Says here that cooking meats with beer helps LOWER cancer risks... Hmmm. [url="http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21600085-reduce-health-risk-barbecuing-meat-just-add-beer-marriage-made"]Beer and BBQ: A marriage made in heaven[/url]

The only beer that I drink on the "Stop Drinking Immediately" list with any regularity whatsoever is Guinness, and not that often. I drank two Newcastles last year. Next report: Sex will kill you.

As a research scientist, articles like this make me sick because they throw a blanket statement out there. BPA (Bisphenol A) - I highly doubt that any brewer anywhere, macro or otherwise, is knowingly using BPA in their beer. It's an artificially constructed synthetic compound that is used in making plastics more structurally sound. There are hundreds of peer reviewed articles in the scientific literature that link BPA with many health issues (it can also act as a synthetic hormone in women) from obesity to cancer, primarily from leeching. GMO (genetically modified organisms). As a molecular biologist, I cringe everytime I see somebody blame GMOs for any health issue. Over the last 20 years, several different organizations have tried to stop the use of GMOs in various countries for a variety of reasons. In ALL cases, these organizations have failed to back up any of their claims. If you think right down to it, 99% ALL corn grown in the world today is artificially genetically modified to some extent going back to the 1800s. With the exception of a strain of corn developed by Michelin in in the early 1990s, none of it has been shown to have any ill effect on humans in any peer reviewed scientific articles, academic or otherwise (and there are over 1,000,000 articles since the 1960s detailing the genetic manipulation of plants and their effects on human. Almost all of the genetic modifications done to corn today, are the same done by farmers since the late 1800s, except commercially, there is no loss to the farmer for manipulations that don't work. For example, in an anti-Monsanto ad that has been going around the internet, people are claiming that corn that has been modified to produce the bt toxin gene is killing fetuses in pregnant women. This toxin has been used on potato and corn plants as a pesticide since the 1920s in the United States with absolutely no issues based on human studies done at the University of Georgia and Louisiana State University in 1923 and 1924. The genetically engineered version has been available since the early 90s, again with no issues until Monsanto was brought up. In 2011, Greenpeace was asked to provide the German government with a list of women who had lost their babies due to ingestion of corn containing the Bt toxin gene, as well as others who were to have become sick from similar ingestion. They were unable to provide a single person, despite remaining adamant such people exist. Natural Flavours? Seriously, natural flavours are causing cancer? I can safely eat a raspberry or a cherry, but use it to flavour my beer and suddenly it's a carcinogen? Really? Carrageenan............seaweed. been used for years and years and years and again, several peer reviewed scientific articles testifying to it's safety (including a couple suggesting that people need to use more carrageenan as it is effective against the common cold, and other viruses. Having spent meany years working in the beer and wine industry, I get all sorts of questions about what is good, what isn't good. One thing to note.............just because a compound has a negative effect on another living organism (chocolate kills dogs, aspirin kills chipmunks, bt toxin kills insects, etc) doesn't mean that it has the same effect on humans, and in most cases it doesn't. There are animals where microdoses of alcohol will kill them, yet a similar dose to a 180lb man is negligible/non-existent. While the internet can be a great tool for disseminating information to the public, it also presents a haven/soapbox for people trying to disseminate misleading information to the public as well. As for high fructose corn syrup (a misleading name at best as the fructose content is only 2-3% higher than regular corn syrup), there is absolutely no evidence that it leads to any health issues NOT related to sugar intake. All current studies indicate that sugar intake today is considerably higher than 40 years ago (Mayo Clinic (published September 2012) and Salk Institute (published November 2010) among study organizers) and as a result, a dramatic increase in obesity and diabetes mellitus, particularly among people younger than 50, has ensued. When these studies are broken down to separate sucrose from corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup, the numbers remain the same. Consume less sugar, stay healthier. Propylene Glycol............breaks down into pyruvic acid (required for glycolysis) and acetic acid (hydrolized by the human body), and lactic acid (again, required for several metabolic pathways in the body). A 180lb person would need to ingest about 10 grams in order for it be toxic. (Would require a couple of hundred beers to be ingested in a short time span to get to 10 grams). So, want to kill yourself with propylene glycol and high fructose corn syrup............ingest copius amounts in a short time, amounts that you just won't get in beer. MSG is the sodium salt of the essential (I repeat 'essential') amino acid glutamic acid. It has been used safely for over 100 years as a flood flavouring. In the late 60s, a man claimed that he became sick after ingesting a meal with MSG and the legend grew. There has never been a scientifically proven case of MSG leading to illness (all reports have been testimonials without any diagnostic tests to lend evidence). In the 1990s, the highly respected American scientific FASEB published a report condemning the anecdotal evidence and re-affirmed the scientific basis that when used in proper amounts, MSG has no harmful effects on humans. In fact, glutamic acid has one of the best metabolic processes in the human body for getting rid of excess glutamine/glutamic acid and quite a bit needs to be ingested for it to case harm (an industrial sized canister of 'Accent' for example).

I thought the lack of flavour and body was the reason to avoid most of those beers.

quote: Originally posted by cyrenaica I thought the lack of flavour and body was the reason to avoid most of those beers.

Fish bladder toxic? Well, I would not go around continually snacking on bladders of any kind, fish or otherwise, but... "Isinglass is a substance obtained from the dried swim bladders of fish. It is a form of collagen used mainly for the clarification of wine and beer." --LeakyWikiBladderPedia What ever remnants of highly refined fish bladders MIGHT remain in a beer will pose no health risks--unless you are a strict vegan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/guinness-fish-bladder_n_2878165.html

Yup. This.

quote: Originally posted by jlozier Excellent! Everything I avoid now has an even better reason to be avoided.

A thoughtful repudiation of the Food Babe's article http://maureenogle.com/maureen-ogle/2013/08/18/whats-in-your-beer-or-the-dangers-of-dumbassery

quote: Originally posted by FoamDome A thoughtful repudiation of the Food Babe's article http://maureenogle.com/maureen-ogle/2013/08/18/whats-in-your-beer-or-the-dangers-of-dumbassery

None are in my fridge nor will they ever because they all suck major donkey schlong.