Science Snippets: Hold My Beer

Draft script:

I quit drinking when I was 18 years old. My Dad was an alcoholic. So was my older brother. I recognized at the age of 18 that my compulsive tendencies had me headed in the same direction, so I quit drinking.

According to an article in ScienceAlert, my decision was wise. The article was published 24 May 2025 and titled ‘Forever Chemicals’ Found in Popular US Beers, Above EPA Limits. Here’s the lede: “Humans love beer, worldwide, we can go through more than 187.9 million kiloliters (49.6 billion gallons) of it in just one year.”

So far, so good. What could possibly go wrong? The second paragraph of the article at ScienceAlert explains: “But new research adds this beloved beverage to the long list of products found to contain PFAS (polyfluoralkyl substances), aka ‘forever chemicals’.”

The article at ScienceAlert continues with explanatory information: “PFAS earned that nickname because they don’t readily break down in the environment. It’s estimated that there are around 12,000 different types of forever chemical, and while health effects are mostly unknown, two in particular – PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid) – are linked to adverse health outcomes, including increased risks of cancer and birth defects.” This information seems very inconvenient for those who drink alcohol, and also their friends and family.

The article at ScienceAlert refers to a peer-reviewed, open-access paper in Environmental Science & Technology. The article was authored by six scholars and published 24 April 2025. It is titled Hold My Beer: The Linkage between Municipal Water and Brewing Location on PFAS in Popular Beverages. I will return to this peer-reviewed paper shortly.

Back to the article in ScienceAlert, which quotes the lead author of the peer-reviewed paper: “As an occasional beer drinking myself, I wondered whether PFAS in water supplies was making its way into our pints.”

The answer comes in the following five paragraphs: “It turns out, quite a lot. The team measured PFAS at levels above the maximum limit set by the EPA, which some argue is still not set high enough to protect people from these chemicals.

While breweries do usually have their own water filtration and treatment systems, these are not necessarily designed to remove PFAS. Up to seven liters of water can be used to make just one liter of beer, and whatever PFAS contaminants are in that water will probably still be there when you crack open your cold one.

The team bought 23 different kinds of beer, each represented by at least five cans, from a North Carolina liquor store in 2021.

At least one PFAS was found in almost every can they tested. Most contained some level of PFOS. Three beers tested in this study – two from the upper Cape Fear River Basin in North Carolina, and one from Michigan – exceeded the EPA's maximum limit for PFOA concentration, and one beer from the lower Cape Fear River Basin exceeded PFOS limits.

Those limits were developed by the EPA in 2023 for six different kinds of PFAS, and they’re designed for drinking water, not beer. But since there’s no existing framework for how much PFAS is acceptable in beer – and, like drinking water, beers are intended for direct consumption – … [the research] team figured these drinking water standards could be repurposed.”

States in the U.S. have different standards for pollutants, including PFAS. In addition, these states pay varying attention to pollutants. For example, as explained in the ScienceAlert article as it quotes the research team that created the peer-reviewed paper: “By adapting EPA Method 533 to analyze PFAS in beers sold in US retail stores, we found that PFAS in beer correlates with the types and concentration of PFAS present in municipal drinking water used in brewing.

North Carolina beers, particularly those within the Cape Fear River Basin, generally had detections of more PFAS species than Michigan or California beers, which reflects the variety of PFAS sources in North Carolina.

PFAS detections and concentrations were particularly elevated in beers brewed in North Carolina, California, and Michigan.

International beers (one from Holland and two from Mexico) were less likely to have detectable PFAS, which may suggest that the countries of origin do not face the same degree of contamination seen in the US.”

The article in ScienceAlert concludes with a misguided plea for hope: “They hope the findings will offer breweries the chance to try to remove PFAS from the water that goes into their beers, and highlight the importance of policy to limit PFAS in general.”

I now turn to the peer-reviewed article. It explains that policy matters, and varying policies among states in the U.S. help explain differences in health and quality of life. The Abstract contains this information: “Beer has been a popular beverage for millennia. As water is a main component of beer and the brewing process, we surmised that the polyfluoroalkyl substances … presence and spatial variability in drinking water systems are a PFAS source in beers. This is the first study to adapt EPA Method 533 to measure PFAS in beer from various regions, brewery types, and water sources. Statistical analyses were conducted to correlate PFAS in state-reported drinking water, and beers were analyzed by brewing location. PFAS were detected in most beers, particularly from smaller scale breweries located near drinking water sources with known PFAS. Perfluorosulfonic acids, particularly PFOS, were frequently detected, with PFOA or PFOS above U.S. E[nvironmental] P[rotection] A[gency]’s Maximum Contaminant Limits in some beers. There was also a county–level correlation between the total PFAS, PFOA, and PFBS concentrations in drinking water and beers. Given that approximately 18% of U.S. breweries are located within zip codes with detectable PFAS in municipal drinking water, our findings, which link PFAS in beer to the brewery water source, are intended to help inform data-driven policies on PFAS in beverages for governmental agencies, provide insights for brewers and water utilities on treatment needs, and support informed decision-making for consumers.”

The bottom line is critical, as it places responsibility where it lies: “our findings … support informed decision-making for consumers.” This peer-reviewed paper correctly points out that individuals are to be held accountable. It also indicates the roles of governments and producers in the process of exchanging goods and services.

The more commonly recognized bottom line, money, will undoubtedly win the battle with environmental protection within the current presidential administration in the country of my birth. This administration is intent upon further enriching a few billionaires. That we all depend upon the environment and the atmosphere for our continued survival is irrelevant compared to monetary profit. It’s small wonder our demise draws near.