News Weedkiller found in "popular" beer brands

Discussion in 'Beer News & Releases' started by MistaRyte, Mar 28, 2018.

  1. MistaRyte

    MistaRyte Devotee (409) Jan 14, 2008 Virginia
    Trader

    chrismattlin, BeerPugz and VABA like this.
  2. MNAle

    MNAle Savant (966) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota

    Exaggerated fear mongering by an organization with an agenda. It is pretty easy to pick out the allegations presented as fact in this article, so I don't trust much of it at all.
     
  3. maltmaster420

    maltmaster420 Disciple (308) Aug 17, 2005 Oregon

    This article is so filled with exaggerations, half truths, and outright lies that it would take me all day to debunk it.
     
  4. JoePasko

    JoePasko Initiate (77) Mar 10, 2018 New York

    What do you think is their agenda, besides keeping harmful chemicals out of food and drink ?
     
  5. AZBeerDude72

    AZBeerDude72 Meyvn (1,297) Jun 10, 2016 Arizona
    Premium Trader

    Probably everything we eat and drink has something bad in it, nothing really new.
     
  6. jesskidden

    jesskidden Meyvn (1,314) Aug 10, 2005 New Jersey

    Yeah, sure but the question now becomes:
    "Is Round-Up® an adjunct or a flavoring addition?"
     
  7. RaulMondesi

    RaulMondesi Meyvn (1,357) Dec 11, 2006 California

    Monsanto is an evil company. Pure and simple.
     
  8. IPAExpert69

    IPAExpert69 Initiate (149) Aug 2, 2017 New Jersey

    Anyone arguing this isn't a bad thing, go out in your shed and just take a whiff of weedkiller. Then come back and tell me you want to be ingesting that. Companies really should try and ween this out, but that is unlikely. I'll be thinking twice between my local brews and Sierra Nevada at the bar for sure.
     
  9. JoePasko

    JoePasko Initiate (77) Mar 10, 2018 New York

    Do you think it's worth the effort to keep it to a minimum ?
     
  10. jesskidden

    jesskidden Meyvn (1,314) Aug 10, 2005 New Jersey

    So, if it's in your shed, you're part of the problem, since the malting barley growers say they are against its use...
    Somebody cue up the Pogo quote...
     
    riptorn, Spikester, 5thOhio and 10 others like this.
  11. sharpski

    sharpski Champion (818) Oct 11, 2010 Oregon
    Trader

    Except that most of your local breweries are getting grain from the same sources as SN. If anything, they have less influence over how their base malt is grown than a large volume brewer like SN. I don't think your local breweries are likely to have significantly different results if they were tested.
     
  12. MNAle

    MNAle Savant (966) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota

    That's one of the many inaccuracies (putting it kindly) in that article. It lumps all "grain" together. But, as already stated by someone else, it would take a lot of time to debunk the article, and I am not willing to devote the time.
     
    5thOhio, Zorro, russpowell and 2 others like this.
  13. IPAExpert69

    IPAExpert69 Initiate (149) Aug 2, 2017 New Jersey

    Don't have a shed #ApartmentLife, but I see your point. Nonetheless, is it really too much to ask to not drink harsh chemicals?
     
    Schempy and sharpski like this.
  14. IPAExpert69

    IPAExpert69 Initiate (149) Aug 2, 2017 New Jersey

    May be true, but I'll put my money in the hands of the "little guy" who maybe cannot control it, over the large corporation who blatantly ignores the problem!
     
    GOBLIN and Schempy like this.
  15. mikeinportc

    mikeinportc Initiate (0) Nov 4, 2015 New York
    Premium

    Some background on Seralini : he tried to replicate the (company & company-funded) studies that showed it was safe. He came up with different results, and published them.
    Then his work was un-published for faulty methods. The same methods that were used to show it was safe. :astonished::thinking_face::grin: He knew that, and pointed it out before doing his own work. The editor & journal both get Monsanto funding in some form, btw.
    So........ a mixed bag.&......???

    As for how it gets into things, as they said, drift in one form or another.I'd also ask if anybody is lying, about crops being organically-grown? It's been used more & more on wheat, a few days before harvest, to dry it out.That improves yield. Not sure about barley. Someone that occasionally posts on BA is a barley grower for AB-I. I don't remember his handle. . The overwhelming majority of the corn grown in the US is Roundup-Ready.

    One other thing, that I wonder about, and would maybe be more concerned about, is the "inert" ingredients in with the glyphosate. They were originally classified as inert, because they are, as far as herbicide activity. Then when RR crops came along, they were pointed to as safe, because they are labeled as inert. Sort of Catch-22 in reverse?:thinking_face: Plants yeah, but with animals, not necessarily so.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

    https://theintercept.com/2016/05/17/new-evidence-about-the-dangers-of-monsantos-roundup/

    True, as far as it goes - if you can smell it, you're being exposed - but irrelevant to this. Different material. Roundup is close to scentless, btw.

    Btw, one common disingenuous way of showing safety, is to use test animals that are less prone, or ~immune to the effects of what is being tested. Want to show that there is no endocrine-disruption with your product? Test using a strain of rats that are just about immune to endocrine disruptors.

    Voila! Safe! Then it's up to somebody to prove otherwise. There is so much stuff out there, and not enough resources to do much of that. The revolving door is well-greased and spinning at FDA,EPA, & Ag Dept, so the inclination is usually to accept what they are presented, and OK it, without challenge.

     
    #15 mikeinportc, Mar 28, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2018
  16. AZBeerDude72

    AZBeerDude72 Meyvn (1,297) Jun 10, 2016 Arizona
    Premium Trader

    What I think is that if you look hard enough you can find fault with just about anything. In our modern world you are going to find trace amounts of just about everything in our food/water. I won't waste my time worrying about it because its almost always a hyped up subject. If you ask a doctor I bet he/she would tell you the alcohol in the beer does far greater damage to you than this every could.
     
  17. Schempy

    Schempy Initiate (0) Oct 8, 2014 Arizona

    I'm not worried about this as far as beer drinking goes. The bigger issue for me is these chemicals becoming part of everything we eat or drink. Or in some cases, smoke. I recently read an article about all the nasty stuff that's sprayed on Marijuana plants. For those of you who partake, I'd be a lot more worried about that.
     
    HouseofWortship and 5thOhio like this.
  18. medb

    medb Initiate (51) Aug 27, 2013 California

    I bet you could write a good scare story about how beer contains Dihydrogen monoxide and that it can be fatal to humans in large doses.
     
  19. PASSWORDisTAC0

    PASSWORDisTAC0 Initiate (0) Jul 15, 2014 Alabama

    My main problem is with the websites who run these sensationalist headlines. If you look to the sides of the articles, you will almost always find advertisements for pseudoscience supplements, often through the website's own store. The majority of products inside a GNC are worthless. There is a joke in medicine that Americans have the most expensive urine in the world because of it.

    I'm not about to go and drink a glass of roundup and would like to keep exposure to a minimum, but I also realize I'm going to receive some exposure regardless. Keep things in moderation.
     
    mikeinportc, Ranbot, 5thOhio and 3 others like this.
  20. VABA

    VABA Poo-Bah (2,013) Aug 8, 2015 Virginia

    I read the article, thank you for sharing it.

    The article did say that certain beer brands were tested, and listed them. But, I suspect that all beer brands if tested, would have the same or similar results.

    Good to know, I need to cut down on my beer drinking, although I think it may be a little too late...
     
  21. bbtkd

    bbtkd Poo-Bah (2,006) Sep 20, 2015 South Dakota
    Premium

    Dihydrogen monoxide kills way more people than beer or bad chemicals in it and should be banned. Call your congresscritter now. :wink:
     
  22. bluehende

    bluehende Poo-Bah (2,000) Dec 10, 2010 Delaware

    Yet you put those chemicals on your lawn. If you were truly worried you would not. That sniff you took is a larger dose than a years worth of your food exposure. Also your application gives you along with your neighbors a pretty healthy exposure.
     
  23. bluehende

    bluehende Poo-Bah (2,000) Dec 10, 2010 Delaware

    For your edification. I worked on studies for agricultural products. Not Monsanto but one of their competitors. The animals used are mandated by the government. No one can choose to test an animal that would not be susceptible to something. In fact we had to document where we purchased these animals. The species mandated usually is picked for 2 reasons. 1 it is highly susceptible to the effect looked for or 2 it mirrors the human process as closely as possible.

    It is especially galling that you think your example would help. There are control animals. Try sending in a study that has no background rate to compare and see how fast it is sent back to do over.

    Neither corporations or government is perfect, but I will guarantee our organization was very careful and ethical. I will also say that the reviewers I interacted were smart, thorough, and tough.
     
    BJB13, cjgiant, alucard6679 and 17 others like this.
  24. BeerPugz

    BeerPugz Initiate (0) Dec 4, 2016 Wisconsin

    I don't see why it's so hard to believe. Monsanto owns so many seeds it's ridiculous. Most farmers are using Monsanto seeds through no choice of their own anyways. Corn? Monsanto et al. Barley? Monsanto et al. Hops and marijuana are the last two plants, really.
     
  25. Invinciblejets

    Invinciblejets Devotee (439) Sep 29, 2014 South Carolina
    Trader

    To be fair all beer also has alcohol..............
     
    VABA, MJSFS, JackHorzempa and 2 others like this.
  26. beergoot

    beergoot Poo-Bah (3,916) Oct 11, 2010 Colorado
    Premium Trader

    Just a fuzzy brain smeared with beer as I write this, yet it seems to me that despite a lot of increased "bad" chemical exposure over recent decades (perhaps centuries), why do human life expectencies keep increasing (and not just due to decreased child mortality factors)?

    In some ways, just because there are measurable quantities of "bad" chemicals present in our environment, that doesn't equate to harmful levels of "bad" chemicals (i.e., correlation doesn't equate to causation).

    Sure, I'd rather not be exposed to weed-killer residue residing in my beer ingredients, but personally, I doubt if they are at any level in my canned, bottled, or tapped pours that should cause any realistic health concerns.

    But, I've been wrong before. Just ask my wife...
     
    BJB13, Dan_K, bluehende and 6 others like this.
  27. spongebob2

    spongebob2 Initiate (93) Feb 8, 2018 Tennessee

    Probably in many watersheds where the run off from the fields land.
     
    chrismattlin, bluehende and Zorro like this.
  28. Ozzylizard

    Ozzylizard Poo-Bah (3,104) Oct 5, 2013 Pennsylvania
    Premium Trader

    Thanks for the link. Some good analytical comments were made by previous posters - the best being @beergoot and @bluehende. As one "trained" in economics as well as biology and chemistry, it seems to me that several good arguments could be made for "toxic" pesticides as well as GMO (Not covered in the article but a frequent straw-man argument in this type of publication). Read Malthus - he was right on. We live longer and healthier than we did before toxic pesticides when we lived on "organic" food sources. Modern science has had it's problems (mostly because of political vs. scientific concerns), but, as a species, we live longer and healthier than ever. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
     
    BJB13, Squire, 5thOhio and 1 other person like this.
  29. Zorro

    Zorro Poo-Bah (4,261) Dec 25, 2003 California

    Give me a gas chromatograph and I can find just about anything in anything.

    Bet you have detectable PCBs in your fat tissue and plutonium in your bones.
     
  30. jesskidden

    jesskidden Meyvn (1,314) Aug 10, 2005 New Jersey

    American Malting Barley Association Opposes Post-Heading Treatments on Grains
    MILWAUKEE – April 20, 2016 – The American Malting Barley Association, Inc. (AMBA) strongly opposes the use of desiccants or herbicides such as glyphosate for post-heading treatment of malting barley, wheat, or other grains in North America being processed for malting, brewing, and distilling. The AMBA Board of Directors cites concerns expressed by the organization's Technical Committee for potential chemical residues and effects on germination from such treatments that can impact processing or the quality of the final product. Glyphosate is not labeled for post-heading application on malting barley in the United States as a pre-harvest aid to kill weeds, as a desiccant to dry down the crop, or for any other reason.

    Dr. Michael P. Davis, AMBA President, notes that “our members will not knowingly buy malting barley, wheat or other grains, regardless of the grain’s origin, that are treated after heading with these chemicals and residue testing is being performed.”
     
  31. IPAExpert69

    IPAExpert69 Initiate (149) Aug 2, 2017 New Jersey

    I literally don't have a yard it was a hypothetical......
     
  32. jmdrpi

    jmdrpi Poo-Bah (5,090) Dec 11, 2008 Pennsylvania

    The GMO issue is particularly frustrating for someone who supports both the scientific process but also environmentalsim. Because it has become a buzzword and treated like a black/white issue to be for or against. When the reality is there is a lot of nuance.

    You can be for the use of GMOs to speed up the traditional crossbreeding practices that humans have done for thousands of years. To develop better barley for beer or more altruistically, a more nutritional variety of rice to feed the deveoping world. And then still be against the practice of developing Roundup Ready crops and big business control over proprietary or sterile seeds.
     
  33. MNAle

    MNAle Savant (966) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota

    Like Citra?
     
    5thOhio likes this.
  34. bluehende

    bluehende Poo-Bah (2,000) Dec 10, 2010 Delaware

    From agweb a trade paper. Unfortunately as it is a chart I cannot copy and paste

    Corn market

    dow/dupont 34.7
    monsanto 33.3


    Since Monsanto is not even number 1 hard to say that Farmers have no choice. BTW my old company (well sort of) is number one.
     
    CHL, miwestcoaster, DonicBoom and 4 others like this.
  35. bluehende

    bluehende Poo-Bah (2,000) Dec 10, 2010 Delaware

    I have been retired a few years now. When I worked in the field one of the biggest market opportunity was to replace old compounds that hung around a long time in the environment with short lived compounds that did their job and then were gone.
     
  36. bluehende

    bluehende Poo-Bah (2,000) Dec 10, 2010 Delaware

    BJB13, sculls65, meefmoff and 3 others like this.
  37. Ranbot

    Ranbot Zealot (532) Nov 27, 2006 Pennsylvania

    Exactly. The article also didn't say if the analysis was done by an accredited laboratory which is pretty important when you're trying to make statements about a particular compound at parts per billion or parts per trillion levels like this study.
    Benzo(a)pyrene and PFAS too.

    To those concerned, Glyphosate (the main compound in Roundup) is very very soluble in water, which means it passes through our bodies rapidly and does not bioaccumulate. Remember humans are basically bags of water regularly being flushed through - water goes in at the top and out at the bottom, repeat until expiration. So, water soluble chemicals leave the body rapidly... It's the fat soluble chemicals that are typically more chronically dangerous.

    But, if you're worried about trace chemicals in beer, you should be concerned about the alcohol, which is very well known to have all sorts of bad short- and long-term effects on the body (disease, cancer, sleep disturbances, mental health, etc.)... make no mistake alcohol is bad for you.

    There's a term for that. It's Brandolini's Law or "Bullshit asymmetry principle" which states, the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it. It's far from a new concept though. In the 1700's author Jonathan Swift is credited with this quote, “falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it,” and there have been variations on it since, like Mark Twain's quote, "“a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.”
     
  38. billandsuz

    billandsuz Disciple (362) Sep 1, 2004 New York

    We know Monsanto has proven to be a rather sinister company.
    We know EcoWatch has proven to be sensationalist when it suits their needs.
    We know scientists are driven by science and do their jobs as best as possible.
    We know our environment is loaded with numerous manufactured chemicals.
    We know our daily activities contribute to the decline of the environment and our own health.
    This is all fact and not worth too much debate.

    But we have a really difficult time determining what benefits Monsanto really brings to humanity, what environmental watch dogs really are just, what scientists really are corrupt, what chemicals really are killing us and what we need to do make things right.

    Many people just shake their heads and go on. Which is pretty much how power brokers would like it to be.

    Just my 2 cents worth. Have a beer. The sky might be falling.
     
  39. bluehende

    bluehende Poo-Bah (2,000) Dec 10, 2010 Delaware

    Ranbot and drtth like this.
  40. MJS08

    MJS08 Aspirant (277) Jul 29, 2014 Florida
    Premium

    In my early years, products such as DDT and asbestos were widely used, but concern about their harmful effects began to surface. More recently, a friend was eat up by Agent Orange. I have become more than just a little cynical about the information provided by corporations and their paid for research. The "tree-huggers" and "environmental wackos" may have an "agenda", but it is a necessary one. Facts and truth seem to be in short supply from either side. So, excuse me while I go grill the meat of a deceased farm animal.