"Problem Children" CANs

Yup, says so right on the label:

 

I've not seen this with modern cans. Sometimes, especially with limited run cans, they use a vinyl label that has a seam, but I've never seen an aluminum can that does. Got a pic?

 

It might be the label that's a seam and the can underneath the label feels so flimsy that it appears it's the can that's seamed.

I don't think I have a pic but will investigate and report.

I do know one local brewery has had a canning issue. I've taken back a 6-pack because the cans leak. Probably those leaks are happening up top around the lid.

 

Now that I'm on a machine, here's this:

and:

 

Ahh yes, the putrid soy sauce debacle of yesteryear. I recall your retelling of the event.

 

Yeah, that's the weak spot. It doesn't take much for that thin lip of the unfilled can to a teensy-tiny ding, which prevents the lid from sealing well. If you look at the end of the can making video, where all the cans are stacked and strapped on the pallet, you'll notice how tightly they're packed. Don't take much to booger that up.

 

I'm sure it was the lid. I'll check out the videos and thanks for the info! I've been wondering about those seams because on some cans they really seem like part of the can — others you can tell the seams are just part of the label.

If I find pictures, I'll post here.

 

I applaud you for recognizing this and speaking out against it. I’ve been railing against this practice for a while now, and been in some heated discussions about it with brewers and consumers alike. For those not privy to what’s been going on, I’ll lay it out quickly:

• It has become trendy over the past few years for some brewers to add lots of fruit to their beer post-fermentation, in an effort to achieve a super juicy and sweet “fresh fruit” flavor. I tend to see it most often in the fruited sours advertised as “smoothie” beers, but there are other examples too.
• Because of the massive amount of fruit sugar present, along with live yeast, there’s a high chance of incidental refermentation occurring in the packaged product if the proper precautions aren’t taken. At that point, it is likely that increasing co2 pressure will exceed what the can is capable of containing. This results in the can exploding.
• Brewers are aware of this risk, and rather than take measures to ensure that their product is packaged safely with no risk of refermentation and explosion, some choose to package it in a potentially unstable state and put the onus of safety on the consumer. Often you will see an anemic “warning” posted on their website that says something to the tune of “this beer has been conditioned on massive amounts of fruit and must be kept cold,” and even weaker non-warnings like a simple “keep cold” on the can itself. I have yet to see a single one of these “warnings” explicitly lay out the danger of explosion due to refermentation.

There are a lot of problems with this. For one thing, the “warnings” these breweries are fielding do not adequately communicate the explicit danger of explosion to consumers. Since beer is not something that commonly explodes on its own, there’s no reason for the average consumer to consider that this could happen. The danger here should not be downplayed either. We are talking about pressures in excess of 90 psi propelling liquid and potentially pieces of the can itself into the surrounding environment. There’s a real possibility of serious injury if someone gets hit with that. Also consider the cleanup and paint job needed after some poor unsuspecting soul has a can of staining juice coating their ceiling and walls. Property damage sucks too.

The bottom line is that, as the manufacturer, the onus must fall on the brewery to package a safe product. The process outlined above goes directly against long established QC practices. Rather than adhere to these, some breweries are now directly shirking them and trying to pass off their responsibility onto unsuspecting consumers. This is abhorrent. It shows zero concern for consumer safety. It also puts the brewery itself at risk of disastrous litigation. In addition, I can potentially see it having widespread consequences to the industry as a whole. The FDA has been taking a pretty active role in brewery inspections now, and all it takes is one high profile case for them to start sniffing around even more. Some of us remember the whole Four Loko caffeine and alcohol debacle. That put us dangerously close to an overreach that could’ve banned coffee beer and the like. It’s not exactly an apples to apples comparison to this issue, but the fallout could be similar if cases of injury do start getting press. We don’t need to go there again. The hard stance that must be taken is that if a brewery does not have the means to safely package a particular beer, then they must not package it.

The most infuriating thing of it all, to me, is that this is creating an ugly sort of culture in which rabid fans of these breweries are bullying people into thinking that exploding cans are their fault. Fanboys and fangirls will ferociously defend their beloved local brewer and act as though exploding cans are a normal and acceptable thing. This kind of shit makes me see red. This is all completely unacceptable, and we need to put a stop to it before it blows up in our collective faces. Yeah, pun intended.

 

Agreed.

A lot of the smaller, hype-train breweries have limited, if any, QA/QC/GMP processes in place. One wrong can, and that $20 4pack will seem like a bargain; cuz somebody gonna own a brewery.

 

Sierra Nevada comes in CANs??

 

Yeah, but only since 2011.
Sierra Nevada Brewing to Start Canning Beer

 

Cans are cheaper in many ways for breweries, and now that a significant majority of craft beer drinkers have accepted and even embraced cans, there is no going back imho. I have yet to see a "failed" can in my experience (as far as bulging cans, etc.). I've had flat cans (no carbonation), and oxidized cans, and generally "failed" batches.. but overall I LOVE cans. Now, of course the small batch beers for aging will still be bottled, but any beer meant for mass distro will be canned. Regarding the prevalence of cans, I myself am worried about BPA.. All can liners have BPA. How has industry not developed a BPA-free aluminum can yet?

 

I've noticed that seam with breweries that use mobile canning services. The cans are flat before they're cylindrical. It's an interesting process, and I never have gotten a bad can that was seamed.

 

How is this for a warning?

 

When my work used a mobile company, the cans came into us days before the can canners showed up, so that's a new one to me too. Shrug.

 

Yeah, I've seen labeled cans and blank cans stacked in some breweries that are stored in advance of the canning company to arrive. It was a serious space issue in some smaller breweries.

 

I think I misunderstood. I thought you meant the cans were seamed on-site.

 

Sadly better than 99% of the “warnings” I’ve seen, but still not good enough. Only the top 1% of beer geeks will get the reference here. The casual consumer that might end up with a can of this in their possession will not understand the name, and might not think twice about the label art. There’s a lot of quirky label art out there. I see “must remain cold at all times” on the label, but no explicit wording that mentions a danger of explosion. Why do you suppose none of these breweries will actually spell that out clearly, in words?

Breweries have no control over what happens to their product once it gets into the hands of the consumer. It could end up in anyone’s possession. For instance: what if someone were to forget it in the fridge after a friend’s house party, and the unsuspecting non craft-savvy host wants to take it out to make room in the fridge? How is he/she to know what the risks are if they aren’t in on the label’s joke? Any warning needs to be foolproof and explicit and keep the lowest common denominator in mind. It needs to be spelled out and worded in the clearest possible terms. I highly doubt that what this brewery has done on this label would be enough to protect them from litigation if it ever came to that.

None of this matters, though. While a clear and explicitly worded warning is the absolute least these irresponsible breweries could do, my original statement stands. As a manufacturer, the brewer holds all the responsibility for releasing a product that is safe, and if said brewer does not have the means to safely package a beer, then they must not package it. Period.

 

Us, too - two piece can, at least a week in advance for our trials of mobile canning. The only thing seamed on site was the lid, the cans come racked and stacked little tubes on a pallet. Well, jouncing around on a truck and getting hauled around by forklift - think every one of those cans remains perfectly round and there's no dings on the critical areas?

We're discovering that even just seaming the lid is an adventure. Most of what we do we're doing by hand which carries a bit more risk than an automated line but not much. It's mostly care of the can seamer and making sure it is cleaned and aligned properly. We have specifications on a bunch of seam measurements from both Crown and Ball, but it appears there is some interpretation at play. I'll just say the way we were trained to cut the seams and take measurements is ridiculously inaccurate. We're pasteurizing carbonated juice after filling/seaming, so it's pretty obvious when the can goes off like a depth charge in the hot tub that it was not seamed properly. An overfill or over-carbed can will bulge the ends when heated, but not pop the seam unless it's weak already. The ones we've blown wide open - one day about 50% of what we made - were failures on the seams probably aided and abetted by high fill levels or over-carbonation. So - sort version in my world - inadequate process control. With pasteurization, we've not had an issue with contamination (knock on wood and homage to the gods there...).

I've had three of the raptor ripping thru the pen style CANsplosions in my beer cupboard. One a Kolsch style (3 out of 4 in the pack) where I found pieces of the can several weeks later, one can of gose, one of coffee stout. No damage beyond a couple broken glasses and syrupy sticky goo all over the inside of the cabinet and neighboring well-behaved beers. No common denominator in terms of style/brewer, and I do not know if any of the beers in question were "can" CANditioned, pasteurized, or anything in between. The breweries were fairly small, so I would assume mobile canning and therefore not pasteurized. Enough to put me off cans - no, but I don't stockpile them as much any more.

I've been researching a small volume canning system for my pilot plant here and yes there has been an influx of lower cost equipment that's "affordable". While I can't use any of the "bargain" rigs because they technically don't meet our sanitary design standards, a brewery doesn't have the same constraint. However, having seen a bunch of bargain, mid-road and high end fillers, they could all be used successfully to can beer. It comes down to care, cleaning, and maintenance as well as proper operation. The less sophisticated the equipment, the more you have to rely on training, consistency, and manual procedures to keep things right. Even a moderately priced Wild Goose canning system is pretty rudimentary, but is relatively easy to clean and maintain and at least has a nod toward sanitary design. My people would have no problem developing CANsistent procedures ensuring product safety. There's a myriad of ways that a can can be CANtaminated prior to seaming or that some of the cheaper equipment could be ineffectively cleaned/sanitized. Then, as pointed out, a brewer is beholden to a mobile outfit's schedule, not the other way 'round and the mobile folks aren't gonna sit around waiting for fermentation to finish - back it up, unload, hook up, fill, have a nice day. And they actually do a good job - but they aren't making money by standing still, either. However, if the problem were canning unfinished batches, you'd see more than the the occasional issue - it'd be an entire (or majority) of a run and much more widespread, I think.

I'd agree that some styles don't belong in cans. I'd agree that "can" CANditioning seems a risky proposition. I'd suggest that brewers using mobile canning outfits need to get involved and be on top of things like proper cleaning and sanitation, especially as many of the mobile outfits are canning other things (coffee, wine, etc). I also agree completely that the responsibility for putting out a non-harmful (as low risk as it might be) product lies with the brewer, not the CANsumer. Simple reason to my way of thinking, really, that has been pointed out - you aren't buying beer with the expectation that it could explode. Well, I guess home-brewers understand the possibility. Then there's people getting all clever (see post upthread) or having an obscure warning buried on the artwork somewhere expecting the customer to be responsible - have a hard time "getting" that.

 

Other than when on the beach, I still prefer bottles for everything and 12oz at that.