beer we would not have alcohol. We would not have any infections in beer. We would not have any vinegar. There are plenty of things that can live in low levels of alcohol. Luckily they are not things that can kill you. But to suppose that nothing can live in beer is pure fantasy.
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,298
Reaction score
3,686
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
No known pathogens can exist inbeer. Period.

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.
Things that can make humans sick, cannot exist in beer.

Period.

Vinegar (acetobactor) is not harmufl to humans, else we wouldn't be able to consume it.

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.
Again....Nothing that can grow in beer, including lactobasillus and aecetobactor is harmful to humans!!!
 

Torg

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
150
Reaction score
6
Location
DFW, TX
Revvy, consider this. First I did not say it will survive and thrive. Second the mere fact of boiling will kill just about anything. But improper sanitation, especially getting infected water into the wort during the cooling phase, or poor sanitation of the fermentor, can infect it with such things as cholera.

Soon after it starts to ferment the yeast will create alcohol levels to the amounts that start to kill off the germs. This is in fact the balance people try to achieve when making beers that contain lactobacillus. Yeast go dormant, and the germs die. But just because they are dead does not mean they did not leave anything behind. And there are plenty of the clostridium germs that could have survived at the beginning of primary fermentation.

All of them leave behind smells, and tastes that are blatant they were present during fermentation. So it is pretty easy to tell. This is why we have such customs as smelling the cork from a bottle of wine. You are not testing it for its aroma, you are checking to see if it is wine or vinegar.
 

Zamial

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
3,171
Reaction score
190
Location
WI
Not that I am a greater subject expert than Revvy. So I will grab some popcorn and let the lesson begin.

Please understand that this is a subject matter we hear about all the time in: Should i dump my beer? or Is it safe to drink threads. The simple fact is beer can not contain biologicals that can be harmful or fatal to a human.

I am actually working on a project that should allow me to help others to create some sort of drink from the worst of infected batches. I believe in "Never Dump Beer" but that is another thread...
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,298
Reaction score
3,686
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
Maybe I didn't speak plainly enough for you. ALl you are doing is formenting fear with your idiotic quibbling. I'll say it again for you.

NOTHING PATHOGENIC CAN EXIST IN BEER.

HISTORICALLY WE DRANK BEER BECAUSE CHOLERA AND OTHER PATHOGENS COULD NOT THRIVE IN IT....CAN YOU NOT GRASP THIS SIMPLE FACT???????

From "A History of Beer."

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.
In 1889 EVEN BREWER THOMAS SCHAFFLY KNEW THIS.

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.
We're done here. You can choose to believe what you want. But WE deal in the truth, in facts. AND the fact is, Nothing pathogenic can thrive in beer.

Unplesant things, like sour beers and vinegar, ARE NOT PATHOGENIC TO HUMANS. How hard is that for you to understand as well? Here's more. Even the LOWEST ALCOHOL BEERS WERE CONSUMED FOR THEIR NOT TOXICITY.

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

We can barely post this weekend with all thr trouble on hbt today, and I'm gonna waste my time dealing with this BS?

Nothing Pathogenic Can EXIST IN BEER.
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,298
Reaction score
3,686
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
Even the abstract of the paper "The growth and survival of food-borne pathogens in sweet and fermenting brewers' wort " by Garry Menza, Frank Vriesekoop, a, Mehdi Zareia, Bofei Zhua and Peter Aldreda from the Institute of Food & Crop Science, School of Science & Engineering, University of Ballarat, Ballarat, Australia makes a point of stating that the micro organisms don't survive the boiling and fermentation process.

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.
 

mullenite

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
639
Reaction score
6
Location
Gainesville, Fl
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.
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. :mug:
 

Zamial

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
3,171
Reaction score
190
Location
WI
and the reason it is one of the oldest beverages, is because barley and wheat are the oldest domesticated crops. :
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.
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,298
Reaction score
3,686
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
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. :mug:
Good points!

Actually I posted some historical stuff a few months ago that proved even in ancient times, though there was not "germ theory" there WAS an intrinisic understanding that "alcohol from fermentables" WERE safer than water.

Alcohol is toxic to most of those things as well. Obviously, that's why we don't get sick from wines and meads as well. So no matter what came first wine, beer or mead, it was seen as "healthier" than the water.

Maybe if HBT starts working again I can search for it, I swear it was within the last month.

In fact even as far back as the old testament authors there was a basic understanding of "medicine" and the prevention of illness. Many of the prohibitions of eating certain foods, such as shellfish and pork didn't really have "religuous" significance, per se, they were because there was a basic though limited understanding of food bornes illness inhereant in both of those things, such as trichinosis. So what was the best way to "get the word out?" To have the religuous teachings reflect that (often creating a "mythology" around it) but the reason was literally to "put the fear of GOD" into them to prevent them from eating those things.

Same with "ritualistic bathing" in early religions...dirt was bad, water and bathing was "pure." And "Cleanliness was next to godliness." ;)

We studied that in minsterial school.

Even the role of wine which appeared in the bible had a similar significance. In terms of consuming, it was given more prominance that drinking water in the bible. Because to the desert people fresh safe water was a rarity. Even when I was a kid, goign through first communion in the Catholic church, I asked my sponsoring priest about this, and he explained something similar.

Though the ancients may not of had words like "pathogens" or "Trichonosis" or "Germs" in their lexicon, they did seem to have powers of observations about their environment, what was good and bad for them.

I'm pretty sure this stuff will be covered in that discovery series on tonight. Maybe Torg will watch it and learn something.

:mug:
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,298
Reaction score
3,686
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
This must be what I was thinking of. Oh looks like HBT may be up and running fine now.

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.
Oh this is interesting. From the above article.

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.
 

Zamial

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
3,171
Reaction score
190
Location
WI
Aw buddy, I'm sure your homebrew tastes better than that. :rockin:
I was talking in general...lol. My Home Brews are on an ever increasing curve of greatness because of HBT gurus. I am headed for a train wreck beer of horrid proportions or I should start cloning my liver for transplant...lol.
 

rico567

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
3,016
Reaction score
97
Location
Central IL
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.
I absolutely don't buy a word of that without citations.

Citations:
 

D0ug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
674
Reaction score
18
Location
Portland, ME
I think the OP's friend was confused about the difference between homebrewing and home distillation.

Home brew = safe for adults as long as it doesn't smell like "Satan's Anus", which is rare, caused by poor sanitation practices, will probably only give you the splats, and who would drink that anyway?

Home distillation = dangerous with by products which can make you very ill or blind, but these are hard liquors that are concentrated and involve elaborate process steps not involved in making beer/wine/mead/cider.

So homebrew is safe, home distillation is not. It is also not discussed here. This is a home BREWING forum right?

My 2 cents
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,298
Reaction score
3,686
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
I absolutely don't buy a word of that without citations.

Citations:
You might find this interesting...from the same article.

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.
The "milk stout" style was popularly thought to be good for pregnant women and nursing moms.

 

mullenite

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
639
Reaction score
6
Location
Gainesville, Fl
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.
I've heard that but wouldn't put too much faith in it. Beer certainly existed for a short time before agriculture but much of what early people ate were also made from grains. The main theory, although hottly debated, is the Little Dryas forced people to try and grow their own food, they had plenty of grains so they stuck them in the ground. FWIW I'm an anthropology student and have been focusing my research on cultural aspects of alcohol consumption.

Revvy, I'm glad you didn't take offense to my statement that the earth is more than 5500 years old. I know many a reverend who would. ;)
 

Torg

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
150
Reaction score
6
Location
DFW, TX
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
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,298
Reaction score
3,686
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
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
Seems like the only one ignorance science and the facts is you....and even if we wanna agree an "a strain" of e-coli that could live in beer (which actually has been disputed), EVEN YOU SAY IT IS UNLIKELY. So why worry about it, and more importantly, why breed fear in new brewers ? We don't do that here.

The "germs" you claim can live in beer, have already been stated repeatedly as NOT BEING PATHONGENIC to humans.

YOU still fail to grasp the difference between the words INFECTION and PATHOGEN as well. Beers can and do get infected, but those infections are not PATHOGENIC to humans.

And again your paper talks about testing for those things added after the beer was brewed. Not something that survived the brewing process.

Because those things wouldn't be present in the beer beforehand, because it wouldn't, for the 10,000th time be able to survive the brewing and fermentation process.

Besides brewing the beer, we also usually SANITIZE our bottles and stuff with fda approved sanitizers.

If I'm in mexico and grab a coke or a beer out of a cooler, open it and takes a swig and get E-coli, I didn't get it from the beer IN THE BOTTLE, I got it from the water it's sitting in that was on the outside. It wouldn't be because of the beer, unless someone injected the beer with it after the fact.

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.

I think you are quibbling and maybe trolling a little here. :rolleyes:

I've said enough to you.....
 

jeffmeh

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2009
Messages
2,150
Reaction score
216
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.
How long before someone puts that in his signature? Classic.
 
Top