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

[Revvy]

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.

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.

 

[homebrewdad]

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.

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.

 

[tonyp063]

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

    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.

 

[Revvy]

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.

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!!

 

[KegWrangler]

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.

 

[fuzzy2133]

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?

 

[MichaelBrock]

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.

 

[HIlife]

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.

 

[tonyp063]

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.

 

[Revvy]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Revvy]

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.

 

[MichaelBrock]

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?
......

I find these arguments completely convincing. But the statement does need to be qualified to "None of the pathogens we are aware of are able to live in beer". That makes quite a bit more sense that the suggestion that merely because something could hurt you it couldn't live in beer.

If it can hurt you, as in cause actual, physical harm, then it's not beer.
By definition.

This is cheating! If you define beer as "a beverage that can't hurt you" then of course it can't contain something that can hurt you! :cross:

 

[IffyG]

I find these arguments completely convincing. But the statement does need to be qualified to "None of the pathogens we are aware of are able to live in beer". That makes quite a bit more sense that the suggestion that merely because something could hurt you it couldn't live in beer.

I agree. The blanket statement that "NOTHING that can grow in beer can harm you" really twists my noodle. Sure, there are no peer reviewed studies that demonstrate harmful pathogens surviving in beer, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

As a scientist, it really annoys me when people interpret negative results as proof of no effect/no finding. Negative results do not mean there is no difference/change. They mean you did not observe a difference, nothing more, nothing less. That's a pretty big difference, IMO.

A more statement would be "It is highly improbable that anything that can grow in beer can harm you." I understand it doesn't assuage fears as well as saying NOTHING in beer can hurt you, but it's the most appropriate way to make your point.

 

[BetterSense]

Aren't there mycotoxins that live in Barley that are super-mega lethal? I heard that from a pro brewer once.

 

[Revvy]

Aren't there mycotoxins that live in Barley that are super-mega lethal? I heard that from a pro brewer once.

Yeah, have you not read anything in this thread? Mycotoxins have been covered above.

 

[homebrewdad]

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....

Now let's put this silliness to bed once & for all.

Thanks for the awesome insights given here. Sadly, you won't put the silliness to bed, because it is, in fact, silliness... and not rooted in facts.

 

[homebrewdad]

Aren't there mycotoxins that live in Barley that are super-mega lethal? I heard that from a pro brewer once.

And then, there are these kind of posts. Why even bother to post informative, thoughtful replies, since so many people never bother to read them, anyway?

 

[Chris7687]

What do you all think about this... Do you think this could harm ya? I tasted, did not swallow, the beer it was sitting in. Poured out the beer as it was rancid. Found this at the bottom of the jug. It was a "spontaneous " fermentation.

 

[ACbrewer]

Aren't there mycotoxins that live in Barley that are super-mega lethal? I heard that from a pro brewer once.

Yes but as it was answered above, we control the mycrotoxins at the source - Malters test for them and won't take the grain if it has over a certian level (and that level is much lower than the level that would cause symptoms). So sure, once before we used modern testing this was more an issue, although at that time, so was Cohlera, and I'd take beer over water, knowing what I do about water born diseases. -read 'the Death Map' for how Cholera was isolated and wiped out in modern cities, begining with London of 1860's - one of the groups who didn't get sick from that particular outbreak were the brewers who were allowed to drink their product during their break, and thus avoided the local waters.

The most app thing to say would be that while at some point in history there were perhaps some more hazards to drinking beer, 1 modern production makes it very safe (asside from the eythel alcohol poisoning) and 2, it was most likely safer than the alternatives in the distant/not so distant past.

OP btw, pretty cool article. I'm currious to know if it is the PH, the alcohol, the hops or some other aspect that makes the beer inhospitable.

 

[ACbrewer]

What do you all think about this... Do you think this could harm ya? I tasted, did not swallow, the beer it was sitting in. Poured out the beer as it was rancid. Found this at the bottom of the jug. It was a "spontaneous " fermentation.

The GREATEST scientist (as far as brewing is concerned) Louis Pasture* showed 'spontanious' generation of life doesn't happen. I'd guess there was a problem with sanitation.

Was your rancid beer poisonous? or just nasty flavored? Well does it matter? It was unpalatable and thus undrinkable. Still on the question of 'could it kill you' I'd hazard a 'no' only because you'd not drink such foul tasting beer (you described as 'rancid').


* Louis Pasture dabled making rabbies vacine. Most of his real work was persuing how beer and wine fermented and how to control bacteria - Pasturization of milk.

 

[TheLastDamnBatch]

Some interesting information in this text - search for it on google books:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=0306467801

Another interesting paper:
http://www.europeanbreweryconvention.org/PDF/AC%20PR%20Survey%20mycotoxins%20final.pdf

 

[Chris7687]

Definitely had sanitation problems with this beer. I know it couldn't just ferment on it's own without and organism helping it along.

 

[HIlife]

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.

Cole RJ, Dorner JW, Cox RH, Raymond LW. Two classes of alkaloid mycotoxins produced by Penicillium crustosum thom isolated from contaminated beer. J Agric Food Chem. 1983 May-Jun;31(3):655-7. PubMed PMID: 6886222.

Abstract: An apparent natural human intoxication resulted from consumption of beer contaminated with Penicillium crustosum. Under laboratory culture, the P. crustosum isolate produced two classes of toxic alkaloids consisting of roquefortine [10~-(l,l-dimethyl-2-propenyl)-3-(imidazol-4-ylmethylene)-5a,lOP,11,11 a-tetrahydro-2H-pyrazino [ 1’,2’:1,5] pyrrolo[ 2,341 indole- 1,4( BH,GH)-dione], roquefortine A (isofumigaclavine A) (Sa-acetoxy-6,8P-dimethylergoline), roquefortine B (isofumigaclavine B) (6,8@-dimethylergolin-9a-o1), and festuclavine (6,8P-dimethylergoline). Samples of the beer were not available for analysis.

Excerpt from introduction: This study was prompted by a clinical case that apparently resulted from a natural intoxication of a 44-year-old Caucasian male who consumed some commercial beer that was contaminated with a large mycelial mass of the fungus identified as Penicillium crwtosum (Figure 1). Approximately 4 h after consuming the contaminated beer (approximately 30 cm3 consumed), the individual became actuely ill with a throbbing frontal headache, feverish feeling, nausea, vomiting, diplopia, weakness, and bloody diarrhea. After 12 h, handwriting was illegible due to tremor. The symptoms prevented eating and other activities for approximately 30 h. After this time all symptoms disappeared and no apparent residual effects were noted. Five other family members and five visitors shared the evening meal but did not consume any beer and had
no symptoms.


I'm also a molecular biologist and it bothers me when people use absolute phrases when the absolute isn't true. I fully agree with plastering big banners everywhere saying NOTHING IN BEER IS GOING TO HURT YOU, because all of us get quality starting materials. Saying that it is impossible for toxin carryover from grain to beer is, however, an incorrect statement. Apparently the mycotoxins from lolium temulentum would carry over into beer in Western Europe in the 1200s that would get you super (from Brewing Microbiology).

Just to reiterate: Anyone who is afraid that their homebrew or any commercial brew is going to get them sick is uninformed at best, and doorknob stupid at worst. It is, however, possible to have nasty stuff in finished beer.

 

[TheLastDamnBatch]

Saying that it is impossible for toxin carryover from grain to beer is, however, an incorrect statement.

Anyone who is afraid that their homebrew or any commercial brew is going to get them sick is uninformed at best

It is, however, possible to have nasty stuff in finished beer.

Amen. Can't remember where I read it, but a certain article described the tradeoffs between governments acknowledging the wheat/corn/barley infections and disposing of the grain vs. subduing the fact and letting the grain be processed (relaxing the standards). Go hungry and/or raise the price vs. take chances on infected grains. In other words what levels of these substances are safe (as determined by the various governments).

The question then becomes do GMO crops become the norm? (vs organic, etc...) GMO strains of corn, wheat, barley, have higher resistance to mycotoxins, fungal infections and pest damage.

I personally malt a lot of my own barley, corn, wheat, rye and oats for brewing. They are obtained from an organic bulk foods store. I know there is fusarium and other molds/fungus in some lots of the grain. I do my best to remove the infected kernels and don't really worry about it. I've never gotten sick from my beer. What the long term effects are I don't know, but then again, I only have 1 - 2 beers a week (sometime not even that) and regularly take a B and C vitamin complex.

 

[tonyp063]

I'm also a molecular biologist and it bothers me when people use absolute phrases when the absolute isn't true.

Understood.
Full disclosure. I am*NOT* in the medical or biological research fields as a profession. I'm in IT.
However, I directly work with & support those who are, so their attitudes & techniques have more than rubbed off on me.

 

[ACbrewer]

Understood.
Full disclosure. I am*NOT* in the medical or biological research fields as a profession. I'm in IT.
However, I directly work with & support those who are, so they're attitudes & techniques have more than rubbed off on me.

LOL.. well not at this, but I was trying to remember what BOFH was... and then you said the bit about IT and I remembered... BOFH lol....

 

[homebrewdad]

Cole RJ, Dorner JW, Cox RH, Raymond LW. Two classes of alkaloid mycotoxins produced by Penicillium crustosum thom isolated from contaminated beer. J Agric Food Chem. 1983 May-Jun;31(3):655-7. PubMed PMID: 6886222.

Abstract: An apparent natural human intoxication resulted from consumption of beer contaminated with Penicillium crustosum. Under laboratory culture, the P. crustosum isolate produced two classes of toxic alkaloids consisting of roquefortine [10~-(l,l-dimethyl-2-propenyl)-3-(imidazol-4-ylmethylene)-5a,lOP,11,11 a-tetrahydro-2H-pyrazino [ 1’,2’:1,5] pyrrolo[ 2,341 indole- 1,4( BH,GH)-dione], roquefortine A (isofumigaclavine A) (Sa-acetoxy-6,8P-dimethylergoline), roquefortine B (isofumigaclavine B) (6,8@-dimethylergolin-9a-o1), and festuclavine (6,8P-dimethylergoline). Samples of the beer were not available for analysis.

Excerpt from introduction: This study was prompted by a clinical case that apparently resulted from a natural intoxication of a 44-year-old Caucasian male who consumed some commercial beer that was contaminated with a large mycelial mass of the fungus identified as Penicillium crwtosum (Figure 1). Approximately 4 h after consuming the contaminated beer (approximately 30 cm3 consumed), the individual became actuely ill with a throbbing frontal headache, feverish feeling, nausea, vomiting, diplopia, weakness, and bloody diarrhea. After 12 h, handwriting was illegible due to tremor. The symptoms prevented eating and other activities for approximately 30 h. After this time all symptoms disappeared and no apparent residual effects were noted. Five other family members and five visitors shared the evening meal but did not consume any beer and had
no symptoms.


I'm also a molecular biologist and it bothers me when people use absolute phrases when the absolute isn't true. I fully agree with plastering big banners everywhere saying NOTHING IN BEER IS GOING TO HURT YOU, because all of us get quality starting materials. Saying that it is impossible for toxin carryover from grain to beer is, however, an incorrect statement. Apparently the mycotoxins from lolium temulentum would carry over into beer in Western Europe in the 1200s that would get you super (from Brewing Microbiology).

Just to reiterate: Anyone who is afraid that their homebrew or any commercial brew is going to get them sick is uninformed at best, and doorknob stupid at worst. It is, however, possible to have nasty stuff in finished beer.

I stick by my claim that real world issues don't exist, but kudos to you, sir - you are literally the first person I have ever seen cite an actual source of an actual person getting sick from beer.

Seeing as how I vaccinate my kids - and there are a few hundred cases of allergic reactions to vaccines every year, some of which cause death - where the number of documented issues is many magnitudes higher than this one example (but still statistically less than significant), I'll continue to assume that beer is bulletproof.

But congrats, you have shown that the risk is >0 in a non lab situation, which is more than anyone else I've ever seen do.

 

[johnsnownw]

Hey, I'm also an archaeologist. Got to love experimental archaeology.

 

[HIlife]

I stick by my claim that real world issues don't exist, but kudos to you, sir - you are literally the first person I have ever seen cite an actual source of an actual person getting sick from beer.

Seeing as how I vaccinate my kids - and there are a few hundred cases of allergic reactions to vaccines every year, some of which cause death - where the number of documented issues is many magnitudes higher than this one example (but still statistically less than significant), I'll continue to assume that beer is bulletproof.

But congrats, you have shown that the risk is >0 in a non lab situation, which is more than anyone else I've ever seen do.

To be clear, this statement is still correct. In fact, the only places where there seems to be semi-dangerous levels of mycotoxins in beer are in Africa. I'd also wager that the beer is much safer to consume than the corn or sorghum that it's made from. If the beer has anything nasty in it, the grain has something REALLY nasty in it.

No matter how bad you are at making beer at home, your beer will be safe to drink.

 

[ACbrewer]

To be clear, this statement is still correct. In fact, the only places where there seems to be semi-dangerous levels of mycotoxins in beer are in Africa. I'd also wager that the beer is much safer to consume than the corn or sorghum that it's made from. If the beer has anything nasty in it, the grain has something REALLY nasty in it.

No matter how bad you are at making beer at home, your beer will be safe to drink.

Interesting point of fact, the beer has nothing LIVING in it... the mycotoxins pre-exist and thus there is a breakdown in health before the brewer has done anything... And in Africa, it isn't the grain I'd fear, I would more fear the water. (which is what beer is the main replacement for).

So this comes down to the 'if your supply chain is good, your beer you make will be ok.' And while random crap might sneak in, there are checks to prevent it. When was the last time malt was recalled? compared to imported fruits? (tomato, strawberries, etc).