larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (10/29/90)
In article <15727@netcom.UUCP>, mendi@netcom.UUCP (Greg Mendizabal) writes: > >> Ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol are two other contaminants, along > >>with methanol. Or, more properly, I should call them adulterants. > >>The only way any of these chemicals gets into a still is if someone > >>puts them there. > > -Steve dyer I'm afraid that I was not actively following this discussion, so perhaps I'm getting in a bit late. Methanol *can* be produced by a purely "natural" mechanism during the fermentation of alcoholic beverages, although it is a comparatively rare occurence. Methanol can be produced during fermentation by the demethylation of pectins by pectin esterase. Common yeast found in alcoholic beverage fermentation, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, does not form an enzyme capable of hydrolizing pectins. However, pectin esterase may be *abundantly* found in the peel of citrus fruits and fungi. Citrus fruit or grain that has been allowed to mold, especially under conditions of high pH, will readily form pectin esterase. As a result of the above mechanism, careless production of alcoholic beverages using moldy fruit or grain can result in *significant* production of methanol. > > 1 Why would anyone intentionaly do that? I do not see that > > it would make any kind of economic sense to use a poison > > like methanol or the others as a cut, because even adding > > a tiny bit of volume with the cut would taste bad and make > > people noticeably sick. The only "intentional" use of methanol as an adulterant to alcoholic beverages that I am aware of was during Prohibition where it was, uh, economically practicable. The seriousness of the health implications were also underestimated by the perpetrators. Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" VOICE: 716/688-1231 {boulder, rutgers, watmath}!ub!kitty!larry FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo, uunet}!/ \aerion!larry