Spooky season Friday - ahhhghhh! Botulism !

[zosimus]

I'm not going to disagree with the honey part because my point was that there's virtually zero risk of me getting botulism from honey, which ACTUALLY causes botulism quite often (almost always in infants). You can come up with theoreticals for botulism from beer, but you can't actually give a single example of anyone ever having gotten botulism from beer. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's incredibly unlikely.

I'll also note that the definition of "low alcohol beers" in that study is actually low alcohol such as 0.5% or 1% and not "below 6%" like you theorized. And yes, if you were making 1.5% ABV beer with a high pH, using no hops, and containing little to no CO2 (carbonic acid also lowers pH), then sure, you'd be increasing the risks of it, but even that study is not saying that foodborne pathogens are likely to survive. It actually states that multiple times right from the beginning. It even gives the range of "Traditional ethanol concentration" as 3.5% to 5.0% as making it safe. The 17ppm it mentions would be around 10 IBU, which is a relatively low bittering level (hence why sour beers traditionally have IBUs below 10 IBUs because they don't want the hops to stifle bacterial growth).

I know that you realize botulism in beer is incredibly, incredibly, incredibly unlikely, but you sound like you're trying to convince yourself that it's much more likely than it actually is.

The study was referencing a wider brush of pathogens and it appears they did not go in depth into the C. Botulinum one which I believe is why they said that most ethanol concentrations will inhibit most pathogens.
I am saying that based on the current recommendations by the FDA, any beer clocking in above 4.6pH and below 6% alcohol should be pressure canned after 240 fahrenheit which isn't done. The recommendation doesnt take into account the alcohol, but I'm adding it there due to it inhibiting growth.
I think it's incredibly unlikely, but I'm more trying to understand why it is, given the scientific understanding of environments that botulism grows..this is more of me trying to understand why, not so much that I'm trying to convince myself. Like from all that I've read, given a less than 6%abv and a higher than 4.6pH, low oxygen environment and proteins that beer has, it should be a thing that happens way more often. But it doesn't, which is more of my curiosity in asking why. There are warnings out there from scientists, but the warnings are mostly theoretical. Besides the cases in prison hooch (which I don't want to dismiss entirely because those were technically homebrews, regardless of how sanitary).
But yeah, more curiosity and science thinking at this point

I should also note from my studies, sanitizer like starsan does not destroy botulism either so that's not a sufficient explanation quite either.
We also know the spores exist in grains used for brewing

 

[zosimus]

I'm not going to disagree with the honey part because my point was that there's virtually zero risk of me getting botulism from honey, which ACTUALLY causes botulism quite often (almost always in infants). You can come up with theoreticals for botulism from beer, but you can't actually give a single example of anyone ever having gotten botulism from beer. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's incredibly unlikely.

I'll also note that the definition of "low alcohol beers" in that study is actually low alcohol such as 0.5% or 1% and not "below 6%" like you theorized. And yes, if you were making 1.5% ABV beer with a high pH, using no hops, and containing little to no CO2 (carbonic acid also lowers pH), then sure, you'd be increasing the risks of it, but even that study is not saying that foodborne pathogens are likely to survive. It actually states that multiple times right from the beginning. It even gives the range of "Traditional ethanol concentration" as 3.5% to 5.0% as making it safe. The 17ppm it mentions would be around 10 IBU, which is a relatively low bittering level (hence why sour beers traditionally have IBUs below 10 IBUs because they don't want the hops to stifle bacterial growth).

I know that you realize botulism in beer is incredibly, incredibly, incredibly unlikely, but you sound like you're trying to convince yourself that it's much more likely than it actually is.

Out of the few more scientific articles I've read (one written by a microbiologist who is also a homebrewer), the explanation was that most beer is less than 4.6pH. But from my studies, that's not entirely true so I'm more so asking the question as to, if not pH (and alcohol)... then why

 

[mac_1103]

I'm more likely to get botulism from honey

Not unless you're an infant under a year old.

The spores themselves are practically harmless to us because our bodies can filter them out. However, infant botulism exists because infants have not developed those anti-bacterial mechanisms

The spores are harmless to adults and children over the age of about a year if ingested. Although infants should not be fed raw honey, most infant botulism cases are thought to result from ingesting dust particles that carry spores rather than food.

 

[worlddivides]

Not unless you're an infant under a year old.

You think I'm more likely to get botulism from beer? Because I can actually find instances of adults who got botulism from eating raw honey, but I can't find any instances of anyone who got botulism from beer.

 

[worlddivides]

Out of the few more scientific articles I've read (one written by a microbiologist who is also a homebrewer), the explanation was that most beer is less than 4.6pH. But from my studies, that's not entirely true so I'm more so asking the question as to, if not pH (and alcohol)... then why

I think we've already addressed that excessively in both this thread and the other one. Low pH, alcohol, hops' antibacterial properties, and so on. The examples of "higher pH beers" are typically higher hopped for one thing. It's not just pH and alcohol, though those are arguably the two biggest factors.

 

[mac_1103]

You think I'm more likely to get botulism from beer?

I meant that you're also extremely unlikely to get it from honey. Unless you're less than one year old. So don't feed homebrew to infants either.

 

[mac_1103]

Also here is a study done on the risk of pathogen in low alcohol beers. It is a real risk

Commercial beer, not homebrew. Theoretical risk only - they found the bacteria in the beer; they did not report an outbreak associated with low- or non-alcoholic beer.

 

[zosimus]

I meant that you're also extremely unlikely to get it from honey. Unless you're less than one year old. So don't feed homebrew to infants either.

I think this is also with immunocompromised adults (ie the cases with adults). I'll have to look into that though

 

[zosimus]

I think we've already addressed that excessively in both this thread and the other one. Low pH, alcohol, hops' antibacterial properties, and so on. The examples of "higher pH beers" are typically higher hopped for one thing. It's not just pH and alcohol, though those are arguably the two biggest factors.

I'm not completely convinced on hops antibacterial properties as this is pretty inconclusive and understudied in the scientific sphere. But I am willing to accept that as a potential possibility but would want more research done.
Alcohol begins to inhibit c. Botulinum growth starting at 4%abv (so growth and toxin is still observed) and was observed to have completely been stunted at 6%abv, so yeah as long as you have 4% or higher, it becomes less likely.

 

[zosimus]

Commercial beer, not homebrew. Theoretical risk only - they found the bacteria in the beer; they did not report an outbreak associated with low- or non-alcoholic beer.

If it's a risk in commercial beer then it would be for homebrew too..
Just because something hasn't been reported yet doesn't mean it hasn't happened. There are such things as unreported cases and mild cases that weren't reported at all. It is very rare so doctors often do not know to look for it in patients exhibiting symptoms (that a million other conditions also exhibit).

 

[mac_1103]

In another couple of days there will be more posts in this thread than cases of botulism in the US in a year.

 

[mac_1103]

If it's a risk in commercial beer then it would be for homebrew too

You started this thread about homebrew specifically. You have implied more than once that you think homebrew is a greater risk than commercial beer. Stop moving the goalposts.

 

[Rish]

Folks are spending a helluva lot of time here talking about something that's not going to happen to anyone who's talking about it here.

 

[mac_1103]

Folks are spending a helluva lot of time here talking about something that's not going to happen to anyone who's talking about it here.

Or folks who aren't talking about it here either.

 

[zosimus]

You started this thread about homebrew specifically. You have implied more than once that you think homebrew is a greater risk than commercial beer. Stop moving the goalposts.

The point is that it shouldn't matter whether it's commercial or not. All brewing uses the same underlying processes.
The only real difference is pasteurization and filtering and as far as I can tell, those processes (in commercial), have no effect on c. Botulinum growth. Commercial pasteurization doesn't heat to 240f and filtration only removes yeast (not microscopic spores).

 

[zosimus]

Folks are spending a helluva lot of time here talking about something that's not going to happen to anyone who's talking about it here.

This is now more of a thought experiment for myself. I don't care that it's unlikely, I just like to think about why it's unlikely given the science around this and that I'm not convinced by some of the arguments made.

 

[mac_1103]

It is very rare so doctors often do not know to look for it in patients exhibiting symptoms (that a million other conditions also exhibit).

I think we should maybe give medical professionals a little bit more credit than this. There really aren't very many things that cause flaccid paralysis.

 

[mac_1103]

I'm not convinced by some of the arguments made.

You're never going to be convinced by any argument. It is not possible to disprove a hypothetical risk.

 

[zosimus]

You're never going to be convinced by any argument. It is not possible to disprove a hypothetical risk.

To be clear, it has been observed. In prison hooch multiple times and in experiments.
But this is less about how likely it is for me, I've iterated that. This is just me being curious. I'm not trying to convince people that it's possible or that it's even risky, I'm just asking *why* it's not risky and I have not heard a good argument as to why (besides the potential antibacterial components of hops).
Sure there are factors like alcohol and pH but sometimes those aren't present so it could happen. However unlikely or hypothetical, it's still a legitimate question because in any other case, there would be more concerns. But since there have been no reported cases (besides prison hooch and experiments), it's not a problem for people

Heck, it's not even a problem for me, I'm going to drink beer and make beer. This isn't meant to be hostile or an argument, I'm just seriously curious about why given the science, there is not any cases.
Like the conditions are present in many beers so the question is why does it not happen more often? That makes me genuinely interested.
Who's to say it didn't happen more often hundreds/thousands of years ago? We didn't start recording botulism cases until recently and medical knowledge wasn't what it is today.

 

[zosimus]

You're never going to be convinced by any argument. It is not possible to disprove a hypothetical risk.

Yes I started off this post with more concern, but I'm more just curious and speculative now

 

[zosimus]

You're never going to be convinced by any argument. It is not possible to disprove a hypothetical risk.

Also as an example, before botulism was found in prison hooch, there were no reported cases of Botulism in any alcoholic beverage.
And before it was found in nacho cheese at an gas station, I'm sure no one was thinking it was likely there either.
Again, I'm not concerned about likelihood. But actually given science of everything, I would expect to happen more or at least once or twice every so often. So I'm seriously wondering if it's all just luck or there's something else (like hops for instance).

Also there are mild forms of Botulism that aren't critical so some patients don't go to the doctor (as far as I can tell from reading). So it could be possible it is happening, but in mild forms

 

[worlddivides]

I meant that you're also extremely unlikely to get it from honey. Unless you're less than one year old. So don't feed homebrew to infants either.

Oh, I definitely agree with you. My point mainly has to do with how he's worried about getting botulism from beer (which is insanely unlikely) but isn't worried about getting it from honey (which is also insanely unlikely, but a tiny bit more likely... meaning absurdly unlikely to happen).

I'm not sure why he's so fixated on botulism risk from beer but not considered about actual things that are so many magnitudes more likely to happen.

 

[worlddivides]

To be clear, it has been observed. In prison hooch multiple times and in experiments.

That "prison hooch" was not beer. It was made from potatoes in incredibly unsanitary conditions using microorganisms in the air inside the prison, etc. etc. Under no definition of "beer" could you consider that beer. If you're simply trying to say that it's theoretically possible to have botulism in some kind of fermented beverage, then I don't think anyone would disagree with you on that.

 

[zosimus]

Oh, I definitely agree with you. My point mainly has to do with how he's worried about getting botulism from beer (which is insanely unlikely) but isn't worried about getting it from honey (which is also insanely unlikely, but a tiny bit more likely... meaning absurdly unlikely to happen).

I'm not sure why he's so fixated on botulism risk from beer but not considered about actual things that are so many magnitudes more likely to happen.

As I've stated previously, I was more worried and am much less now. This is more about my curiosity in the matter.
The cases of Botulism in adults due to honey as far as I can tell is because they are immunocompromised.
Additionally it is only in raw honey which I don't typically eat. I do however drink alcohol regularly. So for me, the risk is still present, however miniscule. I never said it was rational fear, but it's still a risk.
But again, this isn't about the risk or my fears, this is just about understanding the why which is just me being curious about it now

 

[zosimus]

That "prison hooch" was not beer. It was made from potatoes in incredibly unsanitary conditions using microorganisms in the air inside the prison, etc. etc. Under no definition of "beer" could you consider that beer. If you're simply trying to say that it's theoretically possible to have botulism in some kind of fermented beverage, then I don't think anyone would disagree with you on that.

Yes these aren't normal conditions, I agree. And to your last statement, that's kind of my question. I'm just scientifically curious as to why it's the case that it hasn't happened in beer because many beer do meet the specifications for it to grow. That's my only point now, I'm just curious now why it doesn't occur more often.
And I know ,alcohol, pH, etc etc.
Beer doesn't always meet those thresholds and it has been observed in experiments with it growing and producing toxins in those environments..like below 6% abv and and higher than 4.6pH. I'm seriously just curious as to why we don't see more cases and I'm sure there's a good reason for it. But I have to defend myself and I want to argue that just because something has never been reported in *modern* times publicly doesn't mean it has never happened in history or even that it doesn't happen in milder forms that aren't reported.
The fact it hasn't been reported only means that it is highly unlikely which I totally agree with. I'm more just curious now...

Like 'it's never been reported before' is an observation and doesn't answer why it doesn't happen, given that the conditions are ripe. (Also sanitization doesn't destroy botulism spores so that's not quite an explanation either).
The hypothesis that you can glean from that is that the majority of consumers of beer do not contract botulism so beer is an inhospitable environment for the virus. But then the only current studies on this suggest that some (not all) beer is technically hospitable for this bacteria to grow and is shown to grow in samples.
So if it's hospitable and is shown in experiments to grow, then why don't we see it more often? Or it doesn't happen because it's just a numbers game and the combination of factors make it unlikely. But I'd be curious to see more studies on it.

Like when I first read about one of the articles, it mentioned most beer is under 4.6 pH so it's not a problem for beer. I would have just dropped that, but I was curious so I stated looking into beer pH and found different information suggesting pH in a lot of beer is above 4.6.
If you told me all beer was under 4.6pH and above 6%abv I would concede everything because I know that it's just totally inhospitable for botulism. But that's not always the case, which is why I'm curious

 

[worlddivides]

So if it's hospitable and is shown in experiments to grow, then why don't we see it more often? Or it doesn't happen because it's just a numbers game and the combination of factors make it unlikely. But I'd be curious to see more studies on it.

Beer is the third most drunk beverage on the planet after coffee and tea (it's the fourth most if you include water). So if it was just a numbers game, the sheer massive amount of beer consumed each year would mean you would have reports of botulism, which you do not. Beer is certainly not a hospitable environment for it. Also, most beer is both under 4.6pH and under 6% ABV (and while theoretically botulism spores can survive up to 6%, that doesn't mean a 3% or 4% ABV environment is hospitable to it). The styles of beer that are sometimes above 4.6pH all have IBUs that are considered quite antimicrobial/antibacterial. But now I'm just repeating things that I've said and that other posters have said. I mainly just want to bring attention to the statistical fact that it CAN'T be a "numbers game."

 

[Broothru]

To be clear, it has been observed. In prison hooch multiple times and in experiments.
But this is less about how likely it is for me, I've iterated that. This is just me being curious. I'm not trying to convince people that it's possible or that it's even risky, I'm just asking *why* it's not risky and I have not heard a good argument as to why (besides the potential antibacterial components of hops).
Sure there are factors like alcohol and pH but sometimes those aren't present so it could happen. However unlikely or hypothetical, it's still a legitimate question because in any other case, there would be more concerns. But since there have been no reported cases (besides prison hooch and experiments), it's not a problem for people

Heck, it's not even a problem for me, I'm going to drink beer and make beer. This isn't meant to be hostile or an argument, I'm just seriously curious about why given the science, there is not any cases.
Like the conditions are present in many beers so the question is why does it not happen more often? That makes me genuinely interested.
Who's to say it didn't happen more often hundreds/thousands of years ago? We didn't start recording botulism cases until recently and medical knowledge wasn't what it is today.

+1

 

[Kickass]

it was found in nacho cheese at an gas station,

I guess I’ll strike that idea from my experimental series. Although, Nacho Botch-O Hazy IPA has a nice ring.

 

[Broothru]

I guess I’ll strike that idea from my experimental series. Although, Nacho Botch-O Hazy IPA has a nice ring.

 

[mac_1103]

To be clear, it has been observed. In prison hooch multiple times and in experiments.

Almost completely irrelevant as has been pointed out.

My point mainly has to do with how he's worried about getting botulism from beer (which is insanely unlikely) but isn't worried about getting it from honey (which is also insanely unlikely, but a tiny bit more likely... meaning absurdly unlikely to happen).

So absurdly unlikely > insanely unlikely? It's important to agree on the terminology.

I'm not sure why he's so fixated on botulism risk

Maybe because he lives in Alaska (which perennially leads the nation in cases)?

 

[mac_1103]

This is now more of a thought experiment

Better thought experiment - how is it that a highly pathogenic organism that is both ubiquitous in the environment and extremely difficult to destroy causes disease so rarely?

 

[worlddivides]

So absurdly unlikely > insanely unlikely? It's important to agree on the terminology.

It's not an exact science. Maybe I should've reversed those.

 

[mashdar]

1. Honey is a risk to infants because their stomachs are not acidic enough to prevent growth. Has nothing to do with immune system.
2. Hop inhibition of gram positive bacteria is extremely well documented. (Ask anyone that brews sours.) Hop inhibition of C botulinum is also well documented in vitro. Hop inhibition of C botulinum in beer specifically has not been documented, likely because no one can get funding for an apparently worthless waste of time with so many confounding variables.
3. Comparing health risks of prison hooch to beer is like worrying about eating broccoli because your neighbor ate rotting meat one time. Different ingredients, different process, different cultures. Basically no commonality.
4. If you're concerned, buy a pH meter and follow the guidelines. Empirically derived standards are the best standards, and trying to apply theory to them is an exercise for the philosophers.

 

[mac_1103]

Comparing health risks of prison hooch to beer is like worrying about eating broccoli because your neighbor ate rotting meat one time.

FTW

 

[zosimus]

1. Hop inhibition of gram positive bacteria is extremely well documented. (Ask anyone that brews sours.) Hop inhibition of C botulinum is also well documented in vitro. Hop inhibition of C botulinum in beer specifically has not been documented, likely because no one can get funding for an apparently worthless waste of time with so many confounding variables.

I have read some of the literature on the antibacterial properties of hops. From my brief research, I have not found any that conducted a study C. Botulinum, so please link those articles if you have them.
Even with the studies I've read, I am unable to find much information on its effect to completely inhibit microbial growth, only that it has an effect and that it prevents.
But I understand why there haven't been any studies on it because it obviously has not become a problem for people

 

[zosimus]

1. Comparing health risks of prison hooch to beer is like worrying about eating broccoli because your neighbor ate rotting meat one time. Different ingredients, different process, different cultures. Basically no commonality.

Here's how I see it the comparison. (I know this is highly simplified). If you have sugar and yeast (and water), you can probably make alcohol. You throw in some ingredients to 'flavor it'. Then you have a fermented food or an alcoholic beverage.
Point is, some foods have the spores that cause botulism (wheat/grains from beer have it) and potatoes (for prison hooch). Looking at the data, given certain conditions (as I've reiterated), the spores can begin to reproduce and create the toxin. Okay so the conditions for prison hooch (there were multiple cases in separate prisons so the ingredient list was likely different), there was a plastic bag, some ingredients(sugar) and wild yeast. But C. Botulinum doesn't need dirty conditions, specific food ingredients (besides some proteins) and a plastic bag to grow. It needs to be present (which it is in beer grains, and ingredients used for hooch). It just needs low oxygen, high pH (>4.6pH), low alcohol (<6%), some proteins and it's got the ingredients to for it to grow. This has been seen in experimentation. That is why I compared because my baseline is, it's present and it has the conditions to reproduce.
Both beer and prison hooch *can* follow these conditions in the same way. I get that they're 2 separate things when you look at the actual process (like you don't boil prison hooch), but it shouldn't matter if the C. Botulinum is present

I'm also willing to admit that potatoes just have a higher C. Botulinum presence than grains for beer. That could explain it too. Just reduced numbers because of source.

 

[mac_1103]

Both beer and prison hooch *can* follow these conditions in the same way. I get that they're 2 separate things when you look at the actual process (like you don't boil prison hooch), but it shouldn't matter if the C. Botulinum is present

It's a real stretch to claim that the processes have much at all in common. And it matters a lot, especially the boiling. Boiling means that spores have to be the source, and a healthy pitch of a known yeast means that the spores have to germinate in an environment that quickly becomes inhospitable to that process. Not boiling and relying on wild fermentation gives other organisms an opportunity to flourish and change the environment to one that might very well be considerably more favorable to germination, growth and toxin production.

 

[zosimus]

Better thought experiment - how is it that a highly pathogenic organism that is both ubiquitous in the environment and extremely difficult to destroy causes disease so rarely?

I mean because the bacteria has very specific conditions to grow or reproduce. It is everywhere, but is harmless on its own. I think the most difficult condition for it to overcome is oxygen ,<1%, which is why there was a large outbreak in canned foods in 1919. Canned foods just were the perfect environment for them. I know beer isn't the 'perfect' environment by any means. Canned foods were a problem specifically because of high pH and having no other inhibitory factors. Also low oxygen.

Beer does have many inhibitory factors like it's been stated and I've never disagreed on, I just would expect to potentially see it at least once or twice given certain conditions (high pH and low alcohol). Unless hops really do completely inhibit growth, or pH is just too low or its just a bunch of combinations of factors.
Like experiments show that the bacteria can grow at full strength below 4%abv, then begins to struggle at 4% and completely inhibited at 6%.
If it's in the 4-6 range, it's not impossible, it's just less likely. If it's above 4.6pH to my understanding it has no problem growing or reproducing, but under 4.6 it is inhibited or a lot less likely to grow.
So it could be that alcohol content above 4% (less than 6%) makes it extremely improbable (not impossible). Or it could be, as you said, hops make it even less likely. So combination of those two make it extremely unlikely or improbable. I could see that.

 

[zosimus]

It's a real stretch to claim that the processes have much at all in common. And it matters a lot, especially the boiling. Boiling means that spores have to be the source, and a healthy pitch of a known yeast means that the spores have to germinate in an environment that quickly becomes inhospitable to that process. Not boiling and relying on wild fermentation gives other organisms an opportunity to flourish and change the environment to one that might very well be considerably more favorable to germination, growth and toxin production.

Yeah, which is why some warn of no-chill wort
.. I do understand that yeast taking over a the fermentation does inhibit growth. I was just more curious about after yeast has done its job and goes dormant, will there be any spores left over and is the environment viable for growth (it seems that the environment is pretty inhospitable due to no reported cases), but given studies done, I am wondering what other factors might be at play. Like do dormant yeast cultures prevent growth? What level of IBU prevents growth for the bacteria? Does yeast fermentation destroy spores? Like are there none left over after fermentation?

 

[mac_1103]

I would tend to doubt that fermentation destroys spores. But again, food borne botulism is an intoxication not an infection. The spores have to germinate into vegetative cells. The vegetative cells have to reproduce and secrete the toxin. You could spike anything that you eat or drink with spores just before eating or drinking it and not get botulism, because gastric juice is very effective at destroying spores.