Weedkiller found in "popular" beer brands

I always laugh at the old stoner argument - “It’s an all natural plant, dude. Cigarettes are full of chemicals, weed is totally harmless!”
I used to work at a homebrew/hydroponics shop and although I focused on the brew side, I learned quite a bit about the growing business.

It’s an expensive, labor-intensive crop that carries major risks and true yield is everything. You can bet there is a shit-ton of nasty chemicals in it. Read analysis of some of the seized stuff from Mexico. Stomach turning. Oh, you only smoke homegrown stuff? Guess what? Organic nutrients cost twice as much and yield significantly less product. Nasty chemicals just plain work better.

And no, it’s not a bunch of hippies growing the stuff who care about the environment and your health. These guys are out to make money. In illegal states they are almost certainly working with criminal cartels and/or street gangs. In legal ones they are often hiring cheap, seasonal, illegal labor, paying them a pittance, and making them work inhuman hours in horrible conditions.

It ain’t all peace, love, and doobies...

 

And those speed estimates were done before the internet and social media.

 

The fine people who brought us Agent Orange??

 

Sigh...

As I understand it, Agent Orange was developed by the US military based on usage by the British military, all of which was based on work done at the University of Illinois in preparation for use against Japan (the war ended before it was used).

In Vietnam, it was applied at rates vastly exceeding the recommended application rate, but Vietnam was only 1 of many, many uses of the chemical compound by various military organizations.

Monsanto was one of nearly 40 companies that manufactured it for the military (including Dow and Diamond Shamrock), and its use was specifically approved by our hero, President Kennedy.

But, let's not let such details get in the way of a good demonization.

 

Here is Sierra Nevada's response.

Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. uses the highest quality ingredients in all of our products. We do not brew with any genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Our malt comes from the U.S., Canada and other countries where the use of glyphosate is prohibited on barley bound for malting. Our maltsters require their farmers by contract to grow without the use of glyphosate. Additionally, they will reject any barley that they suspect may have inadvertently been exposed to low residue remaining in the soil or drift from adjacent fields. Moreover, glyphosate is not used on hops.


You may be interested in reading the American Malting Barley Association’s statement on glyphosate.


We appreciate your concern and want to assure you that we are aligned with the malting and brewing industries in our opposition to the use of glyphosate on the ingredients we use.

Sierra Nevada Brewing Co.

 

Terence, the linked article stated: “Regarding beer, further testing would need to be done (we hope by the brands themselves), but it appears that the batch tests (equal amounts of multiple brands tested in one batch) of independent beer brands had higher levels: up to 13.60 ppb more than conventional beers.”

And elsewhere in the article Sierra Nevada is mentioned as one of the independent breweries:

“Beer brands tested included Budweiser, Busch, Coors, Michelob, Miller Lite, Sam Adams, Samuel Smith, Peak Organic and Sierra Nevada.”

Are you disputing those values listed? Has Sierra Nevada independently tested your beers for the presence of glyphosate? If so, what values did your independent testing show?

Cheers!

 

Batch tests say little to nothing about a specific beer/brand within the batch. Just one of many reasons why this information in the article is highly suspect.

Also, if you trace Ecowatch's links to the testing results you'll see it wasn't done by academics or professionals, but by activist group, Mom's Across America.* They don't even try to follow scientific methods. The data is just part of a bigger show they are putting on. The description of their methods is vague at best, so it's probably not reproducible. There was no peer-review apart from Ecowatch copying and pasting large portions of the original article into theirs.** It's the typical incestuous circle of citations that lead to little or no real data, all too common for these types of alarmist websites.

* - I'm not linking to their page on principle, but it's easy enough to get there from the Ecowatch article if you care.
** - If you read the ecowatch article then you have already read ~75% verbatim of the cited Mom's Against America article.

 

I did ask questions in my post:

"Has Sierra Nevada independently tested your beers for the presence of glyphosate? If so, what values did your independent testing show?"

Hopefully Sierra Nevada will share information with us consumers.

Cheers!

 

Your organization? That would be normal. I would expect so.
All instances, at all times? I'm not involved, but independent researchers have made that charge in some cases.Seems to be who is involved, & how much$ is at stake, & possibly how much lobbyist$. & if the people involved have a prior (& future?) relationship.

 

You guys do realize they are talking about Parts Per BILLION right?
Not parts per million. How much glyphosate is in your drinking water? Bottled water?

 

I was wondering how it shows up in beer & wine , with supposedly organically-grown materials?
Manure? Straw & hay? I didn't have time to check it yesterday. That has been an issue with other, intentionally persistent, herbicides.
If the herbicide is consumed in feed, it tends to pass right through , and is present in the manure. The manure gets used, and in the case of the long-duration herbicides ,it affects, or kills the subsequent crop. The same thing can happen with straw & hay. I've seen that. Didn't realize it the first couple of times.

So....glyphosate is supposed to be of relatively short duration. Turns out that it persists longer than expected, in some situations. I also wonder about the "inert" ingredients. If they are persisting, maybe they are dragging some bound-up(physically) glyphosate along for the ride?

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/glyphosate-persistence-raises-questions/9510.article


& what about water? Also, was any additional water used in the testing? If so, was that water tested alone?

"of independent beer brands had higher levels: up to 13.60 ppb more than conventional beers."

They generally have more malt, more of everything in them. It would make sense to have more ,of whatever you're testing for.

 

Exactly.

 

Yeah, were talking homeopath levels here.

 

The people working in the industry are very often the ones who understand the science and risks better than anyone else. Those people are also the easiest targets of smear tactics to undermine their character and opinion.

 

I'm not sure if anyone else will get this, but I definitely view this as an underrated comment.

 

& I didn't necessarily mean agricultural product, just generally. That has come up in regards to BPA replacements, for example.

 

How dare my known carcinogen be tainted by a possible carcinogen in a parts per billion range

 

On the first paragraph. Residue and metabolite studies are typically done in up to 5 different soils. These again are used for two reasons. ! would be to test extremes in various soil components or 2 to represent the soils common for the crop you want to register in. In the article it mentions field studies but does not link to them. It is possible that the studies mentioned were done for registration itself. The data you get from these studies effects the labeling. It is very common to have label restrictions on use in certain areas and crops. Many times it comes down to labeled use rate with a much lower rate in soils that the compound persists in.

No science is perfect and therefore everything does hold some risk. Without taking those risks we would still be hunters hand gatherers and pointy sticks and rocks would be a big no no.

As for the second paragraph. That is the controls. Good scientists spend as much time designing their controls as they do the actual experiment. We had an RO system that produced water that was as pure as you could get anywhere. To do these studies we had to change filters at intervals , sign off, and record the time and the results of conductivity tests. The regulators very commonly asked for required data like this. If you have ever worked in a lab doing registration studies you know the time spent documenting everything.

We all need to be vigilant in our lives. If you react to every scare article you will drive yourself nuts and make you no safer. The science does change at times, but look for peer reviewed studies to base your decisions on. Many of the examples in this thread of bad chemicals took the place of chemicals that were much worse. As has been said the most dangerous substance we come in contact with is alcohol. I know this and choose to drink beer.

 

Simple common sense should tell every single one of us that these chemicals have no place in our beer, food or water . . . Period !
No matter where you stand on GMO's you have to at least agree that the common everyday man and woman should have a choice and say as to what's in our food, etc.
Monsanto has literally done nothing to prevent the contamination of the our planet with these chemicals.
Monsanto is a classic wolf in sheep's clothing.
They parade around pretending to be the savior of the world's food supply all the while demonizing every small town farmer who dares stand in their way. Their only objective is power upon power. This is a corporation that has literally patented seeds . . . Seeds !!! Call it a conspiracy theory if you want but at the end of the day Monsanto does not care about you or me and they certainly do not care about or food or water supply let alone what finds it's way into our beer.

 

Name one product that was approved because of money and political pull overruling the science, This is a common way to discredit good science when no data exists to prove your point. Those factors may have some effect on approvals on the margin, however everyone knows the idiocy of marketing a dangerous product. You have to realize the liability that opens up. The science will come out. I am not that naive to think falsified data never occurs, but to dismiss all research that is not done by an impartial lab is foolish. We would have loved to have had other people pay the millions of dollars for our studies, but not bloody likely.