Answers.Body: <p>A modern canned beer should never taste like metal. If it does, you're probably drinking straight from the can, and while the folks at <a href="http://youtu.be/amgfgU5-lhs" rel="noreferrer">The Alchemist might recommend that</a>, I can't say I share their view.</p>
  
  <p>Modern beer cans are lined with a water-based chemical that essentially ensures that your beer <em>never</em> touches metal. This in turn means that strictly speaking, canned beers will keep longer without being <a href="https://alcohol.stackexchange.com/questions/50/will-temperature-changes-cause-a-beer-to-skunk?rq=1">skunked</a>, and pressurized packing means there's less air in a can then a bottle, which adds further preservative benefits.</p>
  
  <p>That said, very few beers that are good enough for this decision to matter are offered in a <em>choice</em> of containers - most small breweries just don't have the capacity to both can and bottle - especially of the sort of small-batch stuff that you'd actually be interested in trying to cellar and age. Furthermore, there are significant environmental and economic arguments in favor of both bottles and cans.</p>
  
  <p>At the end of the day, choose the packaging that's more convenient for you to store, consume from, and recycle when you're done. The quality difference is essentially insignificant. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-03-30T04:20:15.447Z
Answers.Text: **TL;DR** Buy beer in cans but pour into a glass to drink. But if you're buying to drink straight from the container then buy it in bottles.
Answers.UserDisplayName: hippietrail
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-24T19:43:29.760Z
Answers.Text: Because a can will prevent beer from getting skunked, I'd recommend a can if you're going to drink it outside. A pretty short exposure to UV light will change a beer's flavor. Otherwise, try to use a coozy if drinking from a bottle.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Montijello
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-01-21T22:21:03.577Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-01-21T22:21:03.577Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2017-04-12T07:33:59.100Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: LessPop_MoreFizz
Answers.Body: <p>I'd strongly dissuade anyone from ever drinking anything from an aluminum can, not just beer. As mentioned by LessPop_MoreFizz, beer cans are lined with a compound that attempts to prevent contact with the aluminum... That chemical, however, is Bisphenol A which is a potentially very dangerous chemical compound for your body when ingested...</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>CDC still says the chemical's health effects are unclear, research on
    chronic exposure has linked it to high blood pressure and heart rate
    issues.
    <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/14/bottle-chemical-bpa-health-newser/20397547/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/14/bottle-chemical-bpa-health-newser/20397547/</a></p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Depending on who you ask, one will get a variety of answers:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>...has also become associated with a range of ailments, including cancer, reproductive trouble, and irregular brain development in kids. BPA is well established as an endocrine-disrupting chemical, meaning that it likely causes hormonal damage at extremely low levels. The question is whether we get enough of it in beer (and other canned goods) to cause harm. <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/food/2015/02/no-i-cant-why-im-turning-away-canned-craft-beer/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.motherjones.com/food/2015/02/no-i-cant-why-im-turning-away-canned-craft-beer/</a></p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>And this:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>BPA, in small doses, has been linked to obesity, early onset of
    puberty, diabetes, heart disease, reduced penis size, growth of male
    breasts, and even mean girls. <a href="https://www.treehugger.com/health/who-cares-about-bpa-canned-beer-more-popular-ever.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.treehugger.com/health/who-cares-about-bpa-canned-beer-more-popular-ever.html</a></p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Also, let's hope that it is true that this compound prevents leaching of aluminum into beer considering <a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=1076&amp;tid=34" rel="nofollow noreferrer">aluminum is one of the most toxic heavy metals for the human body.</a></p>
  
  <p>That said, if you don't really care about a little thing called "Your Health," then there are several pragmatic reasons for why aluminum is good for beer storage:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>1.)Aluminum blocks light and oxygen from entering the beer itself </p>
    
    <p>2.)Cans are generally lighter and smaller than bottles, making them easier to carry and store</p>
    
    <p>3.)Cans can allow beer to become colder more quickly</p>
    
    <p><a href="https://learn.kegerator.com/beer-cans/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://learn.kegerator.com/beer-cans/</a></p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>While the argument that beer spoils more quickly in bottles is accurate, who is letting the beer sit around long enough for that to happen?? Not I...</p>
  
  <p>Also, while cans become colder quicker, they also become warmer more quickly when exposed to heat. Whereas, bottles will remain colder for much longer...</p>
  
  <p>Finally, the taste issue - minimal research in your favorite search engine will show you that it is a 50/50 debate... some folks say it tastes like metal, some don't. This debate is non-existant when drinking from bottles, however...</p>
  
  <p>With Guinness in particular, I always prefer the taste from bottle over that of the can... so in conclusion, ymmv but make it a bottle for me.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-24T13:10:52.140Z
Answers.Text: [Plastic Additive BPA Not Much Of A Threat, Government Study Finds](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/02/23/588356360/plastic-additive-bpa-not-much-of-a-threat-government-study-finds)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Xander
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-24T14:26:36.703Z
Answers.Text: I suppose it's up to which studies you want to to support... One thing is that the study from this article has yet to be peer reviewed. Another is the language they choose to use: "...suggested that BPA is safe at levels encountered by consumers." To me, that implies it is dangerous at certain levels... And, what a baby encounters is going to be much different than what a 30 year old encounters from, say, the same bottle of water... Finally, there are numerous studies that would report the contrary to the findings of the study from that article....
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tim Burnett - Bassist
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-24T14:26:51.537Z
Answers.Text: For example: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/endocrine/bpa_initiatives/bpa-related/index.cfm
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tim Burnett - Bassist
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-24T19:30:11.420Z
Answers.Text: You're right that BPA is dangerous at certain levels. Then again, drinking too much water in a short amount of time will kill you. It doesn't follow that just because something is bad for you in mass quantity that it must also be bad for you in small quantities.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Montijello
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-28T14:29:02.483Z
Answers.Text: This conversation feels more suited for the philosophy stack exchange at this point... While I agree with the age old rule of Socrates, 'everything in moderation,' there's a bit of a disconnect between water poisoning and that of poisoning by a synthetic chemical. To each his own of course - I'm not judging anyone... I'll ingest alcohol to whatever extent it kills me without a further thought, for example. But, I wouldn't want to knowingly ingest DDT or anything else of the sort in whatever tiny quantity that may not be proven as dangerous
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tim Burnett - Bassist
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-28T14:29:16.690Z
Answers.Text: My post simply stands as a reason to consider the difference between cans and bottles
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tim Burnett - Bassist
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-23T16:58:42.523Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-05-23T16:58:42.523Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tim Burnett - Bassist
Answers.Body: <p>As you might expect, cans can impart a metallic flavor on some beer, but on the flip-side, they are much less prone to skunking. So if you're looking to store the beer for a while in a cool, dark place, I'd say bottle. However, if you plan on keeping it in a light place or outdoors, a can is probably your best bet.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-02-12T16:19:43.583Z
Answers.Text: Downvoted for "impart a metallic flavor". As mentioned by LessPop_MoreFizz, this is not true with modern cans.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ryan Kinal
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-01-21T21:25:53.040Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-01-21T21:25:53.040Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: audiFanatic
Body: <p>Sometimes, companies offer the same beer in bottles and in cans. Everything else being equal, should I go for the bottle or the can? I know that e.g. Guinness have their "floating widget" in their cans that releases nitrogen when you open it, but assume that this isn't the case.</p>
  
  <p>In particular, I'm looking for the effects the inner coating/material of cans has on beer.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-02-01T23:01:27.690Z
Comments.Text: I believe (have heard, anyway) that the Guinness in cans is a slightly different recipe than the Guinness in bottles. No idea whether that's true (personally, I tend to only drink draft Guinness, and get Murphy's in cans).
Comments.UserDisplayName: user505255
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-01-21T21:25:53.170Z
Comments.Text: Isn't it nitrogen in the widget?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Dean
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-01-21T21:28:36.137Z
Comments.Text: It does indeed, good catch!
Comments.UserDisplayName: Lars Kotthoff
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-01-21T21:28:57.320Z
Comments.Text: Since the jury is still out on which is "greener", go with whatever is more easily recycled in your area! Taste be damned!
Comments.UserDisplayName: GhostToast
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-01-22T17:47:11.457Z
Comments.Text: I don't think that this is opinion based. I'm explicitly mentioning the effects of the inner material on the beer, and the accepted answer goes into some detail on that. Whether or not metal cans make beer taste metallic isn't really a matter of opinion.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Lars Kotthoff
Tags: <bottling><storage>
Title: Should I get beer in bottles or in cans?
UserDisplayName: Lars Kotthoff
ThreadText: # Should I get beer in bottles or in cans?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2014-01-21)
  
  Sometimes, companies offer the same beer in bottles and in cans. Everything else being equal, should I go for the bottle or the can? I know that e.g. Guinness have their "floating widget" in their cans that releases nitrogen when you open it, but assume that this isn't the case.
  
  In particular, I'm looking for the effects the inner coating/material of cans has on beer.
  
  **Tags:** bottling, storage
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: Isn't it nitrogen in the widget?  
  > **username_0**: It does indeed, good catch!  
  > **username_3**: Since the jury is still out on which is "greener", go with whatever is more easily recycled in your area! Taste be damned!  
  > **username_0**: I don't think that this is opinion based. I'm explicitly mentioning the effects of the inner material on the beer, and the accepted answer goes into some detail on that. Whether or not metal cans make beer taste metallic isn't really a matter of opinion.  
  > **username_1**: I believe (have heard, anyway) that the Guinness in cans is a slightly different recipe than the Guinness in bottles. No idea whether that's true (personally, I tend to only drink draft Guinness, and get Murphy's in cans).  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2014-01-21. Score: 22 | Accepted answer
  
  A modern canned beer should never taste like metal. If it does, you're probably drinking straight from the can, and while the folks at [The Alchemist might recommend that](http://youtu.be/amgfgU5-lhs), I can't say I share their view.
  
  Modern beer cans are lined with a water-based chemical that essentially ensures that your beer *never* touches metal. This in turn means that strictly speaking, canned beers will keep longer without being [skunked](https://alcohol.stackexchange.com/questions/50/will-temperature-changes-cause-a-beer-to-skunk?rq=1), and pressurized packing means there's less air in a can then a bottle, which adds further preservative benefits.
  
  That said, very few beers that are good enough for this decision to matter are offered in a *choice* of containers - most small breweries just don't have the capacity to both can and bottle - especially of the sort of small-batch stuff that you'd actually be interested in trying to cellar and age. Furthermore, there are significant environmental and economic arguments in favor of both bottles and cans.
  
  At the end of the day, choose the packaging that's more convenient for you to store, consume from, and recycle when you're done. The quality difference is essentially insignificant.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_5**: **TL;DR** Buy beer in cans but pour into a glass to drink. But if you're buying to drink straight from the container then buy it in bottles.  
  > **username_6**: Because a can will prevent beer from getting skunked, I'd recommend a can if you're going to drink it outside. A pretty short exposure to UV light will change a beer's flavor. Otherwise, try to use a coozy if drinking from a bottle.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2014-01-21. Score: 5
  
  As you might expect, cans can impart a metallic flavor on some beer, but on the flip-side, they are much less prone to skunking. So if you're looking to store the beer for a while in a cool, dark place, I'd say bottle. However, if you plan on keeping it in a light place or outdoors, a can is probably your best bet.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_10**: Downvoted for "impart a metallic flavor". As mentioned by username_4, this is not true with modern cans.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2019-05-23. Score: 3
  
  I'd strongly dissuade anyone from ever drinking anything from an aluminum can, not just beer. As mentioned by LessPop\_MoreFizz, beer cans are lined with a compound that attempts to prevent contact with the aluminum... That chemical, however, is Bisphenol A which is a potentially very dangerous chemical compound for your body when ingested...
  
  > CDC still says the chemical's health effects are unclear, research on
  > chronic exposure has linked it to high blood pressure and heart rate
  > issues.
  > <https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/14/bottle-chemical-bpa-health-newser/20397547/>
  
  Depending on who you ask, one will get a variety of answers:
  
  > ...has also become associated with a range of ailments, including cancer, reproductive trouble, and irregular brain development in kids. BPA is well established as an endocrine-disrupting chemical, meaning that it likely causes hormonal damage at extremely low levels. The question is whether we get enough of it in beer (and other canned goods) to cause harm. <https://www.motherjones.com/food/2015/02/no-i-cant-why-im-turning-away-canned-craft-beer/>
  
  And this:
  
  > BPA, in small doses, has been linked to obesity, early onset of
  > puberty, diabetes, heart disease, reduced penis size, growth of male
  > breasts, and even mean girls. <https://www.treehugger.com/health/who-cares-about-bpa-canned-beer-more-popular-ever.html>
  
  Also, let's hope that it is true that this compound prevents leaching of aluminum into beer considering [aluminum is one of the most toxic heavy metals for the human body.](https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=1076&tid=34)
  
  That said, if you don't really care about a little thing called "Your Health," then there are several pragmatic reasons for why aluminum is good for beer storage:
  
  > 1.)Aluminum blocks light and oxygen from entering the beer itself
  >
  > 2.)Cans are generally lighter and smaller than bottles, making them easier to carry and store
  >
  > 3.)Cans can allow beer to become colder more quickly
  >
  > <https://learn.kegerator.com/beer-cans/>
  
  While the argument that beer spoils more quickly in bottles is accurate, who is letting the beer sit around long enough for that to happen?? Not I...
  
  Also, while cans become colder quicker, they also become warmer more quickly when exposed to heat. Whereas, bottles will remain colder for much longer...
  
  Finally, the taste issue - minimal research in your favorite search engine will show you that it is a 50/50 debate... some folks say it tastes like metal, some don't. This debate is non-existant when drinking from bottles, however...
  
  With Guinness in particular, I always prefer the taste from bottle over that of the can... so in conclusion, ymmv but make it a bottle for me.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_8**: [Plastic Additive BPA Not Much Of A Threat, Government Study Finds](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/02/23/588356360/plastic-additive-bpa-not-much-of-a-threat-government-study-finds)  
  > **username_7**: I suppose it's up to which studies you want to to support... One thing is that the study from this article has yet to be peer reviewed. Another is the language they choose to use: "...suggested that BPA is safe at levels encountered by consumers." To me, that implies it is dangerous at certain levels... And, what a baby encounters is going to be much different than what a 30 year old encounters from, say, the same bottle of water... Finally, there are numerous studies that would report the contrary to the findings of the study from that article....  
  > **username_7**: For example: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/endocrine/bpa_initiatives/bpa-related/index.cfm  
  > **username_6**: You're right that BPA is dangerous at certain levels. Then again, drinking too much water in a short amount of time will kill you. It doesn't follow that just because something is bad for you in mass quantity that it must also be bad for you in small quantities.  
  > **username_7**: This conversation feels more suited for the philosophy stack exchange at this point... While I agree with the age old rule of Socrates, 'everything in moderation,' there's a bit of a disconnect between water poisoning and that of poisoning by a synthetic chemical. To each his own of course - I'm not judging anyone... I'll ingest alcohol to whatever extent it kills me without a further thought, for example. But, I wouldn't want to knowingly ingest DDT or anything else of the sort in whatever tiny quantity that may not be proven as dangerous  
  > **username_7**: My post simply stands as a reason to consider the difference between cans and bottles  
  
  ---
  
  