The relevance of beer with regard to water conservation and safe consumption is _not_ because the alcohol sterilizes the fluid. It's because successfully brewed and unfiltered beer forms a relatively stable ecosystem of unproblematic yeasts and lactic acid bacteria which prevent other unsafe micro organisms to take over and multiply. The hop is actually contributing to chemical conservation, though.
> I always thought it quite weird that somehow by virtue of being in beer, that the water somehow becomes sterilised.
The reason that water in beer is sterilised is that beer is brewed — i.e. boiled.
> If you've ever tried home brewing, you'll know that non-sterile conditions lead to foul rancid filth due to all the bacteria etc.
I believe that pre–germ-theory brewing practices tended to discourage unwanted microbial activity, in part through inoculation with large amounts of fresh barm. Did they put two and two together and connect those practices in the context of brewing to the broader context of water or food safety? Maybe.
> I'd find it odd if the people then knew to sterilise the water and equipment to make beer, but then not do the same to drink it.
Indeed, the article quotes Paulus: ‘But waters which contain impurities, have a fetid smell, or any bad quality, may be so improved by boiling as to be fit to be drunk.’
You don't really need sterile conditions, yeast just need a head start to outcompete other microbes. Then, as alcohol and CO₂ build up, the brew becomes bacteriostatic. Which is still different from being bactericidal.
The idea is by making it beer you keep safe water safe for longer. It doesn't sound particularly weird to me (I don't know if it was really a common practice in medieval Europe.)
I always understood the myth as: "When you traveled somewhere and didn't know about the water-quality, you drank beer instead".
Not that beer is immune against making you ill, but chances are random beer in some random village is better than random water in some random village, since the village people would use the good water for the beer.
I always though it was after the middle ages that alcohol was consumed for safety reasons. I also remember hearing it wasn't really the general population, but sailors on ships because water on long voyages wouldn't stay fresh very long?
Was there ever a serious belief that nobody drank water? That seems a bit much.
I can think of a fiction book that rather heavily pushed the idea, but it seems like a few minutes of thought would show that there's no way to produce/transport/store enough beer-type liquid for people working on a farm.
Conversely, an aristocrat/noble who travelled to a different continent might conceivably attempt to only drink beers/etc.
The more common version of this, which I do remember hearing in history courses in college, was that people in the Middle Ages frequently mixed beer or wine with water. Whether that was done purely for taste, or in the belief that it would make potentially unsafe water safe, and what the details of making water safe to drink by mixing beer or wine with it actually are, I don't know. The author himself makes this point repeatedly, that water was frequently mixed with wine (at which point people are drinking watered wine).
It's like there are two parallel arguments:
"Medieval Europeans exclusively drank alcoholic beverages, because the water was so bad." And,
"We currently over-estimate the degree to which people in the Medieval-era consumed alcohol, and under-estimate the degree to which they drank pure water."
The author seems to conflate the two willy-nilly, claims the first to be widely held, and that he has disproved it (while, among others, citing Classical rather than Medieval sources).
also, recalling from memory, standedge argues that the early perspective on wine was that it was simply a higher order of beer. it makes sense because there earliest beers were not hopped and would probably profile similarly to wine.
however, grape cultivation was more difficult/technical than grain cultivation which elevated the class of wine. it was also prized for its relative stability when diluted, with some maintaining the same (or better) flavor profile when diluted 1:2 water:wine. it was a true show of wealth to serve wine that was less than 1:1. (a history of the world in 6 glasses)
i’ve tried this with a few wine varietals and i can see what he’s saying in some regard, but it definitely alters the profile in ways.
The relevance of beer with regard to water conservation and safe consumption is _not_ because the alcohol sterilizes the fluid. It's because successfully brewed and unfiltered beer forms a relatively stable ecosystem of unproblematic yeasts and lactic acid bacteria which prevent other unsafe micro organisms to take over and multiply. The hop is actually contributing to chemical conservation, though.
I always thought it quite weird that somehow by virtue of being in beer, that the water somehow becomes sterilised.
If you've ever tried home brewing, you'll know that non-sterile conditions lead to foul rancid filth due to all the bacteria etc.
I'd find it odd if the people then knew to sterlise the water and equipment to make beer, but then not do the same to drink it.
> I always thought it quite weird that somehow by virtue of being in beer, that the water somehow becomes sterilised.
The reason that water in beer is sterilised is that beer is brewed — i.e. boiled.
> If you've ever tried home brewing, you'll know that non-sterile conditions lead to foul rancid filth due to all the bacteria etc.
I believe that pre–germ-theory brewing practices tended to discourage unwanted microbial activity, in part through inoculation with large amounts of fresh barm. Did they put two and two together and connect those practices in the context of brewing to the broader context of water or food safety? Maybe.
> I'd find it odd if the people then knew to sterilise the water and equipment to make beer, but then not do the same to drink it.
Indeed, the article quotes Paulus: ‘But waters which contain impurities, have a fetid smell, or any bad quality, may be so improved by boiling as to be fit to be drunk.’
You don't really need sterile conditions, yeast just need a head start to outcompete other microbes. Then, as alcohol and CO₂ build up, the brew becomes bacteriostatic. Which is still different from being bactericidal.
The idea is by making it beer you keep safe water safe for longer. It doesn't sound particularly weird to me (I don't know if it was really a common practice in medieval Europe.)
As someone who until recently had believed this myth and had never tried home brewing, the theory was that the alcohol kills the bacteria
I think it's a traveling tip like "always ask for halal option - they have better ingredients" or sth.
People know beer needs specific conditions or it doesn't sell. So they are careful about that.
If you ask for water you might get the water they use for cooking soup or cleaning the mugs and they might not boil it beforehand.
I always understood the myth as: "When you traveled somewhere and didn't know about the water-quality, you drank beer instead".
Not that beer is immune against making you ill, but chances are random beer in some random village is better than random water in some random village, since the village people would use the good water for the beer.
I heard it was a bit more... pre-medieval. More like the cause of the agricultural revolution.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/guest-blog/a-sip-for...
I always though it was after the middle ages that alcohol was consumed for safety reasons. I also remember hearing it wasn't really the general population, but sailors on ships because water on long voyages wouldn't stay fresh very long?
Was there ever a serious belief that nobody drank water? That seems a bit much.
I can think of a fiction book that rather heavily pushed the idea, but it seems like a few minutes of thought would show that there's no way to produce/transport/store enough beer-type liquid for people working on a farm.
Conversely, an aristocrat/noble who travelled to a different continent might conceivably attempt to only drink beers/etc.
The more common version of this, which I do remember hearing in history courses in college, was that people in the Middle Ages frequently mixed beer or wine with water. Whether that was done purely for taste, or in the belief that it would make potentially unsafe water safe, and what the details of making water safe to drink by mixing beer or wine with it actually are, I don't know. The author himself makes this point repeatedly, that water was frequently mixed with wine (at which point people are drinking watered wine).
It's like there are two parallel arguments:
"Medieval Europeans exclusively drank alcoholic beverages, because the water was so bad." And,
"We currently over-estimate the degree to which people in the Medieval-era consumed alcohol, and under-estimate the degree to which they drank pure water."
The author seems to conflate the two willy-nilly, claims the first to be widely held, and that he has disproved it (while, among others, citing Classical rather than Medieval sources).
Part of it I think was also that wine, but also likely beer was somewhat expensive. So adding water meant there was more liquid.
Mass production and transportation of everything at scales we have is very recent. So adding water to wine made it last longer.
also, recalling from memory, standedge argues that the early perspective on wine was that it was simply a higher order of beer. it makes sense because there earliest beers were not hopped and would probably profile similarly to wine.
however, grape cultivation was more difficult/technical than grain cultivation which elevated the class of wine. it was also prized for its relative stability when diluted, with some maintaining the same (or better) flavor profile when diluted 1:2 water:wine. it was a true show of wealth to serve wine that was less than 1:1. (a history of the world in 6 glasses)
i’ve tried this with a few wine varietals and i can see what he’s saying in some regard, but it definitely alters the profile in ways.