5 ms·

Beers were only tested in areas with bad water quality.

Bender 1y ago
Brewers are supposed to have really good filtration FWIW. [1] If particles are showing up in beer then something has gone horribly wrong as in, someone is being incredibly cheap. [2] [1] - https://www.beer-brewing.com/beer_brewing/beer_brewing_water/water_treatment.htm https://www.beer-brewing.com/beer_brewing/beer_brewing_water... [2] - https://www.ewg.org/research/getting-forever-chemicals-out-drinking-water-ewgs-guide-pfas-water-filters https://www.ewg.org/research/getting-forever-chemicals-out-d...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- justin66 1y ago
  Which of the filtration methods on that list do you believe should be capable of filtering PFAS, the "forever chemicals" in question?
  - Bender 1y ago
    I linked them.
    - dnemmers 1y ago
      I read through both of the links posted. I couldn’t find mention of PFAS or ‘forever chemicals’ anywhere on the first link(it may just be a little out of date concerning the last few years of development. The second link didn’t show any mention of a beer brewing link, but was specifically addressing ‘forever chemicals’ that are meaningfully on topic. Unfortunately they also included this caveat: “Although some of the filters did not achieve 100 percent reduction in PFAS measured in the water samples, they did eliminate 100 percent of PFOA and PFOS, two of the most notorious forever chemicals.”
- robthebrew 1y ago
  in a microbrewery? You are kidding.
  - Bender 1y ago
    in a microbrewery? You are kidding. I am not. The level of filtration required to remove chemicals is simple. It's a cost, but that cost can be moved to the customers and the beer can be promoted as "The Only Safe MicroBrew In {insert_state}". Artesian waters are a massive money maker. Apply the same sales logic to the beer. If anything I would taunt all the other micro-brewers and laugh all the way to the bank.
    - ch4s3 1y ago
      Some places with weird water profiles will set up RO systems and add minerals to build a water profile on top of that, but it's far from the norm. People decide based on how their municipal water supply works with the kind of beers they want to make. I've seen a few brewhouses in the process of being built and talked to some commercial brewers about water, and depending on the location some places just use municipal water. New York water has a great profile for beer.
      - timr 1y ago
        You don't need reverse osmosis to filter out PFAS -- activated carbon will do it.
        d4v3 1y ago
        Activated carbon will remove the larger chain PFAs, but is not as effective as removing the smaller ones. From the paper: > Conventional water treatment employed at municipal drinking water treatment plants have been shown to be nearly ineffective at removing PFAS. This can leave the burden and cost of implementing more sophisticated water treatments to brewers unless public water suppliers implement tertiary treatment to remove PFAS from finished water prior to distribution. Anion exchange and activated carbon treatments have been shown to more effectively remove longer-chain PFAS and PFSAs but were less effective in removing PFCAS and the alternative shorter-chain PFAS and PFECAs. Reverse osmosis treatment showed significant removal of PFAS of different chain lengths in drinking water, but can be prohibitive due to high operational costs and energy usage. In areas with known contamination, beers from macro- breweries were less likely to have detectable PFAS than craft beers brewed at a smaller scale, potentially due to more effective and expensive filtration of tap water at larger breweries.
- cluckindan 1y ago
  PFAS may be ending up in the product from the processing equipment, not necessarily only from the water source.
ChoGGi 1y ago
"The test subjects were produced by U.S. brewers in areas with documented water system contamination, plus popular domestic and international beers from larger companies with unknown water sources."
catlikesshrimp 1y ago
"Average ∑PFAS concentrations of Criteria 3 and 4 beers (popular national and international beers) were similar to the average ∑PFAS concentrations of many Criteria 1 and 2 beer" A link to the source of the information can be found in TFA https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c11265 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c11265
notherhack 1y ago
And by "95%" they mean 22 out of 23 beers tested.
onemoresoop 1y ago
And these areas are exactly the most densely populated: https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/map/ https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/map/

Brewers are supposed to have really good filtration FWIW. [1] If particles are showing up in beer then something has gone horribly wrong as in, someone is being incredibly cheap. [2] [1] - https://www.beer-brewing.com/beer_brewing/beer_brewing_water/water_treatment.htm https://www.beer-brewing.com/beer_brewing/beer_brewing_water... [2] - https://www.ewg.org/research/getting-forever-chemicals-out-drinking-water-ewgs-guide-pfas-water-filters https://www.ewg.org/research/getting-forever-chemicals-out-d...

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
justin66 1y ago
Which of the filtration methods on that list do you believe should be capable of filtering PFAS, the "forever chemicals" in question?
- Bender 1y ago
  I linked them.
  - dnemmers 1y ago
    I read through both of the links posted. I couldn’t find mention of PFAS or ‘forever chemicals’ anywhere on the first link(it may just be a little out of date concerning the last few years of development. The second link didn’t show any mention of a beer brewing link, but was specifically addressing ‘forever chemicals’ that are meaningfully on topic. Unfortunately they also included this caveat: “Although some of the filters did not achieve 100 percent reduction in PFAS measured in the water samples, they did eliminate 100 percent of PFOA and PFOS, two of the most notorious forever chemicals.”
robthebrew 1y ago
in a microbrewery? You are kidding.
- Bender 1y ago
  in a microbrewery? You are kidding. I am not. The level of filtration required to remove chemicals is simple. It's a cost, but that cost can be moved to the customers and the beer can be promoted as "The Only Safe MicroBrew In {insert_state}". Artesian waters are a massive money maker. Apply the same sales logic to the beer. If anything I would taunt all the other micro-brewers and laugh all the way to the bank.
  - ch4s3 1y ago
    Some places with weird water profiles will set up RO systems and add minerals to build a water profile on top of that, but it's far from the norm. People decide based on how their municipal water supply works with the kind of beers they want to make. I've seen a few brewhouses in the process of being built and talked to some commercial brewers about water, and depending on the location some places just use municipal water. New York water has a great profile for beer.
    - timr 1y ago
      You don't need reverse osmosis to filter out PFAS -- activated carbon will do it.
      - d4v3 1y ago
        Activated carbon will remove the larger chain PFAs, but is not as effective as removing the smaller ones. From the paper: > Conventional water treatment employed at municipal drinking water treatment plants have been shown to be nearly ineffective at removing PFAS. This can leave the burden and cost of implementing more sophisticated water treatments to brewers unless public water suppliers implement tertiary treatment to remove PFAS from finished water prior to distribution. Anion exchange and activated carbon treatments have been shown to more effectively remove longer-chain PFAS and PFSAs but were less effective in removing PFCAS and the alternative shorter-chain PFAS and PFECAs. Reverse osmosis treatment showed significant removal of PFAS of different chain lengths in drinking water, but can be prohibitive due to high operational costs and energy usage. In areas with known contamination, beers from macro- breweries were less likely to have detectable PFAS than craft beers brewed at a smaller scale, potentially due to more effective and expensive filtration of tap water at larger breweries.
cluckindan 1y ago
PFAS may be ending up in the product from the processing equipment, not necessarily only from the water source.

ChoGGi 1y ago

"The test subjects were produced by U.S. brewers in areas with documented water system contamination, plus popular domestic and international beers from larger companies with unknown water sources."

catlikesshrimp 1y ago

"Average ∑PFAS concentrations of Criteria 3 and 4 beers (popular national and international beers) were similar to the average ∑PFAS concentrations of many Criteria 1 and 2 beer" A link to the source of the information can be found in TFA https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c11265 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c11265

notherhack 1y ago

And by "95%" they mean 22 out of 23 beers tested.

onemoresoop 1y ago

And these areas are exactly the most densely populated: https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/map/ https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/map/