14

I've heard that there were two common methods to disinfecting water in the past: boiling water or turning it into alcohol. Presumably, those in the East relied on boiling water, while those in the West relied on alcohol.

In the context of contaminated water supply, ethyl alcohol may indeed have been mother’s milk to a nascent Western civilization. Beer and wine were free of pathogens. And the antiseptic power of alcohol, as well as the natural acidity of wine and beer, killed many pathogens when the alcoholic drinks were diluted with the sullied water supply. Dating from the taming and conscious application of the fermentation process, people of all ages in the West have therefore consumed beer and wine, not water, as their major daily thirst quenchers.

The experience in the East differed greatly. For at least the past 2000 years, the practice of boiling water, usually for tea, has created a potable supply of nonalcoholic beverages. In addition, genetics played an important role in making Asia avoid alcohol: approximately half of all Asian people lack an enzyme necessary for complete alcohol metabolism, making the experience of drinking quite unpleasant. Thus, beer and wine took their place as staples only in Western societies and remained there until the end of the last century. (Source)

What I'm interested in is how those societies functioned if they had to rely on alcohol as a source of water, as compared to societies that relied on boiling water. Was the alcohol thinned down? Was it used only as an emergency source of water?

If they had indeed relied on alcohol, did those societies develop a genetic immunity to alcohol intoxication? Did it have health effects as compared to societies that relied on boiling water? Or was it treated in a manner similar to how modern societies drink carbonated water?

5
  • @MarkC.Wallace Thanks, I rewrote the question to make it clearer. First part is to confirm the assumption of whether/how alcohol was used as a source of water. Second part is to compare those societies to the ones who boiled water. I'm assuming people back then knew of the benefits of food preservation and treated alcohol in a similar manner, even without germ theory.
    – Muz
    Commented Mar 19, 2013 at 11:14
  • 5
    Fermentation doesn't turn water into alcohol. It turns sugars into alcohol, resulting in a maximum of about 5% alcohol before the yeast go dormant.
    – user2848
    Commented Aug 14, 2014 at 15:57
  • 7
    Two correction: 1) brewing itself contains a boiling element, however pure water boiled doesnt remain sterile. 2) Your quotation most probably mixed up cause with result: the alcohol tolerance in the West is the result of adaptation to alcohol drinking, and not the other way.
    – Greg
    Commented Jan 5, 2015 at 17:34
  • 2
    @BenCrowell 5% alcohol by volume is the mid range that you get in regular fermentation 7-8% being the cut off range without specialist yeast. While the original brewers must not have had very strong beer as it would often been left to self inoculate, wine and other fruit ferments could have soared as far as 10% due to the natural yeasts present on the skin of the fruit, which have a better tolerance to alcohol. So, I disagree with your 5% statement.
    – BOB
    Commented Feb 23, 2015 at 20:58
  • Modern (specially bred) champagne yeast can tolerate 10-12% alcohol. That's the highest I've ever seen in any strain, natural or not. This doesn't mean the result is "sterile", because other things will grow in the resulting fluid. Most famously, mother of vinegar... Commented Apr 3, 2018 at 20:06

9 Answers 9

4

I don't know whether this is example of people deliberately drinking beer rather than water for its protective effects. But there is certainly an interesting case study to be had in the 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak. Wikipedia quote:

There was one significant anomaly - none of the monks in the adjacent monastery contracted cholera. Investigation showed that this was not an anomaly, but further evidence, for they drank only beer, which they brewed themselves.

Although I've seen this elsewhere (and on the map) as brewery workers.

2
  • 4
    This is nice but doesn't really answer the question IMHO.
    – o0'.
    Commented Dec 11, 2013 at 16:30
  • 1
    I don't think the thing here is any "protective effect". The thing here is that those people had not been drinking from the contaminated well, but a different source. Alcohol had no part in it.
    – DevSolar
    Commented Mar 16, 2022 at 14:40
4

I know the Germans, not understanding bacteria et. Al. Actually thought the brewing process removed "evil spirits" from water, this explains why they also sometimes used beer in masonry and foundation construction, resulting in more than a few "drunk" (leaning) buildings when too much beer was used vs. straight water.

4
  • 8
    contrary to popular belief, buildings don't get drunk by imbibing too much alcohol :) They get drunk by their builders imbibing too much alcohol or by natural processes causing the ground under them to subside.
    – jwenting
    Commented Aug 13, 2014 at 7:40
  • 6
    This answer would be improved by sources.
    – MCW
    Commented Aug 13, 2014 at 10:33
  • 6
    As I was told (oral history by a German brew master). The alcohol actually can cause the cement to set improperly. Contrary to popular beleif the water added to cement doesn't just wet it so it pours and stays where it's put -- it's actually part of the chemical reaction, beer or other things can ruin the strength of it.
    – Rj Dieken
    Commented Aug 14, 2014 at 13:45
  • 2
    Note this patent application on the deliberate retarding of cement hardening by adding organic liquids such as ethyl or methyl alcohol (amongst others): google.com/patents/US2816043: "The maximum amount of this organic liquid in the mixing liquid is determined mainly by the strength desired in the resultant hardened cement. Generally not more than approximately 30% organic liquid is incorporated in the mixing liquid. Examples of suitable organic liquids are methyl alcohol, ethyl alcohol, propanol-2, isopropyl alcohol, and diacetone alcohol. liquids may also be used." Commented Jun 3, 2016 at 2:50
3

While it is true that alcohol disinfects, it is also a poor hydration source. First beers (e.g. in Egypt) were low alcohol content, even kids could drink it, and they were mayor protein/nutrition source while being more or less germless. You can argue that this is already a hygienic use. Southern and Middle Europe wine was much more available for drinking (Greeks and Rome in Ancient times, and later all the area during middle ages), but they diluted wine with water for regular consumption. Since wine has very low nutrition value compared to beer, we can argue that diluted wine consumed in large volume in daily bases is mostly a water-substitue / refreshing drink.

12
  • 1
    Yes, this is what I've heard elsewhere; plain water was considered impure as a beverage, with watered down beer and wine being preferred. But that leaves a bit of a question - if the water source was so contaminated, what were they watering the wine and beer down with, that it didn't get contaminated in turn?
    – Bryce
    Commented Jan 6, 2015 at 1:36
  • 2
    Alcohol keeps the beverages clean, even after mixing, and it kills even the germs that get into it after preparation. Note, we not necessarily talk about sewage water and such. If you open a bottle of water, drink from it, and leave outside the refrigerator, you better not drink it a half day later. Tea, wine etc handles better such situations, germs can grow in them much slower, and also has better taste than some still water source.
    – Greg
    Commented Jan 6, 2015 at 5:08
  • "nutrition source" from?
    – Pacerier
    Commented Aug 24, 2017 at 10:45
  • In the Spanish army, at least until recent times, (the 1970s) soldiers never drank water together with food, but they were given watered-down (50%) red wine sweetened with sugar. The military know a lot on how to keep soldiers well-fed and sane...
    – xxavier
    Commented Sep 8, 2018 at 8:13
  • 1
    "Since wine has very low nutrition value compared to beer" thats not true, modern wine 90 kcal/100g vs 30 kcal/100g lite beer. so the wine has a higher nutritional value even if deluted. also, i doubt 2-3% alcohol would harm germs significantly
    – Tsayper
    Commented Mar 16, 2019 at 13:51
2

In Anglo-Saxon England, beer was watered down, with the most watered-down called "small beer" which was used in place of water for drinking and cooking. The phrase small beer is still used, though now it means of low priority in the sense of lacking importance.

1
  • 5
    Less "watering down" after fermentation than "low alcohol" because of the fermentation process, for example as the second runnings from the production of a higher alcohol and more expensive beer. But it still had more taste, more calories and caused less disease than contemporary water
    – Henry
    Commented Jun 3, 2016 at 9:01
1

Yes, they drank beer (and/or wine depending on the availability of the ingredients) so they'd not have to drink (as much) water.
For example http://www.thekeep.org/~kunoichi/kunoichi/themestream/egypt_alcohol.html#.UUb7yVfNhgg describes in detail ancient Egyptian beer, which has actually been reproduced from recipes found.

3
  • 1
    @MarkC.Wallace: The motivation is accidental not intentional - since bacteria would remain undiscovered for another 2+ millennia. However, those who drank weak spirits/beer/wine had much better survivability, more numerous and healthier offspring, etc. Commented Jun 3, 2016 at 2:46
  • 1
    @Pieter Geerkens Besides, people belonging to the 'wine culture' used to believe in a sort of 'purifying' effect of fermentation. Hence, no one found it disgusting to drink a liquid obtained by stepping on the grapes with bare feet, rarely clean...
    – xxavier
    Commented Sep 8, 2018 at 8:21
  • 1
    in the Franklin's autobiography theres an episode when he asks printing shop workers in London why do they drink 6 pints of beer per day, and they answer 'because it gives strength'. Frankling himself drank water and told everyone they should too, as it is more healthy. I doubt it was just a replacement for water as its not usual to drink 3-5 litres of water per day for humans. The beer was rather a source of fast calories to do physical work, i think.
    – Tsayper
    Commented Mar 16, 2019 at 13:43
1

When one sees the fell ripened fruits fermenting on the ground or in a bowl or something, it becomes apparent after enough time that there is something about fermenting fruit which distinguishing it from "rotten" food, in that it is not really going bad but going somewhere else. After seeing birds, mammals and other animals delightedly consuming them, it doesn't take much brain power to figure out that there are certain staying and keeping qualities inherent in aging fruit materials, as opposed to rotting or decomposing. Indeed, if the weather is appropriate and environment conditions are suitable, the odor of fermenting fruit can be downright enticing. Inside the house in a clean situation, it becomes a pleasant and inviting food source. I would suggest that most cultures capable of higher than basic level cooking probably have a clear distinction between foods and liquids which have become spoiled and unsafe and fermented product. The same can be said for pickling and other microbial processes that are very easily discovered and readily taken advantage of. I don't believe many cultures have survived without ever discovering fermentation.

2
  • 1
    This reads more as a opinion than a fact-supported answer and it doesn't directly address the question that was asked.
    – Steve Bird
    Commented Jun 3, 2016 at 5:12
  • 1
    If it is commonplace among mammals, including all primates, to consume fermenting fruits, then it stands to reason that the ancestors of homo sapiens have always partaken of fermenting fruits and therefore have been familiar with the consumption of ethanol from the beginning. This opinion is supported by facts.
    – Microbius
    Commented Dec 29, 2016 at 13:58
0

Alcohol was almost surely first produced by accident. Then people noticed its intoxicating effects. It was probably not until much later that its effects on bacteria were noticed, as these didn't become really important until the population density was high enough that infected water was problematic (a small tribe living near a stream would not have this problem, for instance).

4
  • 3
    Got a link for this assertion? It sounds possible, but my understanding is that the origins of alcohol are still hotly debated.
    – T.E.D.
    Commented Mar 18, 2013 at 14:28
  • 1
    No, I haven't got a link ... But alcohol comes about so easily! So many things ferment, if left alone.
    – Peter Flom
    Commented Mar 18, 2013 at 14:43
  • 1
    True. I was thinking of beer (grain fermentation) due to some recent articles (my bad). Fermented fruit can literally be found all over the ground during the right time of year.
    – T.E.D.
    Commented Mar 18, 2013 at 15:20
  • 3
    doesn't answer the question though, of whether drinking alcohol was done (at least in part) as a means to prevent having to drink contaminated water.
    – jwenting
    Commented Mar 19, 2013 at 14:55
0

How about using kefir for milk or water to ferment the drink. This is done for ages in the East and getting more and more popular nowadays.

0

Question: I've heard that there were two common methods to disinfecting water in the past: boiling water or turning it into alcohol.

I believe Beer was thought to be safer because by definition it was boiled. I know the puritans who came to the America's on the Mayflower in 1620 all drank beer rather than water on the crossing as they believed it was safer. Men women and children.

How the Mayflower prepared for its historic transatlantic voyage

Though they could collect rainwater during the journey, water was not as healthy back then as it is today, and so most people liked to take beer or ale on ships. During the two weeks the group remained in Southampton, they would have had a really good opportunity to stock up. Beer-making was a big industry in the city, and they used to make it in industrial quantities so that it could be put on the ships and used for voyages. Just near to West Quay is a place that was known as the Beer House and is now called the Duke of Wellington – and it was here that the Pilgrims would have gone to get not only beer, but also French brandy and Dutch gin.

Beer by definition is boiled.

Process of brewing beer The wort(unhusked grains-sugar sources) are collected in a vessel called a kettle, brought to a controlled boil before the hops are added.

Why does beer need to be boiled Beer needs to be boiled because the high temperatures kill harmful bacteria that could contaminate the beer. Boiling has other benefits during brewing, including enzyme control, balancing sweetness and bitterness, and eliminating smells.

I also know I.P.A. or India Pale Ale was an an extra hoppy beer which was produced for British Ships making the long 6 months passage to India. This passage required the ships to cross the equator twice and sail through the tropics. The IPA beer was created with extra hops as a preservative so the beer could stand up to the demands of such a crossing. How the India Pale Ale Got Its Name

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.