Quantcast

Dangers of Homebrewing

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

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,298
Reaction score
3,686
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
How long before someone puts that in his signature? Classic.
One can only hope.


Oh some more things...From http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=716465BC-E7F2-99DF-3EAB0C599937C0E6

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.
NPR Science Fridays.

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/03/131785456/Searching-For-Science-In-A-Glass-of-Beer

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.
He also talks about it here Bamfoth's book on Google books.


Gee, Torg, where E-coli, and other pathogens are concerned...and pathogens in beer, I think I'd go with Professor Bamforth, than anything you cite, or opine on...But that's just me. :rolleyes:
 

mullenite

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

petey_c

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
93
Location
Miller Place
So Revvy, if I'm reading you right, Jesus was actually doing everybody a favor by turning that water into wine.
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,298
Reaction score
3,686
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
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.
Yeah, I'm not at work at the medical school where my office computer automatically unlocks all publications that can be opened from academic computers. (Like if it recognizes your IP adress as academic)

But even just googling "Pathogens in beer, turns up NOTHING backing up the idea that anything pathogenic can exist. And believe me over the years I've gone deep into this researches to counter idiocy like this.

Maybe our friend needs this... http://tinyurl.com/4jgxaal

I keep saying I'm gonna quit responding to him, but to me, this is one of the most important things new brewers need to know, and therefore any mis-information needs to be countered. They are scared enough to even LOOK at their beer for fear fo having it spotanaeously turn to poison and kill their friends. It's because they only know enough to be dangerous :) we all were there. People still think you can go blind from drinking homebrew. So we don't NEED any more misinfomation out here for people to stumble upon when they are looking for knowlege and re-assurance that what they are doing is going to be okay.

I'll say it again. The whole delicate history of our re-legalization of homebrewing in 1978 (40 years after it was "conveniently" left off the re-peal of prhohibition) is predicated up knowlege, especially about the SAFETY of this hobby.

If you follow basic sanitiary precautions (hell one could argue even if you don't, since they didn't know basic safety precautions 8,000 years ago ;)) the only harm that can come to you and your friends from making beer, is to your LIVER and a few braincells....

But that's from consumption.

You can't make you or your firends sick, can't give them food poisoning, can't give theme-coli (unless from the above mentioned methods) or a yeast infection or anything that can harm you or them. It is NOT possible, for anything that can harm you, to grow in your beer.
 

Golddiggie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2010
Messages
12,087
Reaction score
609
Location
Living free in the 603
This is my theory! But when new people do ask if its safe to drink I go "Well, I haven't gone blind yet!"
You could also go two other ways...

"I'm almost blind, but not from homebrew" :eek:
or
"My eyesight has improved since I started drinking homebrew... Just wish the GF/wife/other would also improve."
 

mullenite

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
639
Reaction score
6
Location
Gainesville, Fl
Lots to read as a result of my EBSCO search, primarily dealing with fungi that infect barley such as Fusarium complex and Ochratoxin A.

When it comes to Ochratoxin A (symbols that don't show are ^-1):

Estimations of ochratoxin A (OTA) and 4-deoxynivalenol (DON) exposure of the Belgian population through beer
consumption were made using the results of the recent Belgian food survey and the compiled data set of OTA and DON
levels in conventionally and organically produced beers in 2003–05. For the consumers of organic beers, the daily intake
of OTA was 0.86 (in 2003), 1.76 (in 2004) and 0.72 (in 2005) ng kg1 body weight (bw), considering the mean beer
consumption (0.638 litres) and the average level of OTA in 2003, 2004 and 2005, respectively. Using the 97.5th percentile
of beer consumption (1.972 litres), the corresponding OTA daily intakes were 2.65, 5.44 and 2.24 ng kg1 bw, which are
close or above the tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 5 ng kg1 bw. For the consumers of conventional beers, the OTA intakes
were low: 0.23, 0.23 and 0.11 ng kg1 bw day1 for the average beer consumption, in 2003, 2004 and 2005 against 0.72,
0.73 and 0.34 ng kg1 bw day1 when the 97.5th percentile level was considered. As for the DON intake, the estimates were
quite low for both conventional and organic beer consumers when the provisional maximum TDI (PMTDI) of 1 mg kg1 bw
was considered. Average consumption of organic beer led to daily intakes of 0.05 and 0.04 mgDONkg1 bw in 2003 and
2004, respectively, whilst for conventional beer, daily intakes were 0.07 and 0.05 mgDONkg1 bw. At the 97.5th percentile
level of beer consumption, daily intakes of 0.15 and 0.13 mg kg1 bw were obtained for organic beers against 0.23 and
0.17 mg kg1 bw for conventional ones. The results showed that beer could be an important contributor to OTA exposure in
Belgium, even though a declining trend seems to be apparent during the last year of monitoring. Therefore, efforts should
be devoted to maintain the OTA levels as low as reasonably achievable, especially for organic beer.
For Fusarium mychotoxins (important note: this is during the brewing process, not the beer itself DON levels were tested in 14 US beers and none were found to contain the toxin. In the paper itself they cover this and say that while toxins were found to be transferred more research is needed.):

The fate of five Fusarium toxins — deoxynivalenol (DON), sum of 15- and 3-acetyl-deoxynivalenol (ADONs),
HT-2 toxin (HT-2) representing the main trichothecenes and zearalenone (ZON) during the malting and brewing
processes — was investigated. In addition to these ‘free’ mycotoxins, the occurrence of deoxynivalenol-
3-glucoside (DON-3-Glc) was monitored for the first time in a beer production chain (currently, only DON and
ZON are regulated). Two batches of barley, naturally infected and artificially inoculated with Fusarium spp.
during the time of flowering, were used as a raw material for processing experiments. A highly sensitive procedure
employing high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) was
validated for the analysis of ‘free’ Fusarium mycotoxins and DON-conjugate in all types of matrices. The method
was also able to detect nivalenol (NIV), fusarenon-X (FUS-X) and T-2 toxin (T-2); nevertheless, none of these
toxins was found in any of the samples. While steeping of barley grains (the first step in the malting process)
apparently reduced Fusarium mycotoxin levels to below their quantification limits (5–10 mgkg1), their successive
accumulation occurred during germination. In malt, the content of monitored mycotoxins was higher compared
with the original barley. The most significant increase was found for DON-3-Glc. During the brewing process,
significant further increases in levels occurred. Concentrations of this ‘masked’ DON in final beers exceeded ‘free’
DON, while in malt grists this trichothecene was the most abundant, with the DON/DON-3-Glc ratio being
approximately 5:1 in both sample series. When calculating mass balance, no significant changes were observed
during brewing for ADONs. The content of DON and ZON slightly decreased by a maximum of 30%. Only
traces of HT-2 were detected in some processing intermediates (wort after trub removal and green beer).
One paper that was pretty interesting looked for a correlation between home-brewed beer consumption and esophageal cancer in Africa due to a higher iron content in home-brewed beers vs. commercial. They found that while home-brewed beer did have a significantly higher iron content (258-fold actually) there was no correlation. The patients who drank home-brewed beer did not suffer from iron-overload.


If anyone is interested in these papers let me know and I will email them to you. I have the PDFs saved.
 

Zamial

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
3,171
Reaction score
190
Location
WI
Estimations of ochratoxin A (OTA) and 4-deoxynivalenol (DON) exposure of the Belgian population through beer
consumption were made using the results of the recent Belgian food survey and the compiled data set of OTA and DON
levels in conventionally and organically produced beers in 2003–05. For the consumers of organic beers, the daily intake
of OTA was 0.86 (in 2003), 1.76 (in 2004) and 0.72 (in 2005) ng kg1 body weight (bw), considering the mean beer
consumption (0.638 litres) and the average level of OTA in 2003, 2004 and 2005, respectively. Using the 97.5th percentile
of beer consumption (1.972 litres), the corresponding OTA daily intakes were 2.65, 5.44 and 2.24 ng kg1 bw, which are
close or above the tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 5 ng kg1 bw. For the consumers of conventional beers, the OTA intakes
were low: 0.23, 0.23 and 0.11 ng kg1 bw day1 for the average beer consumption, in 2003, 2004 and 2005 against 0.72,
0.73 and 0.34 ng kg1 bw day1 when the 97.5th percentile level was considered. As for the DON intake, the estimates were
quite low for both conventional and organic beer consumers when the provisional maximum TDI (PMTDI) of 1 mg kg1 bw
was considered. Average consumption of organic beer led to daily intakes of 0.05 and 0.04 mgDONkg1 bw in 2003 and
2004, respectively, whilst for conventional beer, daily intakes were 0.07 and 0.05 mgDONkg1 bw. At the 97.5th percentile
level of beer consumption, daily intakes of 0.15 and 0.13 mg kg1 bw were obtained for organic beers against 0.23 and
0.17 mg kg1 bw for conventional ones. The results showed that beer could be an important contributor to OTA exposure in
Belgium, even though a declining trend seems to be apparent during the last year of monitoring.
Therefore, efforts should
be devoted to maintain the OTA levels as low as reasonably achievable, especially for organic beer.
This basically says maybe at best. and that the study showed a decrease in the last year which means that beer is probably not the cause for the exposure...but just in case "measures should be taken"...

The fate of five Fusarium toxins — deoxynivalenol (DON), sum of 15- and 3-acetyl-deoxynivalenol (ADONs),
HT-2 toxin (HT-2) representing the main trichothecenes and zearalenone (ZON) during the malting and brewing
processes — was investigated. In addition to these ‘free’ mycotoxins, the occurrence of deoxynivalenol-
3-glucoside (DON-3-Glc) was monitored for the first time in a beer production chain (currently, only DON and
ZON are regulated). Two batches of barley, naturally infected and artificially inoculated with Fusarium spp.
during the time of flowering, were used as a raw material for processing experiments.
A highly sensitive procedure
employing high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) was
validated for the analysis of ‘free’ Fusarium mycotoxins and DON-conjugate in all types of matrices. The method
was also able to detect nivalenol (NIV), fusarenon-X (FUS-X) and T-2 toxin (T-2); nevertheless, none of these
toxins was found in any of the samples.
While steeping of barley grains (the first step in the malting process)
apparently reduced Fusarium mycotoxin levels to below their quantification limits (5–10 mgkg1), their successive
accumulation occurred during germination. In malt, the content of monitored mycotoxins was higher compared
with the original barley. The most significant increase was found for DON-3-Glc. During the brewing process,
significant further increases in levels occurred. Concentrations of this ‘masked’ DON in final beers exceeded ‘free’
DON, while in malt grists this trichothecene was the most abundant, with the DON/DON-3-Glc ratio being
approximately 5:1 in both sample series. When calculating mass balance, no significant changes were observed
during brewing for ADONs. The content of DON and ZON slightly decreased by a maximum of 30%. Only
traces of HT-2 were detected in some processing intermediates (wort after trub removal and green beer).
Is based on grain steeping and appears to be preboil analysis or did I get something crossed in the lawyer text?

So I stand with my initial response. No biological pathogen can survive the brewing and fermentation process, that is widely accepted as normal, that can be harmful or fatal to humans.
 

mullenite

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
639
Reaction score
6
Location
Gainesville, Fl
This basically says maybe at best. and that the study showed a decrease in the last year which means that beer is probably not the cause for the exposure...but just in case "measures should be taken"...
It's also only in Belgium, needs to be done in a cross-cultural study to be found to be relevant.

Is based on grain steeping and appears to be preboil analysis or did I get something crossed in the lawyer text?
Check my note, the abstract for that one wasn't very good. They did find that toxins could be transferred to the final product but toxins had to be present across the entire process for that to be true. The important thing for that one is Fusarium is visible to the naked eye when it infects barley.



IF YOUR BARLEY LOOKS LIKE THIS, DON'T BREW WITH IT.
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,298
Reaction score
3,686
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
Oh god not Fusarium again. :rolleyes:That's another one that folks in fear stumble upon and like to throw up in our faces. Again it's so RARE in occurance, that we the homebrewers don't need to stress out about. I posted stuff about it on here before.

It's from a thread that ended up like this surely will be locked by the mods.

Revvy said:
This from Morebeer


Fusarium isn't a mold, it's a fungus;

It isn't created during fermentation, it's a disease that grows in the grain before and during malting;
The fungus is killed during the boil, but some of the mycotoxins already in the grain may partially survive the process;

...Notwithstanding all that, it does sound like Fusarium blight-infected grain is a potential source of toxicity in beer. I didn't see any articles detailing examples or statistics on incidence of toxicity, though. "Dose makes poison" for these sorts of things. Because Fusarium is so common, mycotoxins might always be present, but at concentrations too low to cause any observable effect in most people. Some people are particularly sensitive to mycotoxins and thus develop reactions to doses too low to bother the rest of us. Aspergillus in peanut butter is a well-known example.

So in summation... some grains that make beer may be infected and a specific toxin (mycotoxin) can survive the brewing process to some degree. This doesn't bother most people, but certain people have an allergy to mycotoxins and are sensitive enough to the amounts remaining in the beer to cause them to be unable to drink beer without repercussions.
Sounds like there needs to be a certain levl of sensitivity to fusarium to begin with.

Another thing, Figbash the article you reference happens to be from 1997.

A little more digging shows that 6 years later, on 7- 22-2003,


A team of scientists - including one from Michigan State University - has announced a genomic sequence for the rest of us: mapping the DNA of a grain fungus that wreaks havoc with beer brewing.
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/biowissenschaften_chemie/bericht-20081.html
And in an article published in 2007, titled;


Strategies for managing Fusarium head blight and deoxynivalenol accumulation in wheat

Abstract

Many mycotoxigenic fungi infect plant hosts and cause disease in the field. Therefore, control of field infection by these fungi is a critical step in managing mycotoxin accumulation in the harvested product. Fusarium graminearum, also known as Gibberella zeae, is the causal agent of Fusarium head blight (FHB), or scab, in cereals and is also the primary agent responsible for contamination of grain with deoxynivalenol (DON). Research efforts worldwide are devoted to the development of strategies to control field infection of wheat and barley by this pathogen. Strategies include the use of fungicides and biological control agents to protect flowering heads from infection. There is extensive effort in breeding for host resistance to infection and spread of the pathogen within the heads. Scientists are also seeking exogenous traits to introduce into cereals to enhance resistance. Cultural practices are also being examined, primarily as measures to reduce pathogen survival and inoculum production in crop residues. The successes and limitations of these strategies in the management of Fusarium head blight and deoxynivalenol are discussed.

ScienceDirect - http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=364210a1b4755a2532160d43d68ad531
So the more I read, the less I'm concerned.....it really seems that this is just another case of someone only having one part of the puzzle, and thinking it's the whole.....I appreciate your concern, but,

Since the OP, who this thread is supposed to be about anyway, had a mold pellicule growing on his beer, not a fungus.....this whole discussion really has no relevence to the situation at hand.

Especially in light of the fact, that for all we know (and I haven't looked enough to confirm this) the blight that you so greatly fear, more than likely has been controlled or greatly reduced, and probably did not infect his grain...and if it did it would also more than likely only harm people who were sensitive to mycotoxins...I'm going to go back to the idea that this is nothing more than ignorant (no offense intended we are all ignorant of something) hysteria.

And this whole sidebar, as I have several times said, bares little relevence to our friends tapeworm like mold

It kinda reminds me of this story:


Quote:
The Blind Man and the Elephant
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant~(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation~Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side, ~ At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant ~ Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho! what have we here?
So very round and smooth and sharp? ~ To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant ~ Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands, ~ Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant ~ Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like ~ Is mighty plain," quoth her;
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant ~ Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most; ~ Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant ~ Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail ~ That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant ~ Is very like a rope!

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion ~ Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right ~ And all were in the wrong!

Moral

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

-John Godfrey Saxe
Yeah we've been down the Fusarium road on here befpre. ;) My chances of winning the lottery, finding out I'm the last surviving member of Spanish royality, and bedding twin redhead irish lasses in matching fishnets in the same day, are higher than anyone on here getting sick from Fusarium laced grain. :rolleyes:
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,298
Reaction score
3,686
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
This is something I forgot about.

Hoosbrewing said:
OK, so given my line of work I have access to Medline, which is a database of most scientific and medical journals published since 1955. A quick search for "beer" resulted in ~5000 journal articles. Another search of "pathogen" resulted ~53,000 articles, and a search of "infection" resulted ~600,000 articles. When I crossed beer with either or both of the other search terms, it gave me a total of 60 articles. Most of these were discussing risk factors for contracting HIV and/or hepatitis, or TB. A handful discussed infections in beer causing gushers, and there was the one study looking at levels of mycotoxins in beer. In that study, the levels reported were so low that they had to be verified by another testing apparatus, and there was no mention of what (if anything) the low levels would do to you if you drank them.

What I did not find, however, was any mention of any pathogen that causes harm found in beer.

FWIW.
I did the same search at work and came up with the same thing.
 

jeffmeh

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2009
Messages
2,150
Reaction score
216
My chances of winning the lottery, finding out I'm the last surviving member of Spanish royality, and bedding twin redhead irish lasses in matching fishnets in the same day, are higher than anyone on here getting sick from Fusarium laced grain. :rolleyes:
Did you enumerate these in order of probability or desire? ;)

This thread has provided serious fodder for some memorable quotations.
 

Zamial

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
3,171
Reaction score
190
Location
WI
Oh god not Fusarium again.
Ok, so if a werewolf bites a vampire, runs by my brew kettle and spits in it, I could come down with a bad case of the Fusariums...seriously...

Humans would get gravely ill if they went into heavily used, poorly cleaned, public restrooms and licked toilet seats. The danger is very real. Since no one actually does this, we will not see warning signs that advise against this activity...same with the straws that are being grasped at here.

The problem is you have to be using nasty grain. I can only speak from personal experience but when fungus grows on/in stuff it stinks...bad. Removing it from the thought of being used.

AKA

I have never seen a "My grain is moldy, should I use it?" thread. I am guessing that I never will...common sense, we promote it!

The other way is for a wild spore to float through the air and get in contact with the wort. Since my wort is hot ( I never drop the temp to below ambient prior to transferring to a fermenter) there is a thermal "up draft" that keeps crap like this out of my wort. Making it impossible for a spore to "fall into" my wort.

So my final thought is this...

General good practices, cleanliness and safe food handling procedures reduce your chances of getting a biological pathogen in your beer to zero.
 

Revvy

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
41,298
Reaction score
3,686
Location
"Detroitish" Michigan
So my final thought is this...

General good practices, cleanliness and safe food handling procedures reduce your chances of getting a biological pathogen in your beer to zero.
See I still am going to say that normal fermentation, hops, and the boil alone reduces your chances of getting a biological pathogen to zero.

II think if there was stuff that could live in beer and kill you, the human race would have died out a hell of a long time ago!

I think adding the layers of "common sense" that you mention increases the odds of getting a biological pathogen from our beer to alongsides the odds of the "perfect day" with the red heads mentioned earlier.

;)
 

mullenite

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
639
Reaction score
6
Location
Gainesville, Fl
I spoke with an old roommate who works with crop diseases (degree from University of Florida in Agricultural Management, currently works as a contractor for the state of Florida checking farms for disease) about this, he said that in the US Fusarium is basically a non-issue for food use barley and wheat. Infected heads won't typically get past processing.
 

gr8shandini

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
799
Reaction score
56
Location
Philly
Wow, we seem to really be veering into obscurity here with rare toxins. I hope we can all agree that home brew is at least as safe as anything else you would cook at home and that it's much safer than most. Do your friends also refuse to eat at your house? If so, I suggest finding new friends.

I think most people have aversions to homebrew because they equate it with distilling, which has a reputation for making people go blind, but is also perfectly safe (not that I've tried it or condone it and all the other legal disclaimers required). The distillation process just separates the components of the original mash, as opposed to creating new ones. Yes, it's possible to target and concentrate the tiny portion of methanol present in a normal fermentation, but it would only be a few drops worth and, from what I understand, the normal process is to discard the first few ounces from the still because it contains a high percentage of fusels and other crap - including the methanol - that's not desireable in the finished product.

The notion that homemade spirits contain methanol comes from prohibition where unscrupulous bootleggers would attempt to redistill or just plain cut their swill with industrial products containing methanol and other "denaturing" toxins as required by the Feds. There was a good article a while back about how the government knew that most deaths from alcohol poisoning were caused by its own policies but chose not to do anything about it:

http://www.slate.com/id/2245188/
 

ThereThere

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
Location
St. Paul
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.
Wait, so how do you open your bottles then?
Sorry if this has been asked before, I'm new here.
 

HerotBrewer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
288
Reaction score
5
Location
WNY
I know it's an old thread, but I wanted to chime in with a few links on the subject of pregnancy, because the original poster who said any alcohol is dangerous to the fetus still hasn't posted any sources, so I went and found some of my own

Light Drinking Said Ok for Pregnant Women
"It is no longer valid to argue that we don't know enough about low-dose drinking during pregnancy or that the known effects of binge drinking may penetrate to low-dose drinkers somehow," he added. "There is no detectable risk associated with light or moderate drinking during pregnancy."

The researchers tapped into a long-term study that has followed more than 18,500 children since birth between 2000 and 2002.

Final results of the study, published today in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, agreed with previous work that children born to heavy binge drinkers do worst on developmental tests, because excessive exposure to alcohol in the womb kills nerve cells and causes brain damage.

The kids of teetotalers did almost as poorly, however, reflecting the complicated phenomenon that people who never drink have poor outcomes on many measures of health.

But the study found no evidence that light drinking during pregnancy causes emotional or learning problems in children through the age of five. In some tests of vocabulary and pattern creation, boys actually did best if their moms drank a little while carrying them. The findings confirmed what the researchers had found when the kids were three years old.

Alcohol and Pregnancy
There are no studies showing harmful effects from 1–3 drinks a week.

A study by Willford, Leech, and Day found that prenatal alcohol exposure equivalent to 3-6 drinks a week correlated with lower IQ scores in African-American children but not in whites. As one commentator points out, the same study showed that maternal consumption of cocaine correlated with increased overall IQ scores in white children: this “suggests that perhaps the standards for confounding factors and statistical significance might have been too low.”

If we go by this study, beer is bad but cocaine is good?
 

Lancer033

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
77
Reaction score
2
Location
Norfolk
In New Zealand it's legal for anyone to distill as much spirits as they want.
yet another reason New Zealand is on my list of places to move to. :rockin:

New Zealand is the highest ranked english speaking nation on the index of freedom. :mug:
 

rico567

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
3,016
Reaction score
97
Location
Central IL
yet another reason New Zealand is on my list of places to move to. :rockin:

New Zealand is the highest ranked english speaking nation on the index of freedom. :mug:
Piffle. New Zealand doesn't have the same history as the U.S., so its laws (including those related to alcohol) are different. Four decades ago, I researched the prospects of emigration to Australia, on just this basis- more freedom. Well, I discovered that in some ways that was true, but in other ways not. And things have certainly not moved in the direction of more freedom in Oz since then. And socially, the best way to describe Australia when I looked into it was the U.S. about 30 years in the past. How about NO.



:off: Freedom is relative, or, in the case of the United States, it's better described as a balance between freedom and equality. Many people think those are the same thing, but they are in opposition to each other and have always been. They virtually define our history, and the increasing rate of change in favor of equality at the expense of freedom subsumes most of the issues of our time.
 

Lancer033

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
77
Reaction score
2
Location
Norfolk
actually i should correct myself, Australia is now #3 and New Zealand is down to #4 for 2012, but neither are heading in the right direction but still much better than #10
 

Maidenhead

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2019
Messages
19
Reaction score
10
Was just thinking that if it was a good batch, your "friend" might get the last one...
 
Top