When people grab a six-pack from the chilled aisle in summer, they rarely expect to be thinking about pesticide readings, laboratory detection limits and opaque labels. That is exactly where a recent investigation by "60 Millions de consommateurs" comes in: the editorial team tested popular blonde ales and wheat beers sold in French supermarkets - and the findings put three very familiar brands on the red list.
How the test of 45 beers was carried out
"60 Millions de consommateurs" commissioned laboratory analyses of 45 supermarket beers in total: 39 pale lagers and 6 wheat beers. Specialists screened the samples for around 250 different pesticide active substances. In the end, only four substances were actually detected:
- the herbicide glyphosate
- three fungicides: boscalid, folpet and phthalimide
Here are the headline results:
| Criterion tested | Result |
|---|---|
| Number of beers tested | 45 |
| Beers with detectable pesticide traces | 34 |
| Beers with no detectable residues | 11 |
| Glyphosate in beers | 25 beers, including two organic beers |
The detected quantities are in the microgram range per litre, meaning they are well below levels associated with acute health risks. Even so, consumer advocates argue there is still an issue: beer is a pleasure product that many people drink regularly - and, in their view, it should contain no plant-protection chemicals at all.
Three well-known beers end up on the black list: Affligem Blonde, Hoegaarden and Itinéraire des Saveurs Blonde
The investigation’s key message is enough to make plenty of beer drinkers sit up: the magazine explicitly recommends not buying three widely available beers. These are:
- Affligem Blonde - an “abbey beer” brand produced on an industrial scale
- Hoegaarden - one of Europe’s best-known wheat beers
- Itinéraire des Saveurs Blonde - a private-label beer sold by a French supermarket chain
The three beers stand out for above-average pesticide levels, weak transparency and a questionable price–quality balance.
The magazine does not accuse any producer of exceeding legal maximum limits. The focus is different: the combined burden of residues, the provenance of the raw materials, and whether price and marketing truly match the quality delivered.
Affligem Blonde as the worst performer
One figure in particular raised eyebrows: Affligem Blonde recorded almost 9.3 micrograms of glyphosate per litre - the highest level in the entire test. The word “Abbaye” on the label evokes traditional monastery brewing, yet the reality is industrial production. It is precisely this tension between a romantic brand image and the laboratory results that sharpens the criticism.
The editors also put the risk into perspective: in theory, someone would have to drink almost 2,000 litres of the most contaminated beer in a single day to exceed the acceptable daily intake for glyphosate. Nobody can do that. Still, the unease remains: every bottle adds a small amount to overall pesticide exposure - on top of what people may already consume via fruit, vegetables or water.
Why these three beers really fail the test
The “do not buy” warning is not based solely on the lab numbers. The assessment also incorporated criteria that, for many shoppers, matter more in day-to-day life than an abstract measurement.
Beyond pesticide readings, the test mainly criticises unclear information about ingredients and a price promise that doesn’t fit.
Vague or incomplete labels
Across all three criticised beers, the report highlights that the origin and quality of the raw materials are hard to verify. Where does the barley come from? Which hops are used? Are any specific farming programmes supported? Many of these questions are left unanswered on the bottles. For products marketed with words such as “tradition” or “authenticity”, that lack of clarity is not especially convincing.
Price, performance and marketing at odds
Brands such as Affligem and Hoegaarden tend to sit in the mid-to-upper price bracket on the shelf. At that price, buyers expect a craft-led approach, high-grade raw materials and careful attention throughout the supply chain. The laboratory findings only partly support that promise. The test judges this mismatch negatively - and advises against making these beers a default purchase.
Good news: some beers showed no detectable residues
The results are not only unsettling; they also point to alternatives. A total of 11 tested beers contained no detectable pesticide residues. These included well-known industrial beers such as:
- Heineken Lager
- Carlsberg
- 33 Export
This challenges a common assumption: mass-market beer does not automatically perform worse on residues than smaller brands. Industrial production can - at least in this sample - deliver clean results. That said, nothing is guaranteed: only 45 products were tested, and only in France. You cannot transfer the findings one-to-one to supermarkets in German-speaking countries, but they do provide clear signposts.
How beer buyers in German-speaking countries can make better choices
Shoppers in Germany, Austria or Switzerland will see different brands on the shelf. The core questions remain the same: how can you spot a product that is likely to perform better on pesticide residues, and what is worth checking more closely?
- Short ingredients list: water, malt, hops - traditional beers rarely need much more. Lots of additions can point to more heavily processed products.
- Transparency about the grain: some breweries name regional farmers or farming schemes on the label or bottle, signalling that origin is more than a marketing term.
- Read organic labels carefully: organic farming greatly reduces the use of synthetic pesticides, even though traces can still reach plants via the environment or neighbouring fields.
- Compare price per litre: a higher price alone does not guarantee better raw-material quality - the French test makes that very clear.
- Support local and independent breweries: many smaller producers work with shorter supply chains and can explain more precisely how they source barley and hops.
If you spend a few extra seconds checking the label while shopping, you influence not only your own exposure but also what ends up on the shelf.
What glyphosate and other pesticides in beer actually mean
Glyphosate is one of the most widely used weedkillers globally. It is used in grain cultivation, often directly on fields growing malting barley. Residues can therefore make their way into the finished beer. The levels measured in the test remain far below acute danger, but they represent a chronic, hard-to-quantify exposure.
For consumers, the issue is less about a single bottle and more about the cumulative total: traces in bread, beer, porridge oats, vegetables or tap water can add up. Every product category that manages without measurable pesticides gives the body more breathing space. Many toxicologists take this view, looking not only at limit values but also at how frequently exposure occurs.
Cumulative effect: a realistic everyday scenario
Imagine an everyday situation: someone drinks a beer several times a week, often eats conventionally produced pasta and cereal, and rarely buys organic fruit. Each individual reading stays below legal thresholds. Yet over weeks and months, a persistent baseline exposure can still build up. No one can say with certainty how a mix of many low doses affects people over the long term, especially in more sensitive groups such as pregnant women or households with children.
That is why a test like the one from "60 Millions de consommateurs" brings momentum to a topic that otherwise remains abstract. At the very least, it gives consumers a tool to choose individual parts of their diet more consciously.
How breweries might respond - and what that could mean for consumers
Publishing investigations like this puts pressure on manufacturers, even when they comply with every legal requirement. Anyone wanting to avoid appearing on a negative list in future may need to intervene further up the supply chain. That could mean:
- longer contracts with farmers who avoid certain active substances
- increased in-house testing of incoming grain deliveries
- switching to varieties and farming systems that can do without particular fungicides
For consumers, there are two effects: in the short term, little changes on the shelf; in the longer term, production standards can shift. The more buyers prioritise clear origin information and choose beers with lower residues, the more worthwhile it becomes for producers to invest in a cleaner supply chain.
If you are standing in front of the beer aisle today, you do not have to become an ascetic overnight. A practical approach is to identify one or two favourites that feel right on quality, transparency and price - and to buy heavily promoted brands with weak raw-material communication only occasionally. That way, your after-work beer stays a pleasure rather than a quiet source of avoidable exposure.
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
Leave a Comment