Talk:Monosodium glutamate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Initial text

Collabi 18:37 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC) : I just added some background scientific information on MSG, such as its chemical composition and date of discovery. I'm concerned about the line about its 'fooling' the taste centers of the brain; I couldn't find any credible scientific research suggesting that MSG affects the perception of taste anywhere but on the tongue. I left it as-is rather than risk the neutrality of the article, but it bears further consideration for the sake of technical accuracy.

---

Is that what is meant by "fooling", that more than just the tongue is involved in the production of taste? Frankly, I doubt just the tongue is involved in taste most of the time. Things like smell and memories of how the food tasted before are certainly going to have an impact most of the time. I'd like to update this, but I need to review some perception stuff first.

Also, are all the criticisms about the MSG research aimed at a single study? I find it hard to believe either that A) only one study has ever been carried out, or that B) all the studies ever carried out have the exact same flaws. And yet that is the impression the final paragraph gives. Can anyone cite actual studies, or actual criticisms? Otherwise, that section may have to be removed.

--Ryguasu 19:13 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

---

Collabi 04:58 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC) : Just the point I was trying to make. 'Umame' is purely a tongue sensation, but what really is 'fooling' a taste within the context of this article, given that most 'taste' is actually 'smell'? I think the place I'd draw the line is if glutamate had some impact on the perception of taste through channels other than the ordinary sense organs, but I'm not enough of a neurologist to know if that's the case.

The only MSG studies I know about are the ones run by the FDA (http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/msg.html), which are pretty uniformly of the "no ill effects whatsoever demonstrated" variety, but then that is only one side of the story. I guess a MEDLINE or JAMA search might turn up some other work and possible criticism, but I haven't actually seen the studies in question as yet.

---

Collabi 12:44 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC) : Okay, I did some homework on the science behind all this. So far as I can tell the whole issue with aspartame placebo refers specifically to one study, which is:

Tarasoff L, Kelly M.F Monosodium L-glutamate: a double-blind study and review Food Chemical Toxicology, 31: 1019-1035, 1993

But there's enough of a preponderance of other, unquestioned research that I felt confident in reporting a scientific consensus on the subject. Most surprising to me was that free glutamate doesn't cross the BBB at all.

---

The increase in obesity is also blamed (by dissenters, at least in part, etc etc) on MSG, with a substantiation that MSG is used to induce obesity in mice when such are needed for experiments. The methodology underlying the GRAS list is also ... well, it doesn't give me confidence. 900 scientists were sent a list of food additives, 355 replied, and the list was adopted with only three subtractions...and apparently the list gets no review. (The Slow Poisoning of America, not listed by Amazon)

New Material

The following information should be added. I'm not willing to be responsible for the maintanence, as this is out of my main area, but the information seems important. meatclerk 08:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The following link to an FAO report mentions that Chinese-Restaurant syndrome is aka Kwok's disease

• http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v48aje09.htm

the following article indicates that kwoks disease doesn´t seemed to caused by msg http://allergies.about.com/library/blificmsgmyth11.htm

I'm befuddled why you injected this information.

1. I did not assert that MSG causes CRS. That is a seperate subject.
2. I only stated that CRS is aka (also known as) Kwok's disease.
3. The linked article is short-sighted and bias. about.com is notorious for producing incorrection information.
4. I don't see the information as relavent. It is not autoritative.

meatclerk 09:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The following links (USDA:FSIS) answers specific questions on MSG with regards to labels using the term "natural flavoring(s)"

• http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Help/FAQs_Flavorings/index.asp

Contradictory statements

• It was first discovered and patented by Japanese researcher Kikunae Ikeda in 1907.
• MSG was first isolated in 1908 by Kikune Ikeda of the Tokyo Imperial University, who successfully crystallized the substance out of seaweed broth.

Don't these two statements conflict? How could he patent it before he had isolated it? Which is the correct statement? [maestro] 07:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This appears to have been resolved by an edit by 65.96.126.20 on 26 Feb 2005 --69.214.227.51 04:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tg vs metric tons

I changed 1.5 Tg to 1.5 million metric tons... If teragrams are the accepted unit for measuring the world spice economy, then the 1.5 Tg probably requires some clarification. Many users probably wouldn't understand the use of Tg, even if they could understand what a teragram is. Furthermore, teragram doesn't appear anywhere else in Wikipedia... perhaps we need a page of SI measures other than kg, meter, etc.

--Erik Garrison 04:35, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Metric tons" are "tonnes" :) --219.89.177.157 22:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Only if you're british :-}

Article title: "Sodium glutamte" or "Monosodium glutamate" ?

True or false: this article belongs at Sodium glutamte. 66.32.244.69 01:55, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

true; technically, the prefix "mono" is an improper usuage, and should just go by sodium glutamate. the prefix mono (or any other numerical descriptor) is only used in purely organic compound with only covalent bonds. with the addition of sodium, the compound is no longer purely organic, and more importantly, the bond it shares with the rest of the molecule is ionic. also, concerning the IUPAC name of the molecule, i beleive the name that is listed is incorrect, and frankly, incohernet (assuming that the picture of the molecule is accurate). its name should be "4-amine sodium pentanoate 5-carboxylic acid". that is the proper IUPAC name.

False. Why would you want to put it there (assuming it was spelled correctly as 'sodium glutamate')? Monosodium glutamate is its commonly accepted scientific name.

I don't know enough about chemistry to know why chemists use the "mono-" prefix in this case and not in, say, "sodium chloride". But whether or not there they're being consistent in the naming convention, our job is to use the generally-used name. --Saforrest 21:34, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I believe this is to differentiate monosodium glutamate from disodium glutamate, as it looks like two carboxylic acid moieties can both lose their hydrogens to gain a net 2- charge which can then be quenched with a pair of sodium atoms, though it doesn't look as favourable Snarfevs 04:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have confirmed this to be the case. Disodium glutamate is also used as a food additive, probably with near identical effects. Snarfevs 04:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Outdated Sodium glutamte redirects to Monosodium glutamate. --meatclerk 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Keenan Pepper, please note: Once the save page button is hit, and the system registers the new page. it is archived and recoverable (ala history button). I assumed that you knew that, Do you? If not, did you mean something beyond that? As you may note, I am archiving any items removed from the article page and not the discussion page. --meatclerk 04:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Alternative medicine..." graf

I am concerned about the "some in alternative medicine consider to be a potent neurotoxin" graf. A quick search has revealed not a single controlled study that demonstrates any link between MSG and retardation, which in my mind causes this to be a spurious allegation; but at the same time one of the premises of "alternative medicine" is that the very idea of the controlled scientific study is essentially a flawed methodology. as such I leave it stet, but I do wonder whether wikipedists in the sciences are permitted to consider the scientific method an authoritative means of truth without losing NPOV. --Collabi 11:47, Sep 21, 2004 (PDT)

A very good point; alternative medicine typically does not make its claims based on science and experiments that can be re-created with consistently reproducible results, so I don't know why their claims should be in an scientific article unless it generated significant controversy enough to influence society as a whole (such as creationists badgering evolutionists all the time) --I run like a Welshman 22:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where, pray tell, did you find a list of premises for this universal entity to which you refer as "alternative medicine." Are you claiming that all alternative health practitioners have agreed on the premise that controlled scientific study is a flawed methodology? I know a number of alternative health practitioners who would have a problem dismissing scientific method in the simple minded manner you suggest (i.e. false dilemma). Maybe they weren't in on creation of the official premise you cite. Do you have the complete list of premises of this monolithic entity to which you refer as "alternative medicine"?

What I do know is that the "controls" used in experimental methods introduce the risk of a number of threats to the validity of the research design. I also know that as controls increase, the specificity of the findings tend to increase, but that the generalizability of the findings tend to decrease. This tension is always present in experimental research and it is inherently problematic. To deny these shortcomings is naive, and such naivety may tend to produce a scientific evangelical.

Given that the activity of science has become an inquiry into probabilities, certainty is never claimed because there always exists the possibility of new evidence that refutes prior findings. I wonder, in what sense do you intend to proclaim scientific method as an authoritative arbiter of truth. The scientists I have worked with wouldn't make such a claim. Can truth be uncertain?

You seem to regard scientific method as pure as the blessed virgin. I can assure you science, as it is practiced, is anything but pure, especially these days in which scientific findings are bought and sold just like any other marketable commodity.

Why would your inability to find a peer reviewed study on the Internet be sufficient evidence for you to proclaim as spurious the claims of others that MSG is a neurotoxin? Surely an Internet search is not a scientific method. But then again, maybe it is, since the method of science consists of an ad hoc collection of practices accumulated over the centuries which scientists, and others, use and abuse at their discretion, with little consistency. A good scientist is smart about her particular method of inquiry, but a good scientist knows that all that stuff they learned in school about some monolithic scientific method is wishful thinking.

It seems to me that the absence of evidence is evidence of nothing. In other words, it does not follow that the absence of controlled studies on the net is evidence of a spurious claim (i.e. non-sequitur) That scientists and their funders have not found a subject worthy of inquiry does not logically suggest any conclusion about that subject.

Perhaps it would be most enlightened to include in an article on MSG everything that is thought to be known about MSG rather than to try to exert some authority and prevent information from being disseminated. Its appropriate to indicate the basis of any claim, and to note whether or not any scientific methodology has been employed. I think it would be helpful to indicate information that has the food industry as its source, and the source of funding for the scientific research that does exist about MSG. --4.244.66.121 22:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, I ran my search through Medline and the CMU research library. I feel that to be a sufficient basis for claiming due diligence in a paper search. Collabi 02:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

A search on PubMed also returns no relevant studies. While I agree that a lack of evidence is not reason to dismiss a claim, the claim has not been validated, and is therefore a "spurious allegation", as the original comment pointed out. It is no more validated that my potential claim that MSG intake is related to shoe size. In fact, that claim is likely more easily supported due to a correlation between shoe size and MSG intake (infants and young children eat less food, and therefore ingest less MSG regardless of food content, generating a correlation). Calling it a "spurious allegation" did not infer that the claim was definitively incorrect, but that it has no place in the article because it is an opinion with no defined grounding.

l

Lines that were removed

this flavor is considered basic in Japanese and Chinese cooking...not discussed as much in Western cuisine...

I really doubt that MSG products are more common in Japan and China than elsewhere on Earth. It gives a mistaken impression that MSG included products are few to scarce in the west. It's also completely wrong in saying that it is basic in Japanese and Chinese cooking. Traditional Japanese and Chinese cooking goes way before MSG, and modern J & C couisine by default *don't* touch MSG. Mass-marketed non-perishable foods such as instant noodle being a different case, however this is true for Western foods such as almost all of Campbell's canned soups as well as Doritos chips. MSG were extracted and mass marketed only in recent decades. Far from being basic --69.214.227.51 03:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If if is naturally occurring in seaweed, couldn't MSG be considered a basic flavor? It's flavor is classified not as salty, sweet, bitter, or sour, but umami. And I know for a fact that the Japanese eat a lot of seaweed. Stevenstclair 17:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Generally, if one can taste the processed MSG flavor in a food, that's a sign that the food could have been prepared better. Processed MSG is not something the J&C gourmet chef would use - the idea being that a chef would be able to cook dishes that tasted wonderful with fresh, unprocessed ingredients. If being a basic flavor means 'necessary ingredient', MSG is definitely not a basic flavor. Hope that helps. If we are discussing the MSG that will occur without processing in seaweed, that MSG will also appear in "most meat and dairy products" and thus not such a large cause for concern. 67.67.252.192 02:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In East Asia, it is sometimes included in nutritional supplements.

The part where it doesn't specify country or year where this is supposedly the case makes this passage sound very much like an urban legend. Even if it weren't, the lack of detail gives this statement very little value. Let's not feed the rumor mills. --69.214.227.51 03:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

! This chemical is carcinogen if eaten in big quantities. ! The famed Chio Chips Tortilla Chips contain vast quantities (23.5%) of MSG.

I could find no evidence that either of these claims are correct. BryanD 18:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outdated. --meatclerk 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

MSG experiment with mice

There's an interesting tidbit about a mouse experiment that may shed light on the origin of the whole MSG scare over at the Japanese version of the article. I will add it later if no-one else does beforehand. Short one-liner summary for now: initial experiments with mice seemed to indicate MSG can have adverse health effects on infants, however later studies showed that MSG did not have such an effect for humans. --69.214.227.51 03:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Link to msgfree

The msgfree site linked on the external links section: [1] is of questionable value. It provides very little information that contain no sources and references.

Removing link.

Outdated --meatclerk 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet more MSG "no sources and references" that are of "questionable value"

REFERENCES

1. Lucas, D.R. and Newhouse, J. P. The toxic effect of sodium-L-glutamate on the inner layers of the retina. AMA Arch Ophthalmol 58: 193-201, 1957.

2. Potts, A.M., Modrell, R.W., and Kingsbury, C. Permanent fractionation of the electroretinogram by sodium glutamate. Am J Ophthalmol 50: 900-907, 1960.

3. Freedman, J.K., and Potts, A.M. Repression of glutaminase I in the rat retina by administration of sodium L-glutamate. Invest Ophthalmol 1: 118-121, 1962.

4. Freedman, J.K., and Potts, A.M. Repression of glutaminase I in rat retina by administration of sodium L-glutamate. Invest Ophthal 2: 252, 1963.

5. Hamatsu, T. Experimental studies on the effect of sodium iodate and sodium L-glutamate on ERG and histological structure of retina in adult rabbits. Acta Soc Ophthalmol Jpn 68: 1621-1636, 1964. (Abstract)

6. Hansson, H.A. Ultrastructure studies on long-term effects of MSG on rat retina. Virchows Arch [Zellpathol] 6: 1, 1970.

7. Cohen, A.I. An electron microscopic study of the modification by monosodium glutamate of the retinas of normal and "rodless" mice. Am J Anat 120: 319-356, 1967.

8. Olney, J.W. Glutamate-induced retinal degeneration in neonatal mice. Electron-microscopy of the acutely evolving lesion. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 28: 455-474, 1969.

9. Olney, J.W. Brain lesions, obesity, and other disturbances in mice treated with monosodium glutamate. Science 164: 719-721, 1969.

10. Olney, J.W., and Sharpe, L.G. Brain lesions in an infant rhesus monkey treated with monosodium glutamate. Science 166: 386-388, 1969.

11. Snapir, N., Robinzon, B., and Perek, M. Brain damage in the male domestic fowl treated with monosodium glutamate. Poult Sci 50: 1511-1514, 1971.

12. Perez, V.J. and Olney, J.W. Accumulation of glutamic acid in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus of the infant mouse following subcutaneous administration of monosodium glutamate. J Neurochem 19: 1777-1782, 1972.

13. Arees, E.A., and Mayer, J. Monosodium glutamate-induced brain lesions in mice. Presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of American Association of Neuropathologists, Puerto Rico, June 25-27, 1971. J Neuropath Exp Neurol 31: 181, 1972. (Abstract)

14. Everly, J.L. Light microscopy examination of monosodium glutamate induced lesions in the brain of fetal and neonatal rats. Anat Rec 169: 312, 1971.

15. Olney, J.W. Glutamate-induced neuronal necrosis in the infant mouse hypothalamus. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 30: 75-90, 1971.

16. Takasaki, Y. Studies on brain lesion by administration of monosodium L-glutamate to mice. I. Brain lesions in infant mice caused by administration of monosodium L-glutamate. Toxicology 9: 293-305, 1978.

17. Holzwarth-McBride, M.A., Hurst, E.M., and Knigge, K.M. Monosodium glutamate induced lesions of the arcuate nucleus. I. Endocrine deficiency and ultrastructure of the median eminence. Anat Rec 186: 185-196, 1976.

18. Holzwarth-McBride, M.A., Sladek, J.R., and Knigge, K.M. Monosodium glutamate induced lesions of the arcuate nucleus. II Fluorescence histochemistry of catecholamines. Anat Rec 186: 197-205, 1976.

19. Burde, R.M., Schainker, B., and Kayes, J. Acute effect of oral and subcutaneous administration of monosodium glutamate on the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus in mice and rats. Nature (Lond) 233: 58-60, 1971.

20. Olney, J.W. Sharpe, L.G., Feigin, R.D. Glutamate-induced brain damage in infant primates. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 31: 464-488, 1972.

21. Abraham, R., Doughtery, W., Goldberg, L., and Coulston, F. The response of the hypothalamus to high doses of monosodium glutamate in mice and monkeys: cytochemistry and ultrastructural study of lysosomal changes. Exp Mol Pathol 15: 43-60, 1971.

22. Burde, R.M., Schainker, B., and Kayes, J. Monosodium glutamate: necrosis of hypothalamic neurons in infant rats and mice following either oral or subcutaneous administration. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 31: 181, 1972.

23. Robinzon, B., Snapir, N., and Perek, M. Age dependent sensitivity to monosodium glutamate inducing brain damage in the chicken. Poult Sci 53: 1539-1942, 1974.

24. Tafelski, T.J. Effects of monosodium glutamate on the neuroendocrine axis of the hamster. Anat Rec 184: 543-544, 1976.

Tafelski injects pregnant hamsters with an MSG dose of 8mg/gm. Average Western intake is about 3mg/person/day (in Japan they eat far more). Therefore this is a relative dosage of approximately 140,000 times the average human intake of MSG. Tafelski et al. are attempting to induce formative defects through massive doses in this experiement, not determine in vivo effects at ordinary concentration. See also: iron, vitamin D for nutrients with this effect.

25. Inouye, M. and Murakami, U. Brain lesions and obesity in mouse offspring caused by maternal administration of monosodium glutamate during pregnancy. Congenital Anomalies 14: 77-83, 1974.

26. Olney, J.W., Rhee, V. and DeGubareff, T. Neurotoxic effects of glutamate on mouse area postrema. Brain Research 120: 151-157, 1977.

27. Olney, J.W., Ho, O.L. Brain damage in infant mice following oral intake of glutamate, aspartate or cystine. Nature (Lond) 227: 609-611, 1970.

28. Lemkey-Johnston, N., and Reynolds, W.A. Incidence and extent of brain lesions in mice following ingestion of monosodium glutamate (MSG). Anat Rec 172: 354, 1972.

29. Lemkey-Johnston, N., and Reynolds, W.A. Nature and extent of brain lesions in mice related to ingestion of monosodium glutamate: a light and electron microscope study. J Neuropath Exp Neurol 33: 74-97, 1974.

30. Kenney, RA and Tidball, CS Human susceptibility to oral monosodium L-glutamate. Am J Clin Nutr. 25:140-146, 1972.

31. Frieder, B, and Grimm, VE. Prenatal monosodium glutamate (MSG) treatment given through the mother's diet causes behavioral deficits in rat offspring. Intern J Neurosci. 23:117-126,1984.

32. Gao, J, Wu, J, Zhao, XN, Zhang, WN, Zhang, YY, Zhang, ZX. [Transplacental neurotoxic effects of monosodium glutamate on structures and functions of specific brain areas of filial mice.] Sheng Li Hsueh Pao Acta Physiologica Sinica. 46:44-51,1994.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

The neonatal treatment of rats with monosodium glutamate induces morphological changes in the subfornical organ. Anat Histol Embryol. 2004 Oct;33(5):273-7.

Consequences of monosodium glutamate or goldthioglucose arcuate nucleus lesions on ethanol-induced locomotion. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002 Oct 1;68(2):189-94.

MSG lesions decrease body mass of suckling-age rats by attenuating circadian decreases of energy expenditure. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2002 Sep;283(3):E604-11.

Postnatal glutamate-induced central nervous system lesions alter periodontal disease susceptibility in adult Wistar rats. J Clin Periodontol. 2001 Oct;28(10):904-9.

Seasonal neuroendocrine rhythms in the male Siberian hamster persist after monosodium glutamate-induced lesions of the arcuate nucleus in the neonatal period. J Neuroendocrinol. 1998 Sep;10(9):701-12.

Neurotoxic lesions induced by monosodium glutamate result in increased adenopituitary proopiomelanocortin gene expression and decreased corticosterone clearance in rats. Neuroendocrinology. 1998 Jun;67(6):412-20.

Effects of monosodium glutamate on blood neutrophils phagocytic activity and phagocytic response in mice. Rom J Physiol. 1997 Jan-Dec;34(1-4):95-101.

Decrease of (+)-3-[125I]MK-801 binding to NMDA brain receptors revealed at puberty in rats treated neonatally with monosodium glutamate. Brain Res Dev Brain Res. 1996 Sep 2;95(2):149-56.

Neurotoxic effects of neonatal injections of monosodium L-glutamate (L-MSG) on the retinal ganglion cell layer of the golden hamster: anatomical and functional consequences on the circadian system. J Comp Neurol. 1993 Dec 1;338(1):67-82.

Depletion of hypothalamic growth hormone-releasing hormone by neonatal monosodium glutamate treatment reveals an inhibitory effect of betamethasone on growth hormone secretion in adult rats. Neuroendocrinology. 1990 Jan;51(1):85-92.

Neurotransmitters, neuropeptides and binding sites in the rat mediobasal hypothalamus: effects of monosodium glutamate (MSG) lesions. Exp Brain Res. 1989;76(2):343-68.

Neonatal treatment with monosodium glutamate increases plasma corticosterone in the rat. Neuroendocrinology. 1988 Dec;48(6):645-9.

Inflammatory edema induced by carrageenin in monosodium glutamate-treated rats. Braz J Med Biol Res. 1988;21(4):837-9.

Hypoplastic heart induced by neonatal hypothalamic lesions in mice. J Mol Cell Cardiol. 1987 Aug;19(8):741-9.

Evidence for reorganization of the neuroendocrine centres regulating pulsatile LH secretion in rats receiving neonatal monosodium-L-glutamate treatment. J Endocrinol. 1987 May;113(2):261-9.

Neurotoxin effects on oxytocin, vasopressin and somatostatin in discrete rat brain areas. Peptides. 1986 Sep-Oct;7(5):749-53. "Monosodium-L-Glutamate (MSG) produces lesions to monoaminergic and peptidergic neurons in several brain areas."

Alterations in insulin and glucagon secretion by monosodium glutamate lesions of the hypothalamic arcuate nucleus. Endocr Res. 1985;11(3-4):145-55

Reduction of pituitary GnRH receptors in immature rats treated with monosodium glutamate. Am J Physiol. 1985 Jan;248(1 Pt 1):E126-31.

Pyroglutamate kinetics and neurotoxicity studies in mice. Toxicol Lett. 1983 May;16(3-4):225-9.

Evidence that reduced growth hormone secretion observed in monosodium glutamate-treated rats is the result of a deficiency in growth hormone-releasing factor. Endocrinology. 1982 Feb;110(2):540-50.

Monosodium glutamate-induced lesions in the rat cingulate cortex. Cell Tissue Res. 1981;220(2):239-50.

Brain lesions and short-term endocrine effects of monosodium L-glutamate in goldfish, Carassius auratus. Cell Tissue Res. 1980;212(3):429-42

Direct evidence that the arcuate nucleus-median eminence tuberoinfundibular system is not of primary importance in the feedback regulation of luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone secretion in the castrated rat. Endocrinology. 1978 Jul;103(1):170-5. " Adult rats which have received monosodium-L-glutamate (MSG, 4 mg/g BW) on alternate days for the first 10 days of life manifest central nervous system lesions largely restricted to the retina and the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus in which nearly 90% of the perikarya are destroyed, leaving axons in passage intact. In animals so treated, concentrations of dopamine within the arcuate nucleus and median eminence of the hypothalamus are reduced 52% and 57%, respectively, in males and 45% and 61% in females . . ."

Studies on brain lesion by administration of monosodium L-glutamate to mice. I. Brain lesions in infant mice caused by administration of monosodium L-glutamate. Toxicology. 1978 Apr;9(4):293-305.

Late endocrine effects of administering monosodium glutamate to neonatal rats. Neuroendocrinology. 1978;26(4):220-8.

Monosodium glutamate induced lesions of the arcurate nucleus. II. Fluorescence histochemistry of catecholamines. Anat Rec. 1976 Oct;186(2):197-205

Glial changes in the progress of a chemical lesion. An electron microscopic study. J Comp Neurol. 1976 Jun 15;167(4):481-501. " The response of non-neuronal cells in the brain to monosodium glutamate (MSG) was studied in the neonatal mouse brain. Neurons rapidly degenerate in this chemically-induced lesion, and the glia reflect and respond to their early pyknosis and death. Astrocytic glia exhibit the most profound responses in the form of degenerative nuclear and cytoplasmic changes within 15 to 20 minutes after ingestion of MSG. After 6 to 12 hours, a large glial cell population, containing neuronal and synaptic debris, can be seen. Recovery of severely damaged astrocytes is unlikely."

Monosodium L-glutamate-induced convulsions: temporary alteration in blood-brain barrier permeability to plasma proteins. Environ Physiol Biochem. 1975;5(6):389-95

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

1 Garattini, S. Evaluation of the neurotoxic effects of glutam- ic acid. In: Nutrition and the Brain Vol 4, Wurtman, R.J. Ed. New York: Raven Press, 1979.

2 Lynch, J.F., Jr., Lewis, L.M., and Adkins, J.S. (Division of Nutrition, FDA, Washington, D.C. 20204). Monosodium glutamate-induced hyperglycemia in weanling rats. J S Fed Proc 31: 1477, 1971.

3 Kenney, R.A. and Tidball, C.S. Human susceptibility to oral monosodium L-glutamate. Am J Clin Nutr 25: 140-146, 1972.

4 Lucas, D.R. and Newhouse, J. P. The toxic effect of sodium-L- glutamate on the inner layers of the retina. AMA Arch Ophthalmol 58: 193-201, 1957.

5 Himwich, H.E., Wolff, K., Hunsicker, A.L. and Himwich, W.A. Some behavioral effects associated with feeding sodium glutamate to patients with psychiatric disorders. J Nerv & Mental Disease 121: 40-49, 1955.

6 Pond, E.A., and Pond, M.H. Glutamic acid and its salts in petit mal epilepsy. J Mental Sci 97: 663, 1951.

7 Walshe, J.M. The effect of glutamic acid on the coma of hepatic failure. Lancet 1: 1075, 1953.

8 Alexander, R.W., Berman, E, and Balfour, D.C. Jr. Relationship of glutamic acid and blood ammonia to hepatic coma. Gastroenterology 29: 711-718, 1955.

9 Arees, E., Sandrew, B., and Mayer, J. MSG-induced optic pathway lesions in infant mice following subcutaneous injection. Fed Proc 30: 521, 1971.

10 Olney, J.W. Brain lesions, obesity, and other disturbances in mice treated with monosodium glutamate. Science 164: 719-721, 1969.

11 Olney, J.W., and Sharpe, L.G. Brain lesions in an infant rhesus monkey treated with monosodium glutamate. Science 166: 386- 388, 1969.

12 Snapir, N., Robinzon, B., and Perek, M. Brain damage in the male domestic fowl treated with monosodium glutamate. Poult Sci 50: 1511-1514, 1971.

13 Perez, V.J. and Olney, J.W. Accumulation of glutamic acid in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus of the infant mouse following subcutaneous administration of monosodium glutamate. J Neurochem 19: 1777-1782, 1972.

14 Arees, E.A., and Mayer, J. Monosodium glutamate-induced brain lesions: electron microscopic examination. Science 170: 549-550, 1970.

15 Arees, E.A., and Mayer, J. Monosodium glutamate-induced brain lesions in mice. Presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of American Association of Neuropathologists, Puerto Rico, June 25-27, 1971. J Neuropath Exp Neurol 31: 181, 1972. (Abstract)

16 Everly, J.L. Light microscopy examination of monosodium glutamate induced lesions in the brain of fetal and neonatal rats. Anat Rec 169: 312, 1971.

17 Olney, J.W. Glutamate-induced neuronal necrosis in the infant mouse hypothalamus. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 30: 75-90, 1971.

18 Takasaki, Y. Studies on brain lesion by administration of monosodium L-glutamate to mice. I. Brain lesions in infant mice caused by administration of monosodium L-glutamate. Toxicology 9: 293-305, 1978.

19 Holzwarth-McBride, M.A., Hurst, E.M., and Knigge, K.M. Monosodium glutamate induced lesions of the arcuate nucleus. I. Endocrine deficiency and ultrastructure of the median eminence. Anat Rec 186: 185-196, 1976.

20 Holzwarth-McBride, M.A., Sladek, J.R., and Knigge, K.M. Monosodium glutamate induced lesions of the arcuate nucleus. II Fluorescence histochemistry of catecholamines. Anat Rec 186: 197- 205, 1976.

21 Paull, W.K., and Lechan, R. The median eminence of mice with a MSG induced arcuate lesion. Anat Rec 180: 436, 1974.

22 Burde, R.M., Schainker, B., and Kayes, J. Acute effect of oral and subcutaneous administration of monosodium glutamate on the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus in mice and rats. Nature (Lond) 233: 58-60, 1971.

23 Olney, J.W. Sharpe, L.G., Feigin, R.D. Glutamate-induced brain damage in infant primates. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 31: 464- 488, 1972.

24 Burde, R.M., Schainker, B., and Kayes, J. Monosodium gluta- mate: necrosis of hypothalamic neurons in infant rats and mice following either oral or subcutaneous administration. J Neuropat- hol Exp Neurol 31: 181, 1972.

25 Robinzon, B., Snapir, N., and Perek, M. Age dependent sensi- tivity to monosodium glutamate inducing brain damage in the chicken. Poult Sci 53: 1539-1942, 1974.

26 Tafelski, T.J. Effects of monosodium glutamate on the neuro- endocrine axis of the hamster. Anat Rec 184: 543-544, 1976.

27 Inouye, M. and Murakami, U. Brain lesions and obesity in mouse offspring caused by maternal administration of monosodium glutamate during pregnancy. Congenital Anomalies 14: 77-83, 1974.

28 Olney, J.W., Rhee, V. and DeGubareff, T. Neurotoxic effects of glutamate on mouse area postrema. Brain Research 120: 151-157, 1977.

29 Olney, J.W., Ho, O.L. Brain damage in infant mice following oral intake of glutamate, aspartate or cystine. Nature (Lond) 227: 609-611, 1970.

30 Lemkey-Johnston, N., and Reynolds, W.A. Incidence and extent of brain lesions in mice following ingestion of monosodium glutamate (MSG). Anat Rec 172: 354, 1972.

31 Takasaki, Y. Protective effect of mono- and disaccharides on glutamate-induced brain damage in mice. Toxicol Lett 4: 205-210, 1979.

32 Takasaki, Y. Protective effect of arginine, leucine, and preinjection of insulin on glutamate neurotoxicity in mice. Toxicol Lett 5: 39-44, 1980.

33 Lemkey-Johnston, N., and Reynolds, W.A. Nature and extent of brain lesions in mice related to ingestion of monosodium gluta- mate: a light and electron microscope study. J Neuropath Exp Neurol 33: 74-97, 1974.

34 Olney, J. W. Brain damage and oral intake of certain amino acids. In: Transport Phenomena in the Nervous System: Physiological and Pathological Aspects Levi, G., Battistin, L., and Lajtha, A. Eds. New York: Plenum Press, 1976. also Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 69: 497-506, 1976.

35 Nagasawa, H., Yanai R., and Kikuyama, S. Irreversible inhibi- tion of pituitary prolactin and growth hormone secretion and of mammary gland development in mice by monosodium glutamate admin- istered neonatally. Acta Endocrinol 75: 249-259, 1974.

36 Nemeroff, C.B., Grant, L.D., Bissette, G., Ervin, G.N., Harrell, L.E., and Prange, A.J., Jr. Growth, endocrinological and behavioral deficits after monosodium L-glutamate in the neonatal rat: Possible involvement of arcuate dopamine neuron damage. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2: 179-196, 1977.

37 Nemeroff, C.B., Konkol, R.J., Bissette, G., Youngblood, W., Martin, J.B., Brazeau, P., Rone, M.S., Prange, A.J. Jr., Breese, G.R. and Kizer, J.S. Analysis of the disruption in hypothalamic- pituitary regulation in rats treated neonatally with monosodium glutamate (MSG): Evidence for the involvement of tuberoinfundib- ular cholinergic and dopaminergic systems in neuroendocrine regulation. Endocrinology 101: 613-622, 1977.

38 Pizzi, W.J., Barnhart, J.E., and Fanslow, D.J. Monosodium glutamate administration to the newborn reduces reproductive ability in female and male mice. Science 196: 452-454, 1977.

39 Tafelski, T.J. and Lamperti, A.A. The effects of a single injection of monosodium glutamate on the reproductive neuroendo- crine axis of the female hamster. Biol Reprod 17: 404-411, 1977.

40 Holzwarth, M.A., and Hurst, E.M. Manifestations of monosodium glutamate (MSG) induced lesions of the arcuate nucleus of the mouse. Anat Rec 178: 378, 1974.

41 Lynch, J.F. Jr., Lewis, L.M., Hove, E.L., and Adkins, J.S. Division of Nutrition, FDA, Washington, D.C. 20204. Effect of monosodium L-glutamate on development and reproduction in rats. Fed Proc 29: 567Abs, 1970.

42 Bhagavan, H.N., Coursin, D.B., and Stewart, C.N. Monosodium glutamate induces convulsive disorders in rats. Nature (London) 232: 275-276, 1971.

43 Nemeroff, C.B., and Crisley, F.D. Monosodium L-glutamate induced convulsions: temporary alteration in blood-brain barrier permeability to plasma proteins. Environ Physiol Biochem 5: 389- 395, 1975.

44 Nemeroff, C.B. Monosodium glutamate-induced neurotoxicity: review of the literature and call for further research. In: Nutrition & Behavior Miller, S.A., Ed. Philadelphia: The Franklin Institute Press, 1981.

45 Olney, J.W., Labruyere, J., and DeGubareff, T. Brain damage in mice from voluntary ingestion of glutamate and aspartate. Neurobehav Toxicol 2: 125-129, 1980.

46 Olney, J.W., Ho, O.L., Rhee, V., and DeGubareff, T. Neurotoxic effects of glutamate. New Engl J. Med 289: 1374-1375, 1973.

47 Ebert, A.G. Chronic toxicity and teratology studies of monosodium L-glutamate and related compounds. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 17: 274, 1970.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

This entire section was added by an annyomous IP with no reason (other than the section header) and looked to be FUD otherwise. (IP was 69.158.99.58) --meatclerk 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Points for the anti-MSG side

My exposure to the MSG debate comes primarily from online discussions with one individual, so I don't have citable sources for these allegations. But the article seems to me to overstate the weakness of the anti-MSG side of the controversy, by leaving out their most credible allegations. (Not that the anti-MSG side isn't fairly weak, imo, but the article appears to me to make it sound even weaker than it really is.)

1. The exitotoxic effects of MSG are alleged to occur in the hypothalamus, from which the blood-brain barrier is absent. (It has to be, so that the hypothalamus can monitor the levels of hormones and metabolites for homeostatic regulation.)
2. Commercial food-grade MSG is alleged to contain a varying but substantial fraction of the D isomer, which may be responsible for some of the putative ill effects. Laboratory-grade glutamate, on the other hand, seems likely to be pure L-glutamate.
3. It seems implausible that the putative ill effects of MSG would be due to allergy: it's not the right type of substance to elicit an allergic reaction. Allergic reactions are elicited by peptides after intracellular processing (and thus by the proteins from which the peptides are cleaved), or (as in the case of urushiol from poison ivy) by small molecules that bind to them at any stage of the antigen-presentation process and render them "foreign" to the T cells even though the original peptide is a normal self antigen. An amino acid normally present in lower quantities seems very unlikely to do this. Therefore I find it suspicious that the safety testing focused on allergy rather than excitotoxicity or components other than pure L-glutamate.

dsws 00:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Re #3: most testing didn't focus on allergy; a few did. There are others that look at excitotoxicity and general ill effects in vivo.

Just a little note; the part about alleged mixing of L/D-forms of glutamate seem a bit dubious, since it is produced by a microorganism and the synthesis is thus specific with respect to only one form. Now, it might be isomerized by later processing, but I would look into that further before putting any of this into an edit. --193.11.220.45 13:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Health Concerns Inaccuracies & NPOV

Lots of great research put into the article. But there are some issues I would like to raise:

1) "A considerable amount of research and testing into MSG allergies has been performed over the past few decades, and the vast majority of controlled studies show no link at all between glutamate in food and any allergic reaction. Critics of the testing believe that the tests were unfairly biased towards finding no result. In particular, they consider flawed a 1993 study in which aspartame was used in the placebo, because aspartame itself has been accused of causing many of the same symptoms as MSG sensitivity in susceptible people."

There were many studies that found reactions to MSG. The concern was not only that 1993 study. A letter [2], [3] from the head of the International Glutamate Technical Committee revealed that MSG industry studies since 1978 through approx. 1993 had aspartame hidden in the drink mixture given to the "control group." While the letter was written in 1991, persons involved in the MSG issue didn't become aware of it until 1993. The use of aspartame was not reported in any of the papers published by the MSG industry-funded researchers. Not only are some reported aspartame reactions similar to reported MSG reactions [4], but 40% of aspartame is an excitotoxin (aspartic acid). Testing the effects of an excitotoxin and giving an excitotoxin to the control group renders the experiments useless. This was just one of the concerns. Of course, to keep it NPOV and scientific, references and presenting both sides would be crucial, IMO.

2) "While the worries of the general public over the content of MSG in foods reached near hysterical levels in the 1980s, interest in the issue has since almost completely abated and today there is generally very little concern over MSG content of foods."

There has been no measurement of "MSG content" concern as far as I know. Presenting conern as "hysterical" is obviously NPOV.

3) "Nonetheless, there are still some small groups (especially those in alternative medicine) who consider MSG to be a potent neurotoxin which is yielding mass neurological retardation in affected populations. Although glutamate is an excitotoxin if certain neurons are exposed to very high doses, and can be used to produce an obesity syndrome in rats, [4], [5], the idea that it has any comparable effects in its normal use as a food additive is looked upon by mainstream scientists as being pseudoscientific since there is no conclusive scientific data that support the claims."

NPOV and inaccurate. A 1990 conference of the Society for Neuroscience produced a split of opinions on this issue [5]. Independent reviewers often present both sides (e.g., [6], [7], ) and never refer to the issue as "pseudoscience." Alternative Medicine has nothing to do with the issue since it has been Neuroscientists who have always been at the forefront of this issue (on both sides of the issue). One of the concerns is research showing that equivalent doses of excitotoxins produce much higher plasma levels in humans than in rodents, so one cannot simply look at the mg/kg dose given to the animals. [8]

4) "The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lists monosodium glutamate as "generally recognized as safe", along with salt, vinegar, baking powder, and sodium tripolyphosphate."

What does salt, vinegar, etc. have to do with anything? The FDA was required by law to consider MSG as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) since it had been in use before 1958. [9] But I'm not sure what salt and vinegar has to do with anything.

5) "Food products from Australia and New Zealand may refer to MSG as "flavour enhancer 621". The EU food additive code for MSG is E621. 29224220 is the HS code of monosodium glutamate. The free glutamic acid component of MSG may also be present in a wide variety of other additives, including hydrolyzed vegetable proteins, soy extracts, and natural flavourings."

May not belong in the Health Concerns section.

Twoggle 02:25, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Glutamic acid is the most common amino acid in any food that naturally contains any protein. MSG is just glutamic sodium salt. Heck, it is easily by the addition of table salt (NaCl) to any broth, be it meat, vegatable, or seaweed. It should be noted however that (1) Too much glutamic acid in the blood stream can cause blood vessels to constrict, hence thrist after eating foods containing high amounts of MSG (or maybe this is because of the sodium??) and (2) too much of anything is toxic (so alternative "medicine" is not altogether wrong). I think the wording of the section just need rephrasing and "de-extremifying". -- Sjschen 04:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Good points. Also, it would probably benefit the reader to read a short discussion of the scientific literature showing the changes (e.g., spike) in plasma glutamic acid from added MSG as opposed to naturally occurring glutamic acid (usually bound in protein) in foods. Not that such a spike automatically makes it bad, but at least the reader can see that there has been proven differences in biochemical changes from eating MSG as opposed to meat or tomatoes for example. Anything to make it more accurate, NPOV and de-extremifying is probably a good thing. I'll propose some ideas to see what people think. Twoggle 17:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, here are some of my general suggests for the Health Concerns section (to be followed by a more detailed suggestions later):

1. It will be much easier and clearer to the reader if the section is broken down into two subsections of concerns that are quite separate issues: a) MSG intolerance - mild to severe acute reactions 0 to 48 hours after ingesting MSG; b) MSG and excitotoxins - potentially damaging effects on cells (esp. nervous system cells) from acute or chronic exposure to MSG. Also add a subsection on MSG Metabolism. All of the health effects controversy begins with what all scientists agree is the differences in biochemical changes from ingesting added MSG and that of glutamic acid from foods. Most, but not all of these experiments have been done by the MSG industry and there is some consensus in this area ... as can be demonstrated.

2. "Nonetheless, there are still some small groups (especially those in alternative medicine) who consider MSG to be a potent neurotoxin which is yielding mass neurological retardation in affected populations." This sentence has to be reworded in light of the fact that the Society of Neuroscience convened a meeting to discuss effects of food-based excitotoxins and there was a split of opinion on either side. Also, one could easily take it as a put-down and it's certainly not NPOV.

3. I would change the main heading to "Health effects controversy" to more accurately signify that there is a controversy over health effects.

4. "While the worries of the general public over the content of MSG in foods reached near hysterical levels in the 1980s, interest in the issue has since almost completely abated and today there is generally very little concern over MSG content of foods." This sentence is not accurate and is not NPOV with the use of the term "hysterical"

5. If one organization is listed as claiming either safety or non-safety, I suggest balancing it with a statement from an organization on the other side. That keeps it relatively NPOV. It is especially a good idea since there is no consensus in the independent scientific community that focuses specifically on this issue.

So maybe starting with something like what is below and then gradually making it more NPOV and add more balanced scientific information over time:

----

Health effects controversy

MSG Intolerances

There have been reports of allergies and/or sensitivities to MSG, sometimes attributed to the free glutamic acid component, which has been blamed for causing a wide variety of physical symptoms such as migraines, nausea, digestive upsets, drowsiness, heart palpitations, asthma, anaphylactic shock, and a myriad of other complaints. "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome" is often used as an example of the symptoms purported to be caused by MSG.

However, a considerable amount of research and testing into MSG allergies has been performed over the past few decades, and the vast majority of controlled studies show no link at all between glutamate in food and any allergic reaction. Critics of the testing believe that the tests were unfairly biased towards finding no result. In particular, they consider flawed a 1993 study in which aspartame was used in the placebo, because aspartame itself has been accused of causing many of the same symptoms as MSG sensitivity in susceptible people. Some researchers have suggested that specific individuals might be hypersensitive to MSG while others are entirely unaffected by it, but no conclusive results have emerged to demonstrate the validity of this hypothesis.

Excitotoxins

Nonetheless, there are still some groups who consider MSG to be a potent neurotoxin which is yielding mass neurological retardation in affected populations. Although glutamate is an excitotoxin if certain neurons are exposed to very high doses, and can be used to produce an obesity syndrome in rats, [10], [11], the idea that it has any comparable effects in its normal use as a food additive is looked upon by mainstream scientists as being pseudoscientific since there is no conclusive scientific data that support the claims.

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lists monosodium glutamate as "generally recognized as safe", along with salt, vinegar, baking powder, and sodium tripolyphosphate.

Twoggle

Created separate subsections under Health Concerns:

MSG Intolerance -- Purported acute reactions to MSG cannot be an "allergy" (IgE or IgG related reaction) due to the makeup of the chemical. But reactions could possibly be a food intolerance reaction.

Excitotoxicity -- Separate health issue from MSG Intolerance issue that has been debated for decades.

Twoggle 03:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the "MSG in Dairy" section is a little activist-ish. In particular, I'm skeptical of the following claim: "It is believed by many that if the dairy industry would eliminate the use of processed free glutamic acid (MSG) from dairy products, reports of lactose intolerance would drop dramatically, and dairy sales would increase." If this were truly believed by many, even incorrectly believed by many, then the industry would adapt. Not because it would be moral or immoral, but because selling more product while simultaneously spending less on additives would be good business. You may have evidence which proves this line of reasoning invalid, but your claim is counter-intuitive enough that it won't stand without it. Also this wrt to misidentificaiton of lactose intollerance. ((User:unregistered))

I would like to see some clarification of these two statements:

A 1992 report from the Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association stated that glutamate in any form has not been shown to be a "significant health hazard".

What does it take to become a "significant" health hazard?

Among the report's key findings: An unknown percentage of the population may react to MSG...

An unknown percentage would be anywhere between 0 and 100. So, according to this report 100% of the population may react to MSG.....

---

Yeast

Shouldn't some mention be made about tortula yeast and hydrolyzed yeast? These indicate MSG has been added to a food (AFAIK) 66.75.49.213 02:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

There's a list of about 20 different names for free gluatmic acid containing additives, including hydrolyzed yeast - many of which are in foods labeled "NO MSG" even. One wonders why the industry is so desperate to hide MSG on the ingredients list if it's so safe and uncontroversial. — ceejayoz ^talk 23:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Alternate label names should probably be mentioned, especially the name that when used can contain a significant percentage of "MSG." In the U.S., the FDA claims that they will not allow a company to put "No MSG" on the label if their are hydrolyzed proteins in the ingredients list.Twoggle 03:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe because of consumer hysteria? BTW, normal cooking can quite easily produce MSG. This is one of the reasons requiring hydrolysed proteins to be identified on labels is rather stupid... Nil Einne 04:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

There's radiation all around us, but that doesn't mean eating a ball of pure plutonium is safe. Dosage matters. — ceejayoz ^talk 15:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Japanese vs Chinese

I saw an interesting comment on usenet that would be useful to include if it can be backed up... Supposedly the number of people who report problems after eating at Japanese restaurants (we're talking about the US here of course) has always been rather low compared to Chinese restaurants despite the fact Japanese restaurants generally use more MSG then Chinese restaurants. If so, this would give strong credibility to the claim most sufferers are in fact reporting psychosomatic conditions or perhaps conditions caused by some other ingredient common in Chinese restaurants but not Japanese Nil Einne 04:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

MSG "broken down"

I removed the sentence claiming that "60% of MSG is broken down to Glutamic Acid". I am not quite sure where that 60% comes from, though. Either way, it's not really a breakdown reaction, as MSG is simply the sodium salt of glutamic acid, and the sodium dissociates naturally in solution. The amount of glutamate that will exist as the glutamate ion, and the amount that will exist as the acid (i.e. the protonated form) simply depend on the pH. --Slashme 07:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Outdated. --meatclerk 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed Dispute tag

I think the latest edits by Twoggle are good enough that we can remove the dispute tag. The article now clearly states both sides of the debate. --Slashme 07:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the inaccuracies tag back just for the MSG Intolerance section as the section does not accurately represent either side and is slightly POV ... at least in my opinion. Twoggle 16:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you say so... What would you like to change? --Slashme 05:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll look at it closer over the weekend. But as an example, it wasn't just the 1993 study that included aspartame, it was all industry (International Technical Glutamate Committee) studies since 1978 through at least 1993. The aspartame was not in the placebo itself, but in the masking drink mix given to the subjects. Since aspartame is ~40% excitotoxic amino acid and the test was on the effects of an excititoxic amino acid, one can see where the criticism comes from. Aside from those studies where aspartame was given to the control group, there are numerous studies with findings on both sides of the issue. I'm just hoping to add a little NPOV science to a couple of short paragraphs. Twoggle 21:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry about my screw-up

I'm sorry about my reinserting the vandalism. I shouldn't do RC patrol so late at night. --Allen 06:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Outdated. --meatclerk 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction regarding how MSG works

There seems to be a bit of a contradiction between the "what is MSG?" the "Umami" sections of this article.

From "What Is MSG?" It does not have a distinct taste of its own, and how it adds flavor to other foods is not fully understood. Many scientists believe that MSG stimulates glutamate receptors in the tongue to augment meat-like flavors.

from "Umami" MSG triggers the (recently identified) taste buds which are sensitive to umami, one of the five basic tastes.

It seems the "what is MSG?" bit is out of date, talking about glutamate receptors as though it were a speculative hypothesis but umami taste buds have now been identified. Is it correct to say "It does not have a distinct taste of its own"? I tasted some pure food-grade MSG about a year ago and I think it did have some flavour. It does trigger the umami taste buds, after all.

It definitely has a flavor on its own. I just started using it in my cooking, and have sampled it by itself several times.--ragesoss 02:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph needs fixing

outdated --meatclerk 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The miraculous Dr. John Erb

Forgive me as this is my first time participating in Wikipedia directly, however reading this article prompted me to create an account and respond. While I am certainly aware of MSG's negative health effects being someone who is extremely allergic to the substance, I don't think that Dr. John Erb's international conspiracy theory really belongs in a encyclopedic entry. After reading this paragraph in the 'Natural amino acid section:

"Dr. John Erb has found the actual chemical causing the massive obesity epidemic. He was a research assistant at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, and spent years working for the government. He made an amazing discovery while going through scientific journals for a book he was writing called "The Slow Poisoning of America". In hundreds of studies around the world, scientists were creating obese mice and rats to use in diet or diabetes test studies. No strain of rat or mice is naturally obese, so the scientists have to create them. They make these morbidly obese creatures by injecting them with MSG when they are first born. The MSG triples the amount of insulin the pancreas creates; causing rats (and humans?) to become obese. They even have a title for the fat rodents they create: "MSG-Treated Rats"."

I was wondering if I was reading an infomercial or something. I looked up this fellow and found the following: http://health.benabraham.com/html/obesity_from_msg_food_additive.html

Apparantly MSG is the nicotine of the food world according to him, and the corporations, governments and your local grocers are all trying to cover it up. Its also apparantly linked to every disease known to man, and the good doctor refers to himself in the third person(read the first paragraph of the letter and then read who signed it). Interesting reading to be certain, but hardly credible.

Just suggesting someone look into that. If I had more experience here I'd edit it myself, but I would rather not make a mistake.

Reflex-Croft 23:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

-- I believe that there is a psychological affect, whether permanent or temporary, associated with MSG. Simply eating food, perhaps a bag of chips, and not knowing or expecting it to have MSG until after you have started to feel something (not before) and not having this affect from a procuct almost identical except for the exclusion of MSG is enough proof for me. I think that not enough accurate studies have been done and for this reason people like to link it with everything (or absolutely nothing) such as with aspartame. It's plausible to note that MSG can induce certain sicknesses, diseases, affects, etc but likely in a much more limited fashion. It is also a little strong to associate MSG as the cause for the growing obesity, thought plausible as a contributor (particularly with the mice experiments). I wish more neutral legitimate studies were conducted and monitored not only health but also took an in-depth look at neural/psychological activity and feelings/state and if they feel any different (placebo testing or such). Stoutpuppy

Can we be clear here that MSG does cause obesity in mice, this is not in question. See here [[12]] where MSG is used to fatten mice. Hence, I think it is worth mentioning eg "Though MSG is used in laboratories to engender obesity in mice, there is no evidence it has such effects in humans." or "MSG is used in laboratories to engender obesity in mice and studies have shown similar effects in humans (insert possibly non-existent citation here)"202.139.50.134 04:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section on mice obesity. Can somone with access to medical journal databases find any studies on whether MSG does or does not cause obesity in humans?LimitedNews 03:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, and I actually somewhat agree with you on this, the fact is that this is an encyclopedia and there is no credible research supporting that conclusion. As a result that entry was inappropriate. At least in my opinion. Reflex-Croft 21:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the edits by the person who included the Conspiracy theory entries, including re-adding an entire section and restoring a link to patent information.

69.133.14.203 10:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Glutamic acid and the Hypothalamus

This article doesn't see the forest from the trees. Glutamate is a neurotransmitter that is known to exhibit excitotoxic properties at large doses, something that is particularly problematic following traumatic brain injury. However oral ingestion of MSG is only likely to affect areas of the brain unprotected by the blood brain barrier - i.e. the hypothalamus and parts of the limbic system. Should MSG be consumed in sufficient quantities to cause lesions on the hypothalamus, this could be expected to result in visible changes to drive control behaviours regulated by this part of the brain, including eating and sexual behaviour. Take a look at the hyper-incidence of msg laced foods, then take a look at the explosion in obesity taking place around the world. High fat foods are one side of the coin, decreased drive control as a result of damage to the hypothalamus the other. The basic information is contained in any graduate level texts on neurophysiology.

RiverManBlues

There is no firm evidence to the effect that MSG causes obesity in humans,[but has been linked to increased body mass index] although it has certainly been suggested by researchers. As such, the basic information is not included in any graduate level text on neurophysiology. The main causes of the obesity explosion seem to be an increasingly sedentary lifestyle and increasing intake of energy-dense foods. Whether or not MSG had been introduced, we would still have the obesity explosion. Sakkura 14:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: Please add new subjects to the bottom of talk pages in the future. Thanks. Sakkura 14:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The link between MSG and obesity is alarming, but I'm far more concerned with the undeniable correlation between a rise in MSG consumption and a rise in the global average temperate. Though, an inverse correlation also exists between the global average temperature and the number of pirates. Here's a graph. I'm not sure which, if any, of these undeniable facts belong in this article, though. 207.148.178.122 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ranch Dressing

ranch dressing also has msg alot of things that we eat has msg but we don't know it because not all people read the back of the label for it it also can be linked to cancer

Misinformation

This article appears to have not been updated or given much attention since 2006. Furthermore I am well awear that there is significant contraversy about MSGs safety. I don't know the first thing about biochemistry nor do I know anything much about dietary standards etc. The Article still just says that the FDA in the US says that's there's nothing wrong with MSG and seems to be missing a lot of information. I'd try to help it out if I were more educated in the general area to begin with, Hopefully someone else can.

Eric 03/14/2006 1658 UTC

Somebody is ly (excuse the pun) vandalising this article and thank you to whoever just fixed that, I was going to. - solieus

Misinformation is being introduced and corrupting this article. I've read alot about MSG and can see obfuscation creeping in. The most recent edit added information that is wholey one-sided and is adding to the contradiction that tagged this article.

I'm not in a position to edit or clean up this article, I'm very busy with a re-write of salmon. Is there a tag that we can put on this or perhaps revert some of this FUDD being introduced?

[[Note by reader with some biochemistry background: Need more of a discussion here of the differences between D-glutamate and L-glutamic acid. First, glutamate and glutamic acid are slightly different forms of the same amino acid. Second, the L (naturally occurring isomer) and D (synthesized isomer) versions are different stereoisomers, and we know that stereoisomers can have very different effects in the body. It's very misleading to talk a lot about naturally-occurring L-glutamic acid, and then to write at the end of this paragraph that MSG and all other free glutamic acid is in the form of D-glutamate. That's comparing apples to oranges. While I don't know anything about the research on MSG, it looks like there is a bait and switch going on here.]]

--meatclerk 05:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I volunteer to defend this article for a while. I reverted and warned the anon that changing statements to disagree with the corresponding references is a no-no. —Keenan Pepper 05:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

If you want, I can watch this article and let you know. I can't revert, nor do I wish to have the responsibility. Sometime in the future I plan to clean out this discussion (alot of stuff is dated).

You don't have to be an admin to revert. See Wikipedia:Reverting. For admins it takes one click, for regular users three or four. No big deal.

In the meantime, I plan to continue my research, extend my list of current articles and help with a bit of editing. BTW, is there a list for the last item? That is, a list of article which the author wish some edit or reviews? I've done a few searches, but have not found anything yet. --meatclerk 08:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Peer review what you're looking for? —Keenan Pepper 18:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've bookmarked both. As for reverting, I note that much of the misinformation about MSG is being place by annoynmous IP and they are very old, some back to May. One set was done by [222.229.46.29] Any suggestions on how to proceed? --meatclerk 18:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm cleaning out dated paragraphs and useless information. --meatclerk 17:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to clean up a little of the "health" section, adding in a link to one of the reference (and reading the paper quoted then clarifying what it actually says)

I have removed the: "Some people are particularly sensitive to the use of MSG in food. In susceptible people, MSG can produce sleeplessness, facial pressure, chest pain, and burning sensations throughout the body. Many people feel anxious as well, with an effect similar to ingesting large quantities of caffeine. The amount of MSG that can cause these symptoms varies considerably from person to person. {{fact}"

It brings into doubt former paragraphs the safety of MSG, and a citation is needed (especially to contradict the FDA, AMA and WHO, although, actually, they aren't quoted either!).

I have added a request that the FDA and WHO quotes be cited as well. --Gregnz 03:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the site MSGTruth.org be removed from the links list. Like the site's author, I am very suspicious of the consensus that MSG is safe, but the site is highly misleading. It makes causative attributions which have no basis in the evidence presented, and some of these are extremely offensive. Some examples from http://www.msgtruth.org/foodfor.htm which I just copied and pasted -

1) Stroke victims are now given glutamate blocking drugs MSG contains glutamate Late stage Alzheimer's patients are now showing improvement on the glutamate blocker, memantine MSG contains glutamate A.L.S. victims are now being treated with glutamate blocking drugs MSG contains glutamate MS victims may soon be treated with glutamate blocking drugs MSG contains glutamate

2) MSG was only added to the American food supply after World War II and has steadily increased. Suicide among adolescents and young adults has nearly tripled since 1952. Chinese processed foods are high in MSG. China now accounts for 42% of the world's suicides: http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200609130358.htm

Implying that MSG causes suicide is way out there - Perorative 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been any response in months, so I've removed the link. - Perorative 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of "MSG intolerance" section?

I don't usually edit entries but I have a few issues with the "MSG intolerance" portion of the page. Most importantly is the copying of the entire section from an FDA release without propper references given to the source. Check http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/msg.html under the heading "1995 FASEB Report" for evidence. Origionally published in 1995, it clearly predates the copy here.

Perhaps a quick search of PubMed for peer reviewed papers could be used to rebuild this section (as well as provide it with a more diverse set of references, as Olney is hardly a credible glutamate researcher given his questionable methodologies). --APM 7:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've been watching this article since I noted that several annoymous IPs have been spiking the article clearly biased as pro-industry. My own website [13] notes the "1995 FASEB Report" as suspect itself. Right now I'm awaiting some help in how to clean up some of the spikes. None yet. I'm going to the discussion board next.

The section you mention, as I recall, is one of the spike areas.

As to your question about fair use. Yes, just about anything written by a public (government) agency can be used verbatim. However, these sources are hardly interesting reading and don't conform to wikipedia styles and, at times, do not have a NPOV.

--meatclerk 10:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert on July 13,2006

After reviewing edits by 222.229.46.29 (on May 14, 2006) and 159.134.245.210 (on Feb 7, 2006), it is clear that theses edits were done with the intent of biasing the entire article. Further, the additions created conflicts with Glutamic acid. Those conflicts should now be resolved. One point to note is that both of these annonyous IP edits paid no attention to Glutamic acid. Another point is that while these edits looked authoratitive, they were in fact "cut and pasted" from "pro-MSG" websites.

The revert, which I will let sit for a few days, will allow me to watch any additions and check there valitity - something that did not happen when the annonyous IP edits were made. At that time, I will clean out this discussion section for outdated material.

--meatclerk 11:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, are you sure that was necessary? You realize it's a logical impossibility to revert things that happened a long time ago without destroying productive edits that have been made since then? For example, you trashed all the references, which now link to a deleted template. I think it's your responsibility to fix the problems you caused by reverting to such an old version. If you don't do something I'll have to revert your big revert. —Keenan Pepper 16:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly what was causing me to delay. I've been aware of this for more than a month. Before I started in May, 2006, I noted some issues, but thought that the stuff I read earlier was something I read at another website. Once I went back to the edits of 159.134.245.210 (on Feb 7, 2006), it was clear.

My logic is as such. Before Feb 7, 2006 it was somewhat a NPOV article, after that a hodge-podge of pro-MSG began to be added wholesale by 159.134.245.210 then later 222.229.46.29. Given that, a review of the logs will support my points.

What's left is the corrections to be made. I note that most, if not all, information of any worth was added by non-annoymous IP - wikipedians. By that I estimate they will slowly add about a dozen (12) small changes which will make the article worthy again.

But I wholey agree with your comment. It's a big mud hole I'm in, but someone must take the responsibility to get it done and correct again. I'll give it about 7 - 10 days, then I'll start adding stuff back a little at a time.

--meatclerk 19:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed or Purged Information

This information was removed or purged because it was added for questionable purposes. These records are for the purpose of restoring those information at a future date.

See Reason for more information.

Reason: Dead Link. Following link produces a 404 error.

SECTION: Discovery About 1.5 million metric tons were sold in 2001, with 4% annual growth expected.

Eww. I'd just like to saythat i ate this cheap can of soup (a small amount of it), and i suddenly threw up. I thought it was nothing, but a few weeks later, i ate it again and felt extreme nausea. And fifteen minutes ago, i was eating the same soup (new can) and i again felt my stomach upset. i wondered aloud why, and my sister pondered, saying i could be allergic, or maybe there was meat in it (as i am a vegitarian, and have been for seven years). i told her that i have not been allergic to anything, and that if there wa smeat in it, i would only throw up if i knew there was meat in it, as that would be a PHSYCHOLOGICAL effect, and there wasn't meat. then i guessed if there was monosodium glutamate in it ( and i had been kidding), but when i retrieved the can from the garbage i saw there was! that's why you should always check labels. darn vegetable soup... >.<

 -this is called anecdotal information, and it's not scientifically valid for a reason.

Meaning reversed

The article contains the following sentence:

"Scientific evidence suggests that dietary MSG or glutamate contributes to Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's chorea, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, AIDS dementia complex, or any other long-term or chronic diseases."

As the last clause suggests, the sentence was originally negative ("does not contribute to Alzheimers..."). This can be seen in earlier versions of the page. These two sentences are copied directly from the FDA report ( http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdacmsg.html ) and then changed to say the precise opposite.

I take this to be vandalism. I have no strong opinions on MSG and no objection to information suggesting that MSG is problematic, but simply changing the FDA report to its precise opposite is not reasonable.

Eggsyntax 19:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks as if this edit here [14] changed it. I haven't looked at the reference, but elsewhere Olney's work has been characterized as less reliable. (Causing AIDS? Huh? Very strange.) Dr Zak 19:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As per APM's comment, I'm also removing the references on these two sentences; they don't apply (in fact, they seem to contradict these sentences as now written). The entire section is a summary of key points from the FDA report, so no further reference is needed. I'm not trying to censor these references (I'm not in a position to judge the validity of Olney's work); they just don't apply here.

Meatclerk questions the validity of the report; I would certainly expect some very solid evidence against it before removing it from the entry, since it's a major report by an independent scientific body.

Eggsyntax 21:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The report can be summarized to highlight the facts AND reference the FDA, which it does not do now. As for issues with the work, the FDA is just covering their butts. If you read the report, in entirety, it states something like, "this reports confirms what we have been saying." Reading the report, it says they do nothing new, just review old data. As such, the rehash of an old report. Further, the older reports (1970s) ignores many key data points.

However, if you read the FAO report, circa 1970, you'll see human nausia reported by an MFG test. However, the FDA report completely ignores this.

My website/page has lots of information, however, nothing conclusive. Hence, I have not, and cannot, apply any evidence that supports MSG intolerance, other than suggestive data listed in the FAO report. --meatclerk 05:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

New Information

This was deleted from the talkpage, but I adding it back in. MSG and Aspertame are both excitotoxins. David O. Rietz, the late master of dorway.com collected valueable information. It should not be discounted offhand.

http://www.dorway.com/blayautism.txt

For further reading on this subject, The Second Brian (c) 1998 by Dr. Michael D. Gershon, M. D. (well respected and noted work on gastroenterology)

Misinformation and a rewrite

This article continues to be source of irriataion. I just cleared up another reversal of meaning.

As such, I'm taking real action. Something that cannot be objected to. I've creating a new Sandbox to rewrite the article and remove all objectionable material. I'm doing line be line. This will be a complete rewrite. /rewrite meatclerk 23:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sidebar

User:67.188.206.207 left this in the intro to the article - I thought I'd better move it here:

needs science sidebar about molecular buildup and all that, not just a picture. someone get on this please or leave a note on the talk page (won't load for me)

--Pinnerup 23:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know what this request is? I don't.meatclerk 04:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Abandon

After some thought and reflection I am abandoning any work, at the present time, on this article. As such, I am deleting the re-write and removing this article from my watch. I do this with some regret and the full realization that this article is highly erroneous, but a time sink with no hope of real resolution in the near future. As such, should other persons at a future time take a real interest and do real research, the I may return. Until then you may check my personal page for current projects. Respectfully meatclerk 06:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Vaccines

I read (in a 2003 report) that MSG's were used in vaccines. I don't know about you, but I think that is actually planting an addiction in small children and everyone who gets "regular vaccines" Tinlv7 00:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation please? Brythain 15:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

chickenpox vaccines. Tell me if you find more. --Striver 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Foreign body granuloma caused by monosodium glutamate after BCG vaccination.--Striver 22:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Addiction, food additives, and vaccination in one conspiracy theory? That has to be a first. Sockatume 22:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, ain't it cool? --Striver 22:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

First main contributor?

This article uses a mix of different Englishes- some pieces are in British English, some pieces are in American English. In accordance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, I'd like to do my best to harmonise this article, using the style employed by the first main contributor. If you're still around, FMC, which English did you employ? Liam Plested 19:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The earliest version of the article appears to use British English (flavour is used) - American English is then introduced (recognized is used) in a quote from an American source a few edits later. Kierongreen 07:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

depiction of molecule wrong?

10/21/06 - I believe that the molecular structure shown is incorrect. According to Lehninger (ed 3) the pKa's of the ionizable groups of free glutamate are 2.19 for the carboxyl group off of the alpha carbon, 4.25 for the carboxyl group in the side chain, and 9.67 for the amino group. Thus at neutral pH all three ionizable groups will be in a charged state. This would give the molecule an overall charge of -1 which is balanced by a single sodium ion. Currently, the picture just shows one negative charge. I have no idea how to fix this, but I just figured I'd let y'all know.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.49.123 (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2006

All the amino acids are shown like that. Apparently some illustrator has a thing against zwitterions. —Keenan Pepper 21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's because its monosodium, in solution all three groups are ionised but the solid (as stored) has the most acid proton substituted by a sodium cation and not the other one Knights who say ni 16:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it does have all ionisable groups in the charged state even in the solid. I had been taught in school that this is true, and causes amino acids to have a very high melting point. Chemguide backs me up here as well: "This is the form that amino acids exist in even in the solid state. If you dissolve the amino acid in water, a simple solution also contains this ion." --137.222.132.67 19:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign and log on. I'm PhiJ

Nightmares or Nightmare?

I read this edit, and was just about to revert it straight back, as I am sure it should be nightmares, but I thought I don't want an edit war (I've never been in one of those yet, and it's not a thing I want to start) I thought I'd check I'm not being stupid/get consensus it should be nightmares shouldn't it?

"Scientific review" and "Health concerns"

I've combined these two into a single section of the health effects of MSG. I don't understand why they were separate . "Scientific review" read as if MSG was the greatest thing ever, and "Health concerns" read like it was the worst. I also removed some of the text marked as not referenced because... it was not referenced.--Nonpareility 18:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Alternate names"

I removed this section because what MSG is called in other languages is not important to the discussion nor is it interesting (and if it was, every article in Wikipedia could have an "Alternate names" section). If other English-speaking people around the world call it something other than the names listed in the intro, then those things should also be listed in the intro in the same format.--Nonpareility 18:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Two very significant omisions

There some good information in this article, but it is not really acceptable to have an article on MSG that doesn't mention;

• Professor Kikunae Ikeda - as the article at Ajinomoto Corporation says, Ajinomoto Corporation didn't discover and patent MSG - it was actually Kikunae Ikeda whilst working at Tokyo Imperial University in 1907, who very shortly afterwards formed Ajinomoto Corporation to captilize on his discovery.
• Chinese Restaurant Syndrome - whilst this syndrome largely seems to be a myth, it is nevertheless one of the largest food scares there has ever been in the western world and many people spent many years believing that it was associated with MSG. As such it is necessary to discuss the connection and present the evidence against the link.

I can see that both these facts have been in past versions of this article. I can also see the edit warring over real or imaginary health effects of MSG have a long history here and are probably the cause of the current failure to mention Chinese Restaurant Syndrome. As such, I'm not going to bother correcting the article, and will just chalk it up to further evidence that Wikipedia doesn't work any more.

In case anyone is interested in a more balanced history, I found this article

• http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodmonthly/story/0,,1522368,00.html

from the Guardian to be a more reliable source. -- Solipsist 19:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added some info about Chinese restaurant syndrome, including a link to the Guardian article. You are right - it deserves a mention, since the majority of the public still think that the "syndrome" is real! --Sciencewatcher 00:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"There is no evidence that MSG causes obesity in humans."

Uh because theres been no STUDY? to say there is no evidence is to say showing you a person who ate MSG and became overweight then stopped MSG and lost weight wouldn't be evidence? This should just be changed to "it hasn't been studied in humans",IMO.

AgentScully

No, that would not constitute evidence. To properly evaluate the effect you would need to have a double-blind study. The problem is that MSG improves the taste of food, so that in itself could cause people to eat more. --Sciencewatcher 23:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, a person eating MSG and gaining weight, then discontinuing MSG and losing weight is an anecdote, not evidence. It is basically an experiment without controls. Unless a phenomenon has been studied in humans, there can be no evidence. Anecdotes can never serve as evidence, although they can suggest and direct research.Drummstikk 05:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I just found a study of 5000 people in Hawaii which found that MSG use was not associated with significant weight gain, which I have added to the article. --Sciencewatcher 03:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're way off on that one AgentScully. Evidence in this sense is something scientific that can be verified. --Soapergem (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

165.95.42.96 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)I suppose I should create an account, but here are two recent PubMed citations attributing human obesity to MSG, also notice in the rat study (3'rd link) that 16% of the young mice died from the administration of MSG ;) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16463577&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16132059&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1106764&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum Finally, if you do a search on [MSG production tons] you will find links to industry reports stating production from 20K tons to 1.8Meg tons per year. This is a very impressive amount, and makes one think of the long standing industry claims for the harmless nature of cigarette smoke.

Yes, please create an account. Some researchers have certainly theorized that MSG causes the obesity epidemic, and that should be noted. However, these are more studies of rats and dogs, which is a well-known phenomena. That newborn rats become fat eating 10% pure MSG or being directly injected with it doesn't tell us much about the effects <1% dietary MSG in humans. Cool Hand Luke 19:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Glutamates are so widely used in foods anymore and First World countries, especially the USA are so much into the use of prepared foods, I question whether <1% dietary MSG is factual. This also should be studied. PeyoteCoyote —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.176.255 (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

I have edited the section in this article (under Excitotoxicity) that stated that "MSG is absorbed very quickly" -> "MSG is absorbed very quickly in the gastrointestinal tract". This should remove the supposed contradiction with the glutamic acid article, where the absorbtion discussed is across the blood-brain barrier (which is a completely different matter). Can someone please check this and remove the tag? Sakkura 03:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So, was this not the point of the contradiction tag or is nobody reading this? Sakkura 01:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that was the original alleged contradiction. The tag was added back in June, apparently over this. It looks like the problem originally cited was about penetration to the nervous system. This text must have been removed a while ago. With your clarifying edit earlier this month, I think all contradictions have been resolved. I'm removing the tag. Cool Hand Luke 02:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

←fhhdfh≠

Spelling

It simply is not true that this article uses British spelling. Although the article did start with British spelling, since the fourth edit on July 16, 2002, it has used a random intermix of spellings with the predominant spelling over time being American. The "Follow the dialect of the first contributor" rule of WP:ENGVAR is only to be used as a last resort ("If all else fails").

Two people have now tried to make the article's spelling consistent per WP:ENGVAR, but both times the edits have been reverted back to the random intermix. Reverting the edits without also making the spelling consistent is not helpful. Please either stop reverting the edits or make the spelling consistent (even if that means applying the "If all else fails" rule). --VMS Mosaic 20:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this has been a random intermix before the reversions as well, but it now seems consistent. After looking at my earlier additions, I realized that British English was the majority. I apologize for not getting it right the first time. Cool Hand Luke 21:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No citations for MSG in various foods

For example, "almost all US-originated fast foods." Fast foods which originate in other countries are less likely to contain MSG? Proof? I am highly skeptical. (The other examples are quite dubious, too, and need citations, at least.)

I'd be happy to scrap the whole section. The claim you point out is particularly problematic—neither the "most" nor the "US-originated" components are cited. However, we should mention that it's much more widely used in the west than a couple of generations ago. I'll look into finding an appropriate source and probably delete all of these bullet points. Cool Hand Luke 19:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's just referring to a source narrowly discussing the use of MSG in the US (ignoring the rest of the world). In any case, I certainly agree the section needs citations. Hope you find something good Luke. Sakkura 20:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is citation needed for this bit? Check a packet of Doritos on the back for example and there you go, MSG is listed clearly as an ingredient (at least in the UK). The same goes with most soups (ie the Heinz brand in the UK, OXO stock cubes and so on)I think also its managed to infiltrate the European market as well so the US-based approach can be edited to a global statement. Making people link to websites to prove what is clear fact just seems pointless. Just go buy some Doritos! --213.146.157.119 09:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Glutamate Table

I find it strange that the table under the heading "Approximate Quantities in Food" lists the glutamate quantities in various foods, but this does not imply that these foods contain any monosodium glutamate, so I would suggest that the table is misleading and, to a degree, irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejjer (talk • contribs) 11:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. These are published measured quantities of free glutamate and protein-bound GLU in foods. Its true that many of them contain no added MSG, but free glutamate is chemically identical. Perhaps we should remove references to total glutamine and stick with free glutamate? Cool Hand Luke 03:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there really isn't any difference between free glutamate naturally present in the food and added MSG. The bound glutamate is still connected to the subject since it ultimately does become free glutamate, but of course it has to be counted separately from the free glutamate since the absorbtion is slower (which may be significant in relation to the described claims about high MSG content spiking serum glutamate levels etc). The only improvement I can think of is if it were possible to further divide the free glutamate amount into that which occurs naturally in the various items and that which is added as MSG.

Oh, and I don't see where you get glutamine from - that isn't in the table, nor should it be. Sakkura 16:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, sorry. I meant glutamic acid. It would be hard to separate out the added and "natural" free glutamate. With the fermented products, MSG isn't normally added added (I think! The manufacture of vegemite and marmite might add extra MSG), but the whole process hydrolysizes free glutamate. It would be more meaningful with processed foods like soup and chips, but no processed foods are currently listed. Cool Hand Luke 17:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah okay. I had no idea what marmite, vegemite etc. are (I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist in my country. Eating yeast extract sounds really strange to me to be honest). It's kind of unfortunate for the table if it contains no information about foods containing MSG - it would be nice to have the numbers for comparing stuff that naturally contains glutamate to the stuff that has MSG added to it, but if the table says nothing about foods containing (added) MSG, it might be better suited for the article on glutamic acid. Sakkura 21:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on MSG, but I would say that there could be a difference between it and free glutamate in terms of its effect. Whether unfounded or not, there have always been health concerns around MSG, whereas people don't talk about these concerns with just glutamate. Speaking from my own experience (you can dsimiss it as unreliable if you want), but I generally get an unfavourable reaction to most flavoured crisps (potato chips to Americans) - sneezing and a runny noise. The constant seems to be MSG. The crips that don't have it do not cause a problem. Where it is not in the ingredients, it is not a problem. I also eat a lot of the foods on the glutamate list without problem. Bejjer

There cannot be any difference between the effect of MSG and free glutamate unless it is caused by the sodium ions in MSG - apart from MSG having purely sodium ions, they are the exact same thing; free glutamate literally is MSG if it happens to be associated with sodium ions. Since sodium ions are completely benign, there can be no difference at all between MSG and free glutamate. However, MSG could indeed have different effects compared to glutamate that occurs in protein; but you should bear in mind that this is not free glutamate. Sakkura 17:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And it should be noted that many of these items, such as soy sauce, have high concentrations of sodium. This is MSG from any reasonable perspective. Protein-bound glutamate, like Sakkura says, is different. Cool Hand Luke 22:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sodium?

"...when dissolved in water (or saliva) it rapidly dissociates into free sodium and glutamate ions..." Am I missing something? I thought sodium reacted violently (exploded) in water, forming sodium hydroxide. 68.13.249.178 00:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You are half right; if it was sodium it would violently react to water. However, MSG (like salt) dissociates into sodium ions, which are perfectly stable and very soluble in water. Perhaps we should rephrase the sentence to clarify that both the sodium and the glutamate are ions? Cool Hand Luke 03:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it could be rephrased to "...dissociates into sodium cations and glutamate anions...". In my opinion it would look a little silly to write ions twice, ie. "...dissociates into sodium ions and glutamate ions...". Sakkura 16:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How about "into both sodium and glutamate ions"? There's still some ambiguity, but it's lessened. /85.228.39.223 18:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I put in my suggestion now. I'm not completely sure which forms reads better, but at least any ambiguity is gone. And hey, a few people might actually learn what cations and anions are, scary as that thought may be :o) Sakkura 23:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

FDA link

The FDA link in external links points to a 404 page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandowe (talk • contribs) 12:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference 2

What's up with the big quote at the end of reference 2? Was this supposed to go in the article and mistakenly put in the references or is something else going on? Kehrbykid (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)