Talk:Monosodium glutamate/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Possible Health Effects?

Many things that i have read state that monosodium glutamate is a toxin and may be detrimental to health, why is nothing of this sort mentioned on the wiki page? i'm in no position to edit, being both new and not having any background on the subject, but i thought i should bring up the issue. Rvardell (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read glutamic acid (flavor) for the moved health risk controversy section. Сасусlе 13:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous; this article does not mention to any significant extent the supposed negative effects of MSG, despite having a "Health controversy" section. Inform the reader. скоморохъ 06:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A revision of the entire section "Possible Health Effects" has just been submitted. The revision consists of fact pertaining to possible health effects of monosodium glutamate -- not only the truth, but the whole truth. Every statement is verifiable. I understand that's how its supposed to be in Wikipedia. I would be pleased to respond to questions and/or suggestions.Truthinlabeling (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I made a revision to this section, it appeared on the web site, and now it is gone. Can anyone tell me why it was not retained? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthinlabeling (talk • contribs) 04:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't bother putting in a comment - I assumed it was obvious. See MastCell's comment in the glutamate article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

“Monosodium glutamate: Health concerns” reads like a piece of glutamate-industry propaganda. I thought Wikipedia did not sanction that kind of thing. First, it does not address health concerns. The health concerns include brain lesions, endocrine disorders such as gross obesity, learning and behavior disorders, and adverse reactions like migraine headache, depression, skin rash, heart irregularities, and seizures. That can be documented. Second, the FASEB report that was mentioned as concluding that “…MSG was safe for most people…” failed to consider all of the information relevant to the safety/toxicity of monosodium glutamate. Migraine headache, for example, was not considered. But you would have to read the entire report to realize that. Moreover, the FASEB report was produced by people with conflicts of interest. Third, the reference to “MSG symptom complex” and “Chinese restaurant syndrome” is deceptive and misleading. They both refer to a few mild and transitory reactions first noticed and reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. Tachycardia, atrial fibrillation, migraine headache, mood swings, rage reactions, nausea and vomiting, seizures, and depression, for example, are not mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Why isn’t the reader told about the “anecdotal reports” of migraine headache, tachycardia etc.? Fourth, the reader is told about the research that failed to find a statistical association between monosodium glutamate and the limited symptoms given as being alleged reactions to ingestion of monosodium glutamate in a number of industry-sponsored studies. But the reader would have no way of knowing that there was no way that an association could have been demonstrated because the industry-sponsored researchers 1) Selected subjects who might not be sensitive to the product; 2) Reduced the likelihood that subjects would react to monosodium glutamate test material; 3) Used toxic and/or allergenic material, including aspartame, in placebos; 4) Used too few subjects, so there would be inadequate statistical power to produce a significant difference between adverse reactions of test subjects and placebo subjects, or to find a significant relationship between the experimental variable and the measured outcome; 5) Applied statistical tests to research designs that do not meet the tests’ underlying assumptions; 6) Focused on non-relevant variables; 7) Ignored relevant data. The reader would have no way of knowing that the “…people who were convinced that they were sensitive to [MSG]… were offered honoraria of several hundred dollars to participate in a study; but only if they said they were sensitive to MSG.The material in this section, “Health effects” should be replaced with data or eliminated all together. Being new to Wikipedia, I submitted a revision that meets all of Wikipedia’s criteria without first having had this discussion. Understandably that revision was almost immediately removed. Where do we go from here?Truthinlabeling (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

To be completely honest about it, there are several of us who have been through this before and aren't enthusiastic about going through it again, especially since several aspects, including your first sentence above and your user name, indicate that you probably aren't going to pay attention to what anybody else says. You could, if you are interested, begin by going through previous iterations of the argument on this talk page, to see why they have resulted in the article being in its current state. Rehashing arguments that have not succeeded before is unlikely to go anywhere. Looie496 (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Trust me. I do pay attention to what people say. I also look to see where their words are coming from -- or whom their words are coming from. What about data instead of words? Data? Not rehashing arguements. What I said above is background. What needs to presented are data: research. There is research that demonstrates the toxic potential of MSG. There are health concerns. They should be listed.Truthinlabeling (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of conspiracy or company shilling aren't going to help your case. Can you address the points made in previous discussions which lead to the current wording? Verbal chat 17:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Many of the points you have raised are discussed in sections farther down this page. Have you read them? You should -- but one key point that I'll repeat is that statements in Wikipedia articles need to be based on high-quality sources. Arguments that the scientific studies are meaningless because the researchers were industry-supported would only be usable if there were high-quality sources that said so. Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is so very interesting. I have already learned a great deal, and I thank you. Tell me, please, if I were to list the published peer reviewed studies where aspartame is used in placebos (placebos are supposed to be inert), and presented a copy of a letter from the person who supplied placebos to these researchers, that clearly stated that aspartame had been used in placebos since 1978, would that be high quality source material? There is one study where the ingredients in the placebo are listed, but only one.Truthinlabeling (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, high-quality source material would be a review article in a reputable journal that explicitly draws the conclusions you are trying to draw. Looie496 (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, a quick Google Scholar search brings up many recent articles. The most recent and most ludicrous being - "Can dietary supplementation of monosodium glutamate improve the health of the elderly?" with the notation: "Supported in part by the Ajinomoto Company, a manufacturer of food and amino acids, including glutamate." But in the first few hits, there are some articles that look fairly unbiased, like "Effect of systemic monosodium glutamate (MSG) on headache and pericranial muscle sensitivity" published in Cephalalgia which states that it was a "a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study to investigate the occurrence of adverse effects such as headache as well as pain and mechanical sensitivity in pericranial muscles after oral administration of monosodium glutamate (MSG)." Regardless of your emotional or financial investment in this subject, a rational person would agree that this article at least needs a tag that it has viewpoint issues.Alfrodull (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

But that study only had 14 participants. Larger studies have found no effect. Also, the placebo only had the same amount of sodium as the low MSG dose, so it's not really surprising they found effects from the high MSG dose (which had twice as much Na as the placebo as far as I can tell). --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The study is also flawed because they administered the glutamate in a drink, thereby unblinding the protocol as one can easily taste the compound.[1] Cacycle (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

MSG or salt plus glutamate?

[this is extends the removed discussion minus speculation about the motives of other contributors and the possibility of editors-for-hire from the reward boards posting on this page]

Re-cap: Monosodium glutamate is more than salt bound to free glutamate. Remember, the glutamate in MSG only has to be 99% pure--therefore there can be up to 1% 'contamination' from the manufacturing process. Plus, loading something down with salt and free glutamates is hardly "normal consumption" as the FDA states. It can also have interactive chemical properties (where the properties of X and Y are different from the properties of X+Y together) chemical reaction and drug interaction. For example you can't breath oxygen in water and sodium cyanide is poison but it is made of three completely harmless things--salt, nitrogen and carbon. So both glutamates and salt have separate properties which are bad in excess, MSG contains 1% contamination which may be bad, and combining glutamate with salt may create interactive properties. Read the studies on my page.FFN001 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Refined sodium glutamate is not "bound" when it is added to soup. No, it disassociates as ions. CHEM 101Cool Hand Luke 22:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain more please? MSG is added as a crystal powder and disolves into water as monosodium glutamate--not its separate components, right? What am I missing?FFN001 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the lead section of this article, especially the last sentence. I also mentioned that refined MSG is much more pure than free glutamate found in foods with no added glutamate such as Worcester sauce and Parmesan cheese.[2] Cool Hand Luke 23:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Chem 101. In solution, MSG breaks into one sodium ion and one glutamate ion. Neither have any special properties--that sodium ion is free to bind with any other anion floating in solution. The glutamate ion is free to bind with any other cation in solution. Sodium ions, in normal quantities, have no negative or positive effect on the physiology of a human body, no more so than eating table salt, NaCl. Glutamate is an amino acid, which is useful to the body in building proteins. Neither, in the quantities that we ingest, can do anything. And if you do ingest huge quantities, my concern would be more from sodium overload than anything else. That's why anything discussed about MSG having some effect on the human body violates basic laws of chemistry and biology. MSG is a salt that becomes separate, innocuous ions in solution. That's why the "negative" research is nothing, except laughable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand what you are saying but things don't break down nice and neat the second you put them in your body. Doesn't your ability to digest a chemical depend on the total compound, where it is digested and how it is absorbed? For example, the sodium in sodium cyanide doesn't just automatically break down into sodium, carbon and nitrogen. It breaks you down:) Likewise, people with lactose intolerance don't properly break down lactose and it causes them problems. So I don't think that negative research is laughable--how MSG is metabolized is a serious and very real concern. But at least I now understand your position.FFN001 (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you're approaching tendentiousness. Actually, it's chemistry, and it does. MSG is a salt, and it dissociates in water, pure and simple. Your amateur knowledge of chemistry is becoming troublesome. Sodium cyanide does indeed dissociate into cyanide and sodium. CN will not break down because it is an organic bond, not an ionic one. Lactose intolerance has nothing to do with ionic chemistry it is simply an issue with lacking the necessary enzyme, lactase, to metabolize lactose. I'd say you were comparing apples to oranges, but it's more like apples to the crab nebula. Sigh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No. MSG is extremely soluble. It dissociates the instant it hits water.

Now some people have claimed that MSG is bad because it's more free glutamate than you would normally consume, and that this apparently causes a spike of glutamate in the blood stream which some doctors apparently believe is bad. I suppose that's all plausible. BUT MSG is chemically identical to the free glutamate that you would find in any bowl of soup or pot roast (when you cook food, some protein hydrolyzes, and some of it is free to begin with)—saying otherwise is chemical nonsense. Cool Hand Luke 01:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

So this debate boils down to your side arguing about how chemicals break down in solution and my side talking about digestion and breaking down chemicals in the body. No wonder we are on such different pages. The body does not break sodium cyanide into sodium and cyanide. Some cyanides are quite harmless in the human body--sodium cyanide is not one of them. This is relevant because it demonstrates that just because some components are harmless, in combinations, they may be harmful. Lactose intolerance is relevant because it shows that some people can't break lactose down into its smaller components, glucose and galactose, which can be absorbed into the blood stream. The key here is that MSG does not automatically break down--it must be broken down in digestion and, hence, it may have different properties from sodium and glutamate. You seem to be pretty sure of yourself when it comes to chemistry, now you just need to learn a bit about medicine and you will be on my side in no time at all:))FFN001 (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

FFN, please have a look at the image on the article page. Notice how all the atoms have lines drawn between them (the lines in the middle lead to Carbon atoms, which are always left out of organic diagrams by convention). Now look to the right where the sodium (Na+) and Oxgygen (O-) is located. Do you notice the lack of any lines joining them? That's not an accident. The sodium is not bonded to the glutamate as the parts of glutamate are bonded to each other, or the way in which lactose is bonded together. The sodium is essentially in an extremely weak bond held together by very weak electrochemical attraction, instead of something like an sp2 bond that holds lactose together. The bond is so weak that when it's placed in water, the polarised water molecules (basically, a weak H+H+O-) create a number of competing forces, some of them stronger than the bond to Na has to O. This happens in nanoseconds at room temperature or higher, and the sodium floats freely away, forming quasi O-H+ arrangements. It's like putting two weakly held together magnetic balls into a churning tank full of stronger magnetic balls - they're going to end up ripped apart, and very, very quickly. This is established, fully understood chemistry and happens with a variety of compounds. MSG is glutamate, and any effects caused by MSG are also going to be caused by glutamate (indeed, other, non sodium salts of glutamate are also used as flavor enhancers, as well as free glutamate from hydrolysis).

As for glutamate, I've spent hours reviewing the studies and the government reports, and marking cites to update the glutamic acid (flavor) article. It's a mess. The clear picture that arises from the research is that, even if it is likely wrong, there is enough evidence to suggest that that MSG taken in doses above 3g, without food, may trigger CRS type symptoms, although it lacks consistency and reproducibility (the studies showing this evidence note this themselves). There is also clear evidence that the effect isn't reproduced below 3g, or when MSG is given with food. (even if the effect is real, this is to be expected, since carbohydrates from food attentuate uptake and transport). In short, CRS anecdotes involving consumption with food have no scientific support, and the current text, which I'll be replacing shortly, is 100% supported: MSG as a food ingredient has been the subject of scientifically unsubstantiated health concerns. It's also extremely clear that MSG is safe in the long term. 59 animal studies have looked at neurotoxicity (and other long term health effects), and the ED50 for brains lesions in mice is 500mg/kg (other animals, including primates, seem far less sensitive). Furthermore, these studies were intravenous/subcutaneous, and there's a large body of evidence to suggest that glutamate is well metabolised by the digestive tract, meaning that spikes sufficient for these blood levels would require even higher doses. Toxicity studies and cancer studies have all come back negative, even at large doses. It's a very, very safe compound - it's far safer to eat 5g of MSG a day (which is 10x the average intake, BTW), than 5g of Salt#Health_effects a day. Phil153 (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Phil153

What do you mean by ED50? Is it a typo and you really mean LD50? Eshouthe (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Sodium cyanide also dissolves in solution. The cyanide ion is toxic; it doesn't matter what the cation is. Any soluble salt with the cyanide anion will be toxic; potassium cyanide, hydrogen cyanide, whatever. Similarly, the glutamate ion is the same compound no matter what the cation is. The ionic "bonds" are broken by being in solution. Cool Hand Luke 02:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to read up on this, and with the caveat that I'm pushing my chemistry beyond its limits, here is how it looks to me: MSG and NaCN both do ionize to some degree in aqueous solution, but not to the same degree as NaCl. Glutamic acid and cyanide both have electronegativities that, in combination with sodium, produce molecules that live somewhere near the border between polar and ionic, shading toward the polar side. Potassium cyanide, by the way, should be more ionic than sodium cyanide. Looie496 (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If you do find anything, it might be useful in Glutamic_acid_(flavor)#Glutamic_acid_versus_glutamate.Phil153 (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Looie, but they RAPIDLY dissociate in solution. You're going to confuse poor FFN001, who seems to think that monosodium glutamate, while still associated, has some deleterious effect on the body. Since it does dissociate, his logic fails, as does the logic of all the negative effects. FFN is attempting to rewrite chemistry. I'm not very supportive of original research in that area. And Phil, I wouldn't eat 5g of either in one sitting!!!! I'd be retaining water, then urinating for hours on end. Yes, that qualifies as way too much information!OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

←Let's review. Any ionic bond dissociates in solution. Unless there's some magical way of getting MSG in powdered from directly into an organ...oh wait, all organs are about 70% water, give or take, so the ionic bonds between Na and glutamate will break, probably during the cooking process (since, it's food, it's going to be...hold on here...about 70% water). The sodium ion is free to bind and unbind with just about any anion out there. Chloride is a favorite, but it can be carbonate or bicarbonate, or whatever else. Before MSG enters the body, it is probably already dissociated, and whatever hasn't, will immediately do so with contact with saliva. MSG, as a compound, will never be in touch with the body, because ingestion of anything (steak, tacos, birthday cake, the wonderful lox and bagels I had this morning, and my coffee) requires water. If I took a spoonful of MSG and tried to swallow it, I couldn't, because the osmolality would be such that the MSG would pull water out of every sell that it touches, thereby going into solution. But well before all of my cells collapse from the osmotic pressure, I'd down a big glass of water. MSG has no biological effect as a molecule, because of chemistry...it immediately dissociates, whether ingested, snorted, injected, or magically delivered through a PICC port. And there are no sides FFN. There is chemistry, and there is....not sure what it is, but it isn't chemistry. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so lets go with what you are saying. Is MSG absorbed faster than glutamates which are naturally occuring because of the sodium packaging? Is it possible that MSG simply collapses into its component forms FASTER than naturally bound glutamates?FFN001 (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, thanks to those of you who are taking this seriously and not trying to simply insult, condescend or get me to go away.FFN001 (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

MSG dissolves much faster than glutamate crystals, it's immensely soluble, so the free glutamate in solution becomes available faster. Also, MSG can be given in the absence of food, unlike other forms of free glutamate. Food appears, and is expected to, attentuate uptake significantly throughout the digestive tract. I'm unaware of any studies (either positive or negative) indicating whether glutamate or other amino acids are absorbed through the mouth and directly into the bloodstream, as some sugars and other comopounds are. That may be a mechanism for blood concentration spiking, I have no idea at all, but you could probably find out. All of the speculative mechanisms offered for CRS in the studies I've read revolve around absorption once into the stomach - in fact one of the suggestions is that MSG's causative mechanism in CRS (if such exists) might be through mildly upsetting the digestive tract, similar to salt, causing quasi psychological reactions which are not related to blood concentration at all. This is just speculation and there is apparently no evidence for this. Phil153 (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Phil, I don't mean to be picky, but what are you talking about? Glutamate crystals? To be in crystalline form, they have to be in a salt form, whether bound to sodium, potassium, calcium or some other cation. MSG is a crystal of glutamate. The sodium and glutamate ions would be absorbed in the small intestine, somewhat faster than food. But Glutamate is synthesized by the body. The physiological feedback systems of the cell and the body would probably react to a "spike" of glutamate. Moreover, whether glutamate is in the form of MSG, a bite of steak, or synthesized by your cells, they are chemically identical. No difference. None. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not acquainted with chemistry beyond freshman year. Studies I've read have said that MSG is more soluble than glutamic acid, which is why it is a more powerful flavor enhancer. Calling them "crystals" may be incorrect, as you note. Phil153 (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Note, this is in reply to FFN001. For the love of Pete, it's not the sodium! That doesn't matter at all (except insofar as sodium is unhealthy itself). For all purposed MSG is Glutamate. The only meaningful difference from MSG and the glutamic acid in protein is that MSG is already hydrolyzed from other amino acids. That is, it's "free" glutamate; MSG might conceivably be absorbed faster than protein because it is already free and not chemically bound. That's it. Everyone understands that free glutamate is the same stuff as MSG, even fringe crackpot sites that warn you about ingredient labels like "autolyzed yeast" and other hydrolyzed proteins, which serve the same flavoring purpose of MSG. Of course, free glutamate is also found "naturally" in foods, and some foods (like Parmesan cheese) have about as much MSG by weight as foods with additional added MSG. The fringe argument is that larger doses of free glutamate (as from added MSG) have deleterious effects. I wouldn't know about that; I have no medical training, but your arguments here have been chemical nonsense. Cool Hand Luke 17:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information everyone. I admit I am weak on chemistry--my focus is statistics. Do any of you have an opinion about why the FDA says that some people may have a sensitivity or why so many people (between 1-2% of Americans) believe they are sensitive? Could there be any truth--even if it is a stretch--in their claim at all?FFN001 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

People claiming they have a sensitivity is quite different than them actually having it of course. Many people believe that Elvis is still alive, for example. People get told things enough and some begin to believe them, even if the claim is not supported by evidence. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

FFN, to my knowledge, the FDA is being extremely cautious, and acknowledging the many anecdotes reported to them. They also noted that enough scientific evidence exists to suggest that >3g without food may trigger symptoms, but only without food. Further studies have been done since then per the FDA's recommendation, and they appear to support the existence of some effect using >3g, without food, and also the lack of this effect with food. As for the anecdotes, consider how many people respond with CRS symptoms to placebo in every one of the study showing effects from MSG. It's nearly as many as MSG. Even if there was no effect, that documented effect is a sufficient causative mechanism for every anecdote ever reported. I know it's unbelievable to think that tens of thousands of people could all be mistaken about their CRS triggers, but that's the nature of selection effects. The logic that "they can't all be wrong" only looks at the probability of the evidence presented, and not at the context in which it exists. See Baye's Theorem.

If you or anyone else wants to read an extremely thorough and well written summary and assessment of the evidence, with cites of just about every relevant study in this field, please see this(pdf) report from Food Standards Australia Phil153 (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the best single document on the subject I've seen. I think we should use this as a template for glutamate controversy sections. Cool Hand Luke 00:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, that pretty much ends this debate (not like there really was a debate). I am very troubled by some of the nonsense spread about Wikipedia, where basic science is ignored. I find it problematic that individuals propose a problem (MSG causing numerous non-specific medical complaints), yet no one explains how it might work. In this case, MSG is a simple salt of sodium (which is everywhere in our diet) and glutamate (which I think I just read as constituting about 40% of our food--kind of surprised by that number). Neither ion, in normal quantities, would do anything. In fact, if you could eat 5-10g of any sodium salt (it would be difficult), the consequences would be acute and quickly resolved. I always thought that Chinese Food syndrome was a result of high salt levels of the food itself, given that one of the major constituents of Chinese cooking is soy sauce, which contains a lot of sodium. Clearly individuals who ingest this salty food would have a temporary increase in blood pressure, which would lead to a whole raft of these nonspecific complaints. When I consume Chinese food, I usually drink a liter of water, which makes me feel bloated. None of this has anything to do with MSG. The Food Network recently ran an non-scientific experiment, blinded however, which had half of diners eating MSG containing and half control typical chinese food. The number of individuals who felt a problem were about equal in both groups. Now, the sad thing about bad science is that the group who had the MSG immediately blamed the MSG. My conclusion, based on an n=50 population (give or take), was that it was random, and both groups experienced symptoms, probably from the food itself. Well, I just typed out a few hundred characters of original research OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Luke, huh? My comments are chemical nonsense? You must be kidding, please show me where. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry. I was hoping this would be clear, but it's in response to FFN001's arguments that MSG is not equivalent to glutamate. The sodium doesn't make a difference (except, like you've said several times, that it's sodium, which does have physiological effects). Cool Hand Luke 23:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The German expert consensus paper PMID 16957679 is also freely available; make sure you read the corrigendum pdf as well. Quote: "Consensus. To clarify that added monosodium-L-glutamate (MSG) and all other glutamate salts dissociate in aqueous solutions and therefore are identical with free glutamic acid, only the term L-glutamate (GLU) should be used in the following statements." Xasodfuih (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sleeping Disorder

How can this article not mention the widely accepted affect MSG has on sleeping patterns? In addition, several studies detailing a correlation between the rise of MSG consumption in Japan in the seventies and subsequent increase in intestinal cancer should be included.

MSG is becoming pervasive in Western products too, yet this is not widely know with consumers. The article as it is, reads as if this increase in production underlines its safety. If we should be moderate with salt intake, we should be extremely careful with MSG. I can only conclude the article reeks of corporate meddling!

Lastly, on a personal level, as a foreigner living in China where MSG is omnipresent, I experience a moderate addiction to the substance and the slight energy boost and uplifted sensation it gives right after consumption. The "once you pop, you can't stop" quality of Pringles potato chips, known for its early adoption of MSG in its products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.142.237.53 (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Glutamic acid (flavor)

Most of the information here is repeated in the glutamic acid (flavor) article. Coming from a chemistry perspective I'm probably biased, but I recommend merging the two and title the article Monosodium Glutamate. --Jmcclare (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The conceptual difference between Umami, MSG, glutamic acid, and glutamic acid (flavor) aren't enormous. I support a merge back to this article; it's a much more intuitive title for information related to the flavor enhancer. Cool Hand Luke 19:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as you don't also merge this one with glutamic acid, I'm in favor. Sakkura (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I mean. MSG is almost synomynous with the flavor of glutamic acid, so it makes sense here. Cool Hand Luke 20:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. To clarify, I am suggesting we merge glutamic acid_(flavor) into this article (as most everything here is replicated there). The glutamic acid article should be left alone, it's a separate subject. Umami is a taste and should have it's own article. Primarily due to the publicity of MSG, I recommend that glutamic acid_(flavor) is merged into this article. Any content in glutamic acid_(flavor) that belongs elsewhere can be moved during the merge. --Jmcclare (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A merge seems in order - would like to suggest that glutamic acid_(flavor) is the better read ClansOfIntrigue (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We have just split the articles to keep completely different things and concepts in separate articles. The flavor aspect is NOT specific for the chemical monosodium glutamate, it is a property of glutamic acid in any form. I strongly oppose to re-merge the articles. Сасусlе 07:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I really am biased. Okay, I re-read glutamic acid_(flavor) and now agree that it should be a separate article, but I'm wondering if the article shouldn't be merged into umami instead. Whatever, it's out of my area of expertise. --Jmcclare (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read the umami article, you will find that it is about a taste (that can be elicited by many unrelated and structurally disssimilar compounds), and not about glutamate as a flavor enhancer, the health scare controversy related to glutamate, and it health effects. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to merge glutamic acid_(flavor) into any other article. Сасусlе 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

MSG - Toxic?

I've been investigating E-numbers - in sweets - and apparently Monosodium Glutamate is toxic. I'm not sure, but this has come from the Ministries of Health for many countries, including UK and USA.

The only thing I can say is that there are no evidence given for it to be toxic. I looked for more about E621, E262 and E263 (all containing Glutamate) which are also classed as Toxic on Wikipedia. No evidence given. However, what I did find was it caused was Intestine Upset (or diahreoa), skin disorders such as Eczema, and bad headaches. I will try to find out more, but someone tell me an answer...

(Monicars31 (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, John Olney and others found that glutamic acid caused brain lesions and neuroendocrine disorders. Often the glutamic acid they used in their research was monosodium glutamate (brand name Accent) purchased in grocery stores. If somethig kills brain cells, it is toxic.Truthinlabeling (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Table salt -- sodium chloride -- is toxic too if you place crystals of it directly into the brain. Experiments of that sort have no relevance to the toxicity of the substance when used as a food additive. Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

But laboratory animals suffered brain damage when fed glutamic acid. "Fed" is the operative word.Truthinlabeling (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Glutamate & cooking

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC) ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

EU, E-numbers & Controversy

In the controversy section under the heading of the European Union the article states only that MSG has been given the E number E621. An E number only means that an additive has been approved by the EU for use in food, it doesn't imply that, in the view of the EU the additive is of special interest. Rubensni (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

CBS 60 minutes about MSG health hazards

CBS 60 minutes [3] produced a 13 minute news segment in 1991 about the risks with MSG and the politics behind MSG with interviews with the leading figures in this controversy. 60 minutes should be considered a WP:RS and the contents should therefore be integrated in this article or the glutamic acid article.MaxPont (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Migraine Headaches

This article is incomplete without mentioning migraine headaches. A look at the revision of this article shows that the subject has been debated by various editors and the mention of migraines has been added to and removed from the article more than once. In my personal research on the matter, I have found that there are extreme views on both sides of the debate. Some individuals and organizations claim that MSG is the cause of all sorts of health problems, while others claim that it has never been shown to cause problems in anyone. As is common with extreme views, the truth may well exist somewhere in the middle. I do not know much about the various health risks being mentioned here, but I can tell you for a fact that MSG does cause migraines and similar symptoms in some individuals. I do not know if there are any formal studies that "prove" this fact or not, and it really shouldn't matter; it is my intent simply to constructively warn other individuals about the potential problem for their own wellbeing, as I know several individuals who have suffered migraine headaches and related symptoms for many years without having heard about what I will phrase the "possible connection". I consider a good example of the problem to be a case where the individual in question was a small child who was suffering chronic migraines and her doctors were in the process of checking for extreme problems like brain tumors, but had not even mentioned the potential connection with MSG. Because of cases such as this one, I would like to recommend that all academic debates on the matter be dropped in favor of potentially helping people suffering migraines by providing them with information that may be useful to them. In other words, there are people who have been suffering because they have not heard about the potential connection between MSG and migraines. In addition to the article here, I would also like to make sure the following sentence or something similar be placed somewhere in the main article:

Some individuals experience migraine headaches after consuming MSG.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous081222 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

My sense: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advice column, not matter how well intentioned. Those with strong views should start a blog or publish. Many authors become frustrated because they feel compelled to telling the world some truth or giving advice, both laudable tendencies, but not what this project is about (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not), in my humble opinion. Not all good intentions are welcome everywhere. If you feel very strongly on the subject, you probably should not be editing on it.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and assistance, I do appreciate that. Although my own position is not neutral, I was attempting to make a case for the validity and importance of including the information in the main article without going through a long academic debate on the matter. However, if that is the approach I am being asked to take in order to including this information, I will do so, as I think the information is perfectly valid if it is stated appropriately. Phrasing things as "potential connection" and "some individuals" is a careful method to clarify that the information has been debated. This information is then factual and (it is a fact that there MAY be a connection to MSG since it is so heavily debated, but saying that there IS a connection may be debated). In fact, I originally placed my simple, single-line edit under "health controversy", controversy meaning something that is debated. This is much along the same lines as the legal system calling someone "alleged"; when the news reports someone is an "alleged criminal", they are carefully making sure that the situation has not been formally proven. I firmly believe that inclusion of this information with the "potential" modifier makes the information absolutely and completely factual.

Wikipedia is a well-known and important source of information and this article would be in factual error not to include information about this subject at least as a "health controversy" subject. The problem with my own blog or trying to become published is that less people will see it. To be perfectly honest, I have zero desire to have to author and debate changes to this article, but do want to make sure that someone corrects the omission.

So my point here is to convince you and others that this information does belong here in some form. That said, I know many people who experience a migraine every time they consume MSG (myself included). I could certainly ask how that fact is not factual enough for wikipedia, but will take the "health controversy" approach as a compromise since the world is built on compromise. There should be no question that there is a debate on the subject, as we are having one right now. How about the following sentence?:

Some individuals claim to experience migraine headaches after consuming MSG.

The word "claim" makes the sentence perfectly factual.

Please feel free to suggest changes to my statement, but please discuss them with me rather than removing it - thank you.

By the way, is this talk area an appropriate place to discuss this subject? If you think it would be more appropriate, we could perhaps take this to a different forum.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous081222 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The way to get information of the nature you seek included is to cite a scholarly book or review (not a TV show, newspaper, magazine, blog, web-source - something serious that grownups pay attention to). My main advice is to walk away from the issue and work on something else because editors that feel passionately are usually ineffectual allies of their pet issues.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to debate the issue further if you want, but I feel that the issue needs to focus on a productive debate of the points I have raised. Advising someone to "walk away and work on something else" is not part of a productive debate. Also, I apologize if I misunderstand, but the phrase "something serious that grownups pay attention to" sounds a little ... counterproductive to me, as well. If you feel any point I have raised is not valid, please feel free to debate it with me politely. Lastly, do not forget that my whole point is about adding one single, simple, entirely factual line about a possible MSG problem to the article. I don't mean to step on any toes here (as I said, all I want is for the article to mention this issue), I just think it is very important that people have the all the facts (whether they are controversial or not). Don't you? Why is this a problem? Do you have a personal stake in the opposite viewpoint? I don't have any interest in getting into "flame wars" etc. online. I'm not here to sit at my computer and anonymously debate for some kind of weird argument-based enjoyment like many people do on forums. That's not my thing at all. I'm very, very serious about the importance of warning people about MSG migraines ... excuse me, the potential that some individuals claim that MSG may cause migraines. Anonymous081222 (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Smokefoot's advice is sound, and I'll expand on the reasons why you should follow it:

1. The main standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It may well be true that some people claim that MSG causes migraines, but if you can't find a reliable source to back it up (and the personal experience of editors is not considered to be a reliable source) then it doesn't deserve to go in. Using the "some people claim..." construction doen't help -- it is an example of weasel words. We still need to know who is making these claims? How many are there? Why are they making these claims?
2. It is possible for partisan editors to make useful contributions, but it is difficult to keep one's strongly held opinions at bay whilst striving for neutrality. You may be better off working on some other articles that are not so dear to your heart so you can get a feel for how Wikipedia works before returning to this article.

There is another reason why your statement should not remain: This article is specifically about MSG and not about glutamates in general. MSG is one of many substances that contain significant amounts of free glutamate. Any health concerns about free glutamate properly belongs in the more general glutamic acid article (which does in fact mention, with a reference, that some people report headaches after consuming MSG.) Duncan Keith (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There is clearly a lot of support for the health link between migraine headaches and MSG. It shouldn't be buried on some other page that few people visit--it needs to be on the highest volume page. It did need a cite however so I put it back in. Sorry MSG association/producers--its staying in this time. FFN001 (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Any health related effects of glutamate should go into the glutamic acid article as MSG is just one form of this active compound. Health related effects must be referenced to a reliable source, preferable a primary source (i.e. a peer reviewed scientific publication) and and the notability of an effect must be demonstrated to warrant an inclusion (i.e. extremely rare and poorly documented effects should not go into an article in order not to put undue weight onto a minor aspect). Unreferenced or poorly referenced questionable content will be removed without further discussion. Creating sockpuppets and single-purpose accounts or anonymous editing (such as User:Anonymous081222, User:Guruofmsg, User:Kupos, User:Habnigtres, User:FFN001, User:200.83.216.241) will not help you. Cacycle (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A '.gov' citation is definitely a legitimate cite for wiki. Where is your source that says MSG does not cause migraines? Are you saying that your opinion is more valid than a legitimate cite? Also, I am not posting under different accounts--I have been watching this exchange for a while now and I can't believe how you are treating all the people who try to show the health concerns. I finally decided to step in and I hope that other people will too. You were right that the guy who didn't have any cites needed to include one--so I put some in for him and I worded it more strongly because that guy was too soft. Since you still are fighting and coming up with all sorts of invalid excuses, it is obvious that you have a vested interest in not having the wiki page show the link between migraine headaches and MSG. If you find a cite from a neutral source saying that MSG does not cause migraines and we will change the wording to say that there is conflicting evidence. Otherwise, please stop changing that section. FFN001 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

1. For disputed and questionable statements the burden of proof is on your side and you have to provide more reliable references, either primary references or secondary literature that can be traced back to a primary reference. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
2. You have to provide evidence for the notability of the stated effects, see Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue_weight.
3. This is the wrong article, health-related effects effects of glutamic acid should go into the glutamic acid article, MSG is just one of many possible forms (salts) of glutamic acid.

Please take your time to read the provided links to the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and discuss future changes here first. Cacycle (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, there are several recent scientific review articles that come to the conclusion that glutamate is not a relevant migraine trigger: PMID 10736382, PMID 16999713, PMID 15806385. Cacycle (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The studies that you provided which claimed "no effect" didn't actually claim no effect. They simply conducted a review which attempted to minimize the results. Note that in the first study you showed which claimed no effect they actually found an effect--but then claimed it was not reproducible. I've provided an additional cite. If you would like to contest this, then at least say that there is a controversial effect. This could turn into a never ending battle of citations. We could go back to that anonymous guy's "some people claim that MSG triggers migraines" which is undeniable and every one of our references (yours and mine) show at least that. Is that a fair compromise or are you really that beholden to the industry? FFN001 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, FFN, I appreciate your stepping in. You are absolutely right - why did they dispute my original statement that "some people claim" and then later provide sources that prove that very fact? It seems really odd that these guys are fighting so hard to keep this well-documented fact off of this article, you must be right that they must have some conflict of interest. Anonymous081222 (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome newcomer(s) (I am also relatively new). However, I have some constructive criticism for content that appears to be referenced by you. According to the NIH source, MSG is listed as one of many triggers to migraines. Therefore, it appears, IMHO (in my humble opinion), innacurate and overstated to simply write "MSG causes migraine headaches in some people." It looks like an improper synthesis, especially after one clicks on the NIH link to "Migraine cause" which discusses a theorized CNS disorder as the cause. I considered making the edits right now, as editors are encouraged to be bold. However, in an attempt to reason with you calmly and in a civil fashion, I have stated my case here. Please do not be surprised if these edits are done soon. I am supposed to assume good faith, however, some of your editing is disheartening to see. Please do not be combative, please listen to others, and please try to understand that WP is a collaborative project. I too, debated things with experienced editors when I started editing, and thought there was some type of organized collective effort against me. However, there is no conspiracy here. Rather, it is open: we want WP to follow the guidelines set for it. It's just that new editors who potentially appear as overly alarmist (which some editors might even consider me as [see PFOA and the talk page there]) make an easy type of new editor to spot that might be in it for the wrong reasons. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I am not sure I completely understand the distinction you are making between 'MSG is one of many migraine triggers' and 'MSG causes migraine headaches in some people.' To me it seems like the same thing so I am more than willing to rewrite the statement to say it is a potential trigger. But I have three citations, plus the three that cacycles gave saying it MIGHT be a trigger--that should be enough evidence. We need to include the health links. This is important. Migraines can change a person's life. If even one person is able to identify their trigger from this article, we will have made an important contribution to wiki and I would be proud to be a part of that. Note that we are not being very alarmist at all. We are not including the link between Chinese food Syndrome and MSG or the many other plethora of health issues suggested. If anything, we are being very soft on MSG. Also, since every health issue keeps getting deleted it is not unlikely that someone associated with or someone with a vested interest in the MSG industry is involved. Internet monitoring is part of many public relations campaigns. FFN001 (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Yes please rewrite it. It will probably gain you some good favor from others. Even if you had 100 references that said it was a trigger to a cause, I still would consider it a an improper synthesis to state simply that it was a cause (and not a trigger). I am not going to try to explain the difference again because that's for the NIH to do (your source after all ;-) ). I know I know, it's a fine line between the two. But it serves as a useful example of what we strive for on WP. Thank you for bringing up your concerns about migraines. I know they can be disruptive for affected individuals. I also bet that you could find a good source that talks about migraines. Then you could edit the migraine page. =) But new users who appear to be solely trying to "play doctor" (not meant to offend) by "exposing" environmental triggers on an encyclopedia isn't what WP needs, IMHO. Not to say this information shouldn't be covered, because WP does not censor. However, content has to be balanced and generally, we edit like crazy! And that may cut out the info you added. This is a wiki. It will always be that way. We want people that will improve WP in a variety of ways. And "playing nicely" is one of them. You have your health link on the page, so don't worry about the PR campaigns. I also want to say that I respect Cacycle's opinion, and I may side with that contributor as the discussion evolves (because Consensus can change with discussion.) I do not want the article to mention migraines if it is an unbalanced contribution. (For an example of imbalance, if you went to the migraine page and started talking about MSG when there are triggers deemed more important for individuals [in good sources], that are not mentioned, then you would have contributed to the imbalance of the article, even if you prevent 1 headache.) We have to care more about the state of WP, than a headache, as WP editors. But please, relax, and maybe you can stay a while. WP isn't suited for everyone's personality, IMHO. If you keep resisting people while and disregarding their logic no one is going to welcome your contributions, unfortunately. After all, everyone likes working with easy going people, more so than difficult ones. I hope you understand the importance of everything I have said, because I have been trying to stick to WP policies. Thanks again. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Shootbamboo: My two cents here. First of all, thank you for the input. Although I disagree with a few points, I appreciate someone finally debating/suggesting reasonably with FFN and I (sorry, but many others were not, for example, the early suggestion that I just go away and statements like "something serious that grownups pay attention to" were anything but reasonable). That said, I'd recommend that you re-read what I have written more carefully and you will see that I have been extremely logical and reasonable (and incredibly patient). FFN, also (thanks FFN). So I'm not sure at all what you are are trying to get at there, I'd suggest you reconsider that particular point no matter how you feel about the actual issue. But not to get side-tracked by that.

Someone who really has the best interests of wikipedia in mind helps with constructive suggestions rather than hindering with no end of far-reaching policy excuses as to why it can't be added. For example, you are the first person (besides myself and FFN) to actually suggest an alternative sentence rather than just fighting against it. That is constructive, thank you. I don't think FFN nor I have by any means been disregarding previous opinions, but sometimes constructively disagreeing with them, especially when they were counter-productive.

Yes, if pointing out the link between MSG and migraines helps someone, that's crucial. It does matter and should be pointed out. Migraines (which are very serious and differ significantly from normal headaches) are no small matter. That said, please make no mistake; we're still debating facts here.

So the issue is whether this sentence belongs as a fact or not. Please understand that the issue of adding a single sentence about migraines is being extremely over-complicated and over-analyzed when it is in fact VERY simple: MSG causes migraines in some people. Period. There are a ton of reliable references for it. Or my original statement that "some people claim" shouldn't even be debated (why that was ever debated makes zero sense). Also VERY simple and even more well-documented. I appreciate and agree with the importance of following policy and have been doing so (and then some). I didn't have the references originally but FFN fixed that for me. So with that in mind, all the excessive and far-reaching debate about various policies appears to me to be nothing more than an attempt at obfuscating the fact that this is a concise, factual, single sentence backed up by a ton of references. Please consider backing up and taking a fresh look at it: it is a simple fact, simple statement, and supported by many reliable references. Anonymous081222 (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I should clarify: The sentence as it now stands seems pretty reasonable to me (although I don't really agree it was necessary to change what FFN had). FFN: What do you think? Anonymous081222 (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  It looks good to me. 

FFN001 (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You have now repeatedly not addressed a single of my objections from above:

1. For disputed and questionable statements the burden of proof is on your side and you have to provide more reliable references, either primary references or secondary literature that can be traced back to a primary reference. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. All recent scientific review articles came to the conclusion that glutamate is not a relevant migraine trigger: PMID 10736382, PMID 16999713, PMID 15806385. You have failed to provide a more reliable reference, so your idea is an obvious fringe position. I detail, your first reference (Journal of Nutrition 125 (11), 2891S) does not even mention migraine. The second one is an unreferenced list of putative migraine triggers and as such is not a reliable reference. The third one is a book that is not available online and the missing page number suggests that you have not read it. In any way, recent review articles that discuss these earlier and controversial reports and put them into context clearly top your list of selected and poor references.
2. You have to provide evidence for the notability of the stated effects, see Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue_weight. E.g., low quality single case reports do neither establish a general effect nor notability of an effect.
3. This is still the wrong article, health-related effects effects of glutamic acid from foods should go into the glutamic acid (flavor) article into the existing health concerns section. MSG is just one of many possible forms (salts) of glutamic acid.

Every single point would warrant the removal of your additions and if you fail to address them we will remove that content. Also, it was not a good idea to re-insert your content without reaching consensus here first as I have urged you earlier. Cacycle (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cacycle: Please reread our comments--each of your comments have been addressed in detail. The statement does need to be there--even the FDA says that there are short term health problems for some people. Our report is from the 1995 independent study that was conducted on behalf of the FDA--research doesn't get much more credible than that (though some people believe that the FDA is supressing the negative effects of MSG). We don't have the full report because it costs $50. Hence, we have provided a lot of evidence why it should be there. In fact, so have you. Even your cites support the basic point that "some people claim to experience migraine headaches after eating MSG" even though your studies come to the baffling conclusion that more research is needed to establish a link. And I even found a cite to show why your studies may have came to the wrong conclusion--the placebos actually caused migraines too! I can't understand why you are fighting this simple statement. It can't be that the link between MSG and migraines is irrelevant, unbalanced or that it is some crazy conspiracy theory that a few "nuts" believe in--otherwise the FDA wouldn't have received over 622 formal complaints between 1980 and 1994 and they certainly wouldn't have contracted independent researchers to have it researched in detailed in the 1995 report and they wouldn't require it to be listed separately on labels. What is your motivation? I am inspired by Shootbamboo to ask you to explain yourself rather than just assuming you have an insidious purpose. So why are you fighting this? FFN001 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong above. I skimmed the NIH source too quickly in an attempt that, IMHO, assumed too much good faith. The NIH source says MSG may be a trigger. Therefore, I will edit the page to reflect this. I agree with Cacycle that this appears to as an obvious fringe view and I would have no problem with the content being removed. Apologies. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait wait wait--let me quote from the FDA just so we are all on the same page: "Between 1980 and 1994, the Adverse Reaction Monitoring System in FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition received 622 reports of complaints about MSG. Headache was the most frequently reported symptom.". Now how can that possibly be a "fringe" view? There is even a link on THIS page to the 60 minutes special about the negative effects of MSG. Fringe view? What is going on here? I bet this is how scientists felt when they tried to point out that cigarettes caused lung cancer. FFN001 (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I also linked the Chinese Restaurant Syndrome page to this one since they are related. FFN001 (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

FFN: Thank you, looks good.

Cacycle/Shootbamboo/etc: "obvious fringe view" is counter-productive, an opinion (!), and sounds a lot to me like an attempt to discredit us rather than sticking to the issue at hand. There were a number of other attempts by Cacycle and Smokefoot at discreditting us as well (see above) - why would this be necessary if you feel your position is correct? Please refrain from such statements if you wish to keep your own credit intact.

Cacycle:

The issues HAVE been addressed, repeatedly; constructively disagreeing with them does not mean that they haven't been. I would suggest you review what has previously been written.

Let me point out yet again that this issue is VERY simple and I can't help but feeling that you are trying to obfuscate the issue by over-complicating it, so let me continue to repeat myself: This is a concise, factual, single sentence backed up by a ton of references. It is VERY simple. Despite this, every one of your points have still been addressed. Furthermore, the fact that MSG causes migraines in some people has been watered way, way down to where no one could reasonably agree the point. And still you fight against it, rather than making constructive suggestions, which is counter-productive and won't give your own position any credit at all.

Your points have all been addressed (whether or not you agree with the answers). But rather than claiming that they have not been addressed, how about making some constructive suggestions? Right now, all your points have been presented with the "no, you can't add this" brick wall approach, which will do no one any good. I hope you will make no more changes, because what FFN wrote is great. However, if you do decide to continue debating the point, why not try making constructive suggestions rather than taking the brick wall approach? Further, if you do decide to continue to debate the point, please address MY point here (a point I brought up many days ago and still hasn't been addressed, by the way) - thanks. Anonymous081222 (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

622 self reports prove nothing. there is always the placebo effect. in other words, you might get a headache if you had MSG with your food. but your belief would cause it, the same way your belief (POV) is driving your edits. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear FFN001/Anonymous081222: You still have not addressed my objections:

1. All recent scientific review articles that have reviewed the whole evidence (including your FDA report!) came to the conclusion that MSG is not a relevant trigger for migraine. Wikipedia is not the right place to advance your personal opinions, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
2. Migraine triggers can be myriads of events, including smells. But we would not add a migraine trigger remark to every odorant article unless there would be evidence for a general, non-unique effect. This is what we call notability. If it only happened in a single person with poor documentation then it should not be included here.
3. Any effect of MSG is caused by its biologically active part, glutamic acid. Therefore, we have moved health-related issues to glutamic acid (flavor). What is your reason to duplicate that content here? Please read Wikipedia:POV fork.

Some further remarks to your essays: 1. Headaches are not migraine. 2. Headaches are an extremely common health issue and uncontrolled anecdotal reports about an association with MSG have a very low informative value, especially during a widely publicized health scare about MSG. 3. Your reference (Strong, 2000) has nothing to do with this dispute. Please also do not continue to add this reference to articles as its methodology is seriously flawed (number of experiments too low, no statistical analysis, no control conditions, no blinding...). Cacycle (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe Cacycle is correct here. If this article had been written in 1999, it would have had to mention migraine. However, most of the evidence at that time was anecdotal, and anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable for things like this: MSG is never consumed in isolation, so people are really just guessing when they attribute headaches to it. In the meantime, careful studies have been conducted using proper methodology, and they have not found any linkage. Thus, a connection between MSG and migraine was somewhat plausible 10 years ago but currently has no significant support. Looie496 (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.... let me guess: no evidence will EVER good enough, no study will EVER valid enough, and no citation will EVER strong enough---therefore no real information about health concerns will ever be acceptable on the high-traffic MSG page. Wow, I was only moderately skeptical of MSG before this debate, but given how hard people are pushing to hide the health concerns, I am starting to think that I should be terrified of the stuff! Well, unless you want to be in a never-ending battle I suggest you compromise and offer constructive feedback. FFN001 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cacycle/etc: You are creating OPINIONS based on the evidence, not looking at the simple facts of the matter. Does MSG cause migraines in some individuals? YES. There are reliable references everywhere. Try at you might, you simply cannot argue that fact away. The facts are in front of everyone.

Let me give you some advise: If you want to convince anyone of your point (myself, the folks who agree with me such as FFN, or readers who have not posted), you will have to debate the facts constructively. Attacking valid sources, grasping at straws and attempting to dazzle us with various wikipedia guidelines, attempting to discredit us, bringing in existing allies (or are they sockpuppets?), obfuscating the point with illogical complication, attempting to bury the information in other articles, attempts to get immature responses out of us, etc. are absolutely transparent, will not convince anyone, and only weakens your argument. You are left with one choice: make constructive suggestions. You have no chance to win the debate without being constructive and logical.

So, that said, do you have any of those constructive suggestions I've been requesting? Your lack of constructive suggestions / constructive debate speaks volumes about your motives. It clearly isn't the benefit of wikipedia.

Although we are debating facts, let me remind you yet again of something of vital importance: Withholding information for the sake of money, ego, self-delusion, or whatever motives you have is withholding vital information that does affect peoples' wellbeing (migraines are a HUGE ordeal, not just normal headaches). wikipedia is a highly regarded and highly used source of information. Not putting the simple, factual, well-documented health information about migraines here is clearly against BOTH the spirit of wikipedia and good morals. People are frequently outright HURT by lack of information. I know I couldn't do that, no matter how much someone was paying. Don't delude yourselves; withholding this information can hurt people. Anonymous081222 (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, let me address your most recent points:

> 1. All recent scientific review articles that have reviewed the whole evidence > (including your FDA report!) came to the conclusion that MSG is not a relevant trigger for > migraine. Wikipedia is not the right place to advance your personal opinions, see > Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.

You are summarizing the results of the references incorrectly, as FFN has already explained very clearly. The only personal opinion here is the one you have listed. As far as the link: well, that's certainly good information and now everyone can now see how very well you know wikipedia.

> 2. Migraine triggers can be myriads of events, including smells. But we would not add a > migraine trigger remark to every odorant article unless there would be evidence for a general, > non-unique effect. This is what we call notability. If it only happened in a single person > with poor documentation then it should not be included here.

MSG is an especially well-known and strong cause of migraines. They belong here above and beyond any other cause. The cites make this very clear. Maybe you can fill me in: what is the technical wikipedia term for cites making something crystal clear?

> 3. Any effect of MSG is caused by its biologically active part, glutamic acid. > Therefore, we have moved health-related issues to glutamic acid (flavor). What is your reason > to duplicate that content here? Please read Wikipedia:POV fork.

Ah, good question. I frequently write highly-regulated technical documentation, and it is a common practice to put information within the document for which it is most relevant. More importantly, the issue at hand is MSG and migraines, not glutamic acid and migraines. What is the wikipedia term for burying information where it is far less likely to be seen?

> Some further remarks to your essays: > 1. Headaches are not migraine.

Migraines frequently include a special, very lengthy, extremely painful form of headache. They do often encompass other symptoms, as well. But the headache is almost always the highlight of the experience. Thus the term "migraine headache".

> 2. Headaches are an extremely common health issue and uncontrolled anecdotal reports about an > association with MSG have a very low informative value, especially during a widely publicized > health scare about MSG.

Sorry, this point is highly flawed. Although there IS a ton of anecdotal evidence (which, by the way, is factual; don't let the connotation of the word "anecdotal" mislead you), we are debating facts as they are supported by cites. This sounds like both an opinion and an attempt to undermine the validity of the information. Note that "health scare" can be a misleading term as it can imply a lack of validity (please refer me to the appropriate wikipedia term for misleading terms).

> 3. Your reference (Strong, 2000) has nothing to do with this dispute. Please also do not > continue to add this reference to articles as its methodology is seriously flawed (number of > experiments too low, no statistical analysis, no control conditions, no blinding...).

That is also incorrect. Your analysis of the value of these references is an opinion.

These points are not only invalid, but more importantly, counter-productive. A constructive point would be a helpful suggestion rather than a bunch of reasons why the information cannot be added. Further, it would be presented in a clean, neutral manner, meaning there would be no transparent attempts to strengthen your position by demonstrating your personal experience with various wikipedia terms or careful use of strong terms that attempt to undermine the validity of a point. I don't mind debating an issue in a constructive manner, but I do not like the use of such techniques. If you have further points to debate, please do so in a constructive manner. Anonymous081222 (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Looie496:

Well, let me address these points:

> I believe Cacycle is correct here.

Really? Well, that's just great that someone who doesn't know Cacycle and has a neutral, unbiased viewpoint on the matter can chime in now - thanks. I must admit to being curious as to who will chime in next.

> If this article had been written in 1999, it would have had to mention migraine. However, most of the evidence at that time was anecdotal, and anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable for things like this:

Well, it's a good thing there are so many cites to back up all that overwhelming anecdotal evidence.

> MSG is never consumed in isolation, so people are really just guessing when they attribute headaches to it.

Yeah, a big platter of MSG if a pretty frightening thought. Most people just check the additives in their foods after a nasty migraine and find MSG listed prominently on something they've accidentally consumed. But we obviously can't take overwhelming anecdotal evidence into account, so we've been using cites.

> In the meantime, careful studies have been conducted using proper methodology, and they have not found any linkage.

Untrue. We have all the appropriate cites.

> Thus, a connection between MSG and migraine was somewhat plausible 10 years ago but currently has no significant support.

Sorry, there's all kinds of significant support and your point here is nothing more than opinion. That's really interesting that you know so much about the history of MSG. What's your background with it? Anonymous081222 (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to miss you, Shootbamboo:

> 622 self reports prove nothing. there is always the placebo effect. > in other words, you might get a headache if you had MSG with your food. but your belief would cause it, the same way your belief (POV) is driving your edits. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, I don't buy that. First of all, any study can be questioned; that is a matter of opinion. Secondly, you are incorrectly summarizing the results of the study, please reread it. Thirdly, there's a ton of references out there. If you don't like it, go find another one and add it for us. Arguing is counter-productive.

By the way, you are losing credibility when you use phrases such as "the same way your belief (POV) is driving your edits". That statement is counter-productive, an opinion, and accusational. And certainly incorrect.

You sure changed your position on this awfully fast. I'm glad you and Looie496 can come in with such a neutral, unbiased view and participate. Anonymous081222 (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Migraine Headaches subsection for editing ease

It seems to me that the link between MSG and headache is tenuous; some earlier uncontrolled studies reported headache, whereas it was uncommon in the more rigorous, placebo-controlled trials which followed. Some reviews list headache as a possible adverse reaction to MSG, and others do not. I think this can be summarized rather easily, in fact, as an area of ambiguity. On the other hand, this article is emphatically not the place to list every potential reaction attributed to glutamate. Such material should be centralized, probably in glutamic acid (flavor), where it exists now. In particular, since headache is at best ambiguously linked to MSG, we should not be citing it as a key "example" of adverse effects in this article (see [4]). The apparent use of multiple accounts is concerning here, but I think we can probably reach some agreement on how to present this material. MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Certainly makes good sense to compromise, as I've been suggesting over and over (in fact, my original suggestion "some people claim" was a huge compromise). But I have to emphatically disagree with burying the material: migraines belongs here. Citing it as an example (since it is a primary symptom) was actually a great idea, although it does water it down somewhat. Understand that this has been the central issue: MSG leads to migraines in many individuals. When I originally couldn't find the word "migraine" on the MSG page, I was shocked at the obvious, glaring omission. Therefore, that much must remain within the MSG article. It can be reasonably rephrased (use of words like "trigger"), additional symptoms can be listed, opposing viewpoints may be listed as well, it may be watered down with "some people claim", we can list more cites, etc. but that's it; the statement of fact needs to remain on this page in one form or another.

Yeah, I'm kind of concerned about the multiple accounts thing, too; I wouldn't go so far as to call them Cacycle sockpuppets, but they certainly do appear to be pre-existing allies with no interest in neutrality. But in the interest of taking the high ground and sticking to the point rather than playing games with undermining reputation and such, I've tried to point it out only subtly up to this point. But since you brought it up, I did need to address it more explicitly. Anonymous081222 (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I must insist that the individuals who keep removing the "migraine" subject from the article refrain from doing so. "AndrewC" or whatever didn't even post here before doing so. I have followed all the appropriate steps and bent over backwards to debate logically (in an honest, forthright manner, which is NOT the case with the opposing viewpoint) and compromise.

We've debated if MSG leads to migraines. SOME INDIVIDUALS CLAIM that MSG leads to migraine cannot be debated; every piece of evidence we've looked at supports that. So I added that much.

Stop removing my posts using your non-neutral allies (a totally inappropriate practice that is every bit as bad as that sockpuppet thing you were incorrectly accusing me of before). It has become glaringly obvious that reasonable debate means absolutely nothing here; all attempts at logic and compromise have ended with the equivalent of "no you can't add it" and a bunch of underhanded debate techniques from an obvious group of allies - yes, it really is THAT transparent (if you had a valid point, why would you need such techniques?). Which leads me to the subject of your next inappropriate debate technique (following the long string of other inappropriate debate techniques; see above): adding a new section with a much less neutral subject header. As well as fracturing an existing discussion.

Here's the deal. We've been debating for quite a while now. We obviously disagree and could go around and around forever. My points are completely correct and I do not even begin to agree with the opposing viewpoint's logic (or rather, lack thereof), but I'm still willing to compromise to put an end to this (actually, I was willing to compromise from the very beginning). What I know is correct enough for both the good of the article and for the people who may benefit from it is that the "some people claim MSG causes migraines" information remains on the page (I've added something that that does just this). That's a huge compromise, by the way, from FFN's harder line that we should keep the "MSG causes migraines" statement (sorry, FFN, hope you don't mind, I just think we can't reason with these people and need to compromise). I'm asking for this one, single, universally-supported, inarguable statement that "some people claim". Every piece of evidence we've gone around and around on supports it. What do you say? Anonymous081222 (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to put "some people claim" without strong evidence or weight; see WP:NPOV#UNDUE.

Why did you revert my addition of a sectionheader to split this into loadable, editable chunks? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

But there is overwhelming evidence everywhere, specifically in every cite mentioned. Are you going to next tell me that the sky isn't blue? Please, no one is being fooled, so I'd suggest you and your pre-existing allies not waste your time. So are you guys going to take the compromise or not? If not, I think we'll be debating endlessly. I'd rather not, especially given the highly inappropriate debate methods and lack of logic being used by your group.

Your obvious attempt to highlight your own post with a new section was reversed in order to put the discussion back into the section where it belongs. However, if you really believe that it should be broken up, you won't have any problem with me making the first post for the new section. Anonymous081222 (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My "obvious attempt"? I didn't even post until just now. A false accusation.

My "pre-existing allies"? I arrived here via the Fringe noticeboard.

Your personal attacks are unwarranted and unappreciated. I suggest you AGF and learn to be civil.

Now, finally BACK on topic and away from Anon's unconscionable attacks on my character: No, several cites mention the "some people" thing, yes: That does not indicate enough weight to be included per UUNDUE and NPOV and NOT. If you believe there is sufficient mainstream belief/evidence/references that there is a connection, please be specific, and state that here. And add a sectionbreak somewhere above here in this section, this is Too Long and my browser is having problems. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am being very civil given the circumstances (certainly far more than I've been treated); if you had read the discussion fully, you would have seen that there is a HUGE problem here with non-neutral, pre-existing allies, amoung countless other inappropriate debate techniques (such as countless attacks on MY character and FFN's). Anyone who is actually neutral will take a constructive, neutral approach to this. What we need now is someone to make productive suggestions, NOT take the counter-productive and highly illogical "no" approach. If you think that there are better cites than what we already have, then please by all means go grab some of them; I certainly have no problems with productive suggestions and assistance. Anonymous081222 (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

1. In what way have I treated you ill?
2. How does the treatment you have received render you exempt from NPA?
3. I don't desire adding the content in question. You do. The onus is on you to convince me. It is not my job to find your refs. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You treated me ill? Please do not misquote me; that's not what I said. I said I have been treated very badly (FFN, too), in a general sense, by those of the opposing opinion. Again, read the discussion so far. I thought you wanted to get back on topic.

I never said I was exempt from anything. Are you making accusations that I've violated a policy? That in and of itself would be an attack on my character. Again, I thought you wanted to get back on topic.

You don't want to help with refs but the complaint is that they aren't good enough? Ok, how is your contribution productive or helpful, then? I have plenty of good refs already. If someone doesn't like them for some odd reason, well then they need to go get some they do like instead of arguing mine. Pretty simple. Anonymous081222 (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I didn't quote you; I asked you a question.
2. Then how you've been treated should not affect whether you violate NPA, in direct contradiction to your statement "I am being very civil given the circumstances". Informing you that you are violating NPA is not a character attack.
3. You must win consensus, or your edits will not stand. Editing against consensus is disruptive. I contribution is preventing, hopefully, content from being edit-warred into an article against consensus, and possibly against UNDUE, FRINGE, etc. The onus is on you to convince others. Not on me to fetch for you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but actually, that WAS a misquote. Or "misrepresentation of my statement" if you like that better. One I clarified/answered.

This is another example of a misquote ... sorry, a "misrepresentation of my statement". I've not violated NPA and never said I did. "given the circumstances" refered to the state of the overall argument (inappropriate debate techniques being used, pre-existing allies, lack of neutrality, etc.), not any violation I made. It seems that a debate technique being used here as an attack of character against me is attempting to say I'm violating policy.

So what you are saying seems to be that I am the only one who can make helpful changes to my statement, defend it, etc. And everyone else must fight me. Sorry, I don't buy that. I've already given valid cites, sorry if people don't like it. Removing my contributions because of personal opinion about my cites is highly inappropriate and is vandalism. Anonymous081222 (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You have violated NPA several times: as this is now being discussed on your talk page, please keep it there.

No, I am saying if you desire a change to an article, the onus is on you to convince others it is an improvement to the article. Whether they agree or disagree is a matter for any other editors to decide. No one has remove dyour addition because of "personal opinion" but because of the Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:NPOV#UNDUE. Do not malign other editors by claiming personal reasons when it has been repeatedly explained to you that your edits are in violation of Wikipedia policy: instead, study the policy, and if you disagree, then attempt to address their concerns. Accusations such as you have been making are uncivil and will lead to sanctions if you do not learn how to work with others. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, please do not misunderstand anything I say as a personal attack. Alright, that said:

I have not violated NPA and I've been very civil. I apologize if you misunderstood my standing my ground on the issue and heavily resisting the inappropriate methods of debating being used here as a personal attack. As you suggested, this side-debate about personal attacks can be continued on my user page.

However, as long as the accusation remains here, it is absolutely appropriate to defend myself from those accusation (and defending myself is not a personal attack on anyone). So let me make it very clear: I have not violated NPA and I've been very civil.

There, now we can continue the side-discussion of this matter on my page.

Ok, moving on: I do not agree one bit with the above statement about my contributions. The inappropriate debate methods I mentioned are being used there. That is not a personal attack, but rather an important point to resolve if we are to be able to continue the debate productively.

I disagree with the personal opinion matter; my contributions are being rejected because of disagreement with my sources. How defending the value of my sources against opinions possibly violating any policy? It is not by any inappropriate behavior on my part that anyone would be "maligned". They appear by their comments to be disagreeing with everything I say. Again, no personal attacks here, just observation of a situation.

My suggestion on how to move forwards is this:

• We resolve this issue with how the debate is being done. I can't really continue until we are debating in a reasonable manner. You've already seen my objections.
• We come to a compromise. All I want is for the MSG page to mention migraines, on the page. There's all sort of evidence to back that up. It helps the article and helps people. It is not my personal opinion, but simple, proven, fact, as I have already demonstrated. Unfortunately, we're way past the issue of the "onus being on me" thing because I've already done everything possible short of posting up a list of dozens of new cites. I was really hoping someone could be constructive and help in that manner so that I'm not just spinning my wheels on finding more articles to be rejected. I'm sorry, but the decision that these articles should be rejected really does appear to be a matter of opinion. That's not a personal attack against anyone, just observation.

What won't help is a never-ending debate about why I am wrong. That's why I've been repeatedly requesting "constructive" input; something that helps come to a compromise.

In the meantime, I must defend my right to make the changes to the main article. I've earned my right to put the statement there with all my cites. Debating how to rephrase or additional cites is now the issue. Now, when I go back and change this, I don't want anyone removing the information or blocking/banning/etc me. I've done the right thing there. Anonymous081222 (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't have the "right" to edit war. I have already warned you about 3RR. You do not have support for this edit, which violates WP:WEIGHT, as you have been repeatedly informed. Your bullheaded insistance that you are "right" is not gaining consensus. Just because something exists does not mean it should be in an article here. You are in grave danger of being blocked for disruption and edit warring. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring, I'm preventing my accurate statement from being vandalized. I don't think threats/warnings/or however you want to phrase them are particularly productive. I have all the cites to post the article. It appears to me that the folks arguing with me are applying far-reaching opinions to the results, not using logic (this is not a personal attack). "Some people claim"? Cited, accurate, and ready to go. I fail to see the problem.

Also, I am not disrupting anyone, perfectly willing to debate the matter and listen to reasonable compromises. Further, I now am aware that I can't call people out for inappropriate debate techniques, so I won't risk anyone misinterpreting that again for personal attacks.

I'm just waiting for good, constructive help, compromises, etc. Anonymous081222 (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:VAND#NOT and cease calling your fellow editors vandals and their edits vandalism. Good faith edits with which you disagree are not vandalism. Please also read WP:EW, as you certainly have been edit warring. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How is it good faith to edit war against my own good faith edits? And how can people who haven't posted ANYTHING here in this debate at all make edits that are considered good faith? How can I debate when there is no logic to be found here and the rules only apply to me and FFN (and those that have come before - yes, I see the history and the other sections where other folks have been bullied into submission). I'm going to take a break, come back later.

BTW, FFN, where are you? Anonymous081222 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I arrived here due to the notice on the fringe noticeboard. I have not been here before today (at least, not recently) and as we keep telling you, you cannot add content against WEIGHT aka UNDUE, and you cannot add content against consensus. Period. You're doing that, and no one else is (at least today). KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I also am posting here from the WP:FTN notice. I support inclusion of information that migraine may be associated with MSG in the article. I do not suggest that is should be stated as a proven fact, but rather as an open question. Most migraine triggers have not been proven or disproven, and migraines are in general not a well-understood phenomenon. However, whatever the state of the scientific research is, MSG is widely considered by migraine sufferers to be a possible trigger, and many migraineurs are careful to avoid it. That is a notable and verifiable fact that is not in dispute, even though the science is inconclusive. So it can be at least stated in the article as a cultural belief, with clear language indicating that it has not been scientifically proven. It has also not been disproven, and that should be stated as well. As one example that reliable sources list MSG as a possible trigger, here is a fact sheet from the University Health Services at University of California, Berkeley. That's not a scientific source, but it is a reputable source that shows there is concern about this in the clinical community. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That fact sheet cannot be considered any type of reliable source. A secretary might have written it for all you know. What I've noticed over the years is that cruft has crept into medicine in very subtle ways. As MastCell said at the top of this very long, very tendentious, and repetitive thread...the link between MSG and migraines is so tenuous as to be not there. And here's my single largest problem with these kind of pseudoscientific links stated frequently in Wikipedia. Please tell me a plausible reason why it may happen? MSG dissociates into Na ions which are excreted in your urine and glutamate, which is an amino acid. Maybe you'd get dehydrated from consuming it (of course, the salt in Chinese food might do that too). Maybe that would cause a headache. But that's about it. Without even thinking about it, I might have a plausible and simple reason why MSG might cause a headache. But even so, it probably doesn't. Why do we spend so much energy on a statement that is so easily dismissed in about 10 nanoseconds? is it because certain POV pushers just nag and nag and nag and nag. 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs)

Jack-A-Roe: 1. Your reference is not a reliable source, especially compared to at least four recent scientific review articles. 2. Any pharmacological action of MSG is caused by glutamic acid and it does not matter in which wrapping it comes - glutamic acid, monosodium glutamate, disodium glutamate, monopotassium glutamate, calcium diglutamate,monoammonium glutamate, magnesium diglutamate, and any other imaginable salt would do the same. Therefore, these health related informations should be kept in one article in order to avoid poorly manageable and redundant mirror sections. Since these alleged health effects are best understood in the context of the food additive health scare, that place is glutamic acid (flavor)#Health_concerns - not here. Cacycle (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources: arbitrary section break

There are many reliable sources on all sides of this question; no scientific conclusion has been reached that either proves or disproves the question, that's why, according to the NPOV policy, all sides of the question must be presented with due weight. It has not been disproven; and it has not been proven. There is no wide agreement in either direction.

Here are several quickly-located examples of sources acknowledging a possible link between MSG and migraine:

• MSG and Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein Induced Headache: Review and Case Studies Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain Volume 31 Issue 2, Pages 107 - 110 20 May 2005

• Migraine Headache Prevention and Management By Seymour Diamond, Informa Health Care, 1990, pp32-34, 196, ISBN 0824782127 pp32-34, 196

• Monosodium L-Glutamate: Its Pharmacology and Role in the Chinese Restaurant Syndrome - Science Magazine

• Diet and migraine Rev Neurol. 1996 May;24(129):534-8.

• Dietary Factors in Migraine Precipitation: The Physicians' View Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, Volume 25 Issue 4, Pages 184 - 187 22 Jun 2005

• The role of food in the pathogenesis of migraine headache - Clinical Reviews in Allergy and Immunology - Volume 12, Number 2 / June, 1994

• Journal of Neurology Volume 238, Supplement - 1 / February, 1991

Here's a couple sources showing the opposite view, in which the authors believe the MSG-migraine link has been disproven:

• Reconsidering the effects of monosodium glutamate: A literature review - Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners Volume 18 Issue 10, Pages 482 - 486 - 25 Sep 2006

• Headache and Migraine in Childhood and Adolescence, Informa Health Care, 2002, p242; ISBN 1853178101

Many more can be found on both sides of the issue - a lot has been written about it - and there is not wide consensus in the medical community. According to WP:NPOV, both sides of the issue should be described, with references.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jack-A-Roe, I've had a look at a couple of the "studies for" you list, and note that the example from "Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain] Volume 31 Issue 2, Pages 107 - 110 20 May 2005" was "Accepted for Publication: December 1, 1990.", "Monosodium L-Glutamate: Its Pharmacology and Role in the Chinese Restaurant Syndrome" comes from Science 21 February 1969, and "Dietary Factors in Migraine Precipitation: The Physicians' View Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, Volume 25 Issue 4, Pages 184 - 187 22 Jun 2005" was "Accepted for Publication: October 8, 1984", These seem rather more ancient than you appear to think. In contrast, "*Reconsidering the effects of monosodium glutamate: A literature review - Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners Volume 18 Issue 10, Pages 482 - 486 - 25 Sep 2006" was "Received: October 2005; accepted: March 2006" and is the most up to date study I've noted. Assesment of these studies by knowledgeable editors is needed before jumping to the conclusion that the two "sides" should be given equal weight. . dave souza, talk 23:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that the top list were "studies for", I only see them as acknowledging a possible link. After I listed them, I thought it would be good to show some that state the contrary so as not to give the wrong impression that this is a one-way street - but it was not intended as a "pro & con" type of list. I have no iron in this fire other than an article that accurately reflects the sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget WP:WEIGHT. You listed a few outdated articles, some of which are hardly reliable sources, as proof of a "controversy". Let's ignore the 100's (literally) that say "um no". OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen the list of 100's of articles that say "um no" as you phrased it. Quick Google Scholar and Book searches that I've seen so far show more sources that acknowledge a possible link. Regular web searches show even a stronger bias in that direction, perhaps due to non-scientific self-help articles or whatever, but in general, in the short time I've been searching for the sources there seems to be a preponderance of ones that express concern about MSG. If you have a list of 100's of articles showing that there is no link between MSG & migraines, posting your list here would help to resolve the issue more quickly. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved my post from the userfied section to here because it fits here more clearly--sorry about posting it in the wrong place.

Okay, I really, really don't want to be involved in this debate anymore (I just got out of wiki-jail) but I do want to let people know that I have listed a number of empirical research studies on my discussion page--published in peer reviewed journals--which suggest that MSG may lead to a variety of health problems. FFN001 (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are some additional leads:
http://www.truthinlabeling.org/evidenceofrisk.html#Human%20Studies
http://www.truthinlabeling.org/L-table-2.html
http://www.truthinlabeling.org/UnwantedAdverseReactions.html
http://www.truthinlabeling.org/adversereactions.html
Kenosis (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Following are links to compilations of data assembled since January. The studies cited are all published.
http://www.truthinlabeling.org/Proof_BrainLesions_CNS.html
http://www.truthinlabeling.org/Proof_AdverseReactions_AR.html
http://www.truthinlabeling.org/Proof_TheYoung_TY.html
http://www.truthinlabeling.org/Proof_EpidemiologicStudies_ES.html
http://www.truthinlabeling.org/Proof_Controversy_C.html
Truthinlabeling (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Alleged effects of MSG

These review paper would be a useful source for adding details about Chinese Restaurant Syndrome and other alleged effects of MSG.

Freeman M (2006). "Reconsidering the effects of monosodium glutamate: a literature review". J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 18 (10): 482–6. doi:10.1111/j.1745-7599.2006.00160.x. PMID 16999713. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Geha RS, Beiser A, Ren C; et al. (2000). "Review of alleged reaction to monosodium glutamate and outcome of a multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled study". J. Nutr. 130 (4S Suppl): 1058S–62S. PMID 10736382. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Walker R (1999). "The significance of excursions above the ADI. Case study: monosodium glutamate". Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 30 (2 Pt 2): S119–21. doi:10.1006/rtph.1999.1337. PMID 10597625. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

There are many individual research articles on MSG, but I think it would be best to stick with review papers like the ones listed above. I think the topic needs to be covered at least for its cultural notability, even if the medical effects themselves have largely been debunked. Abecedare (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that User:Cacycle has already linked to some of these papers in the lengthy discussing above (sorry, TLDR). I think material from these references can be added at leisure, once the recent storm on this page subsides. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with much of this, but the statement "the medical effects themselves have largely been debunked" is an opinion of the results and simply incorrect. I'd like to debate this more in detail, but the debate is already listed above. In fact, this section needs to be combined with the above section to avoid fracturing the debate. Further, the phrasing of the section's title carries a certain non-neutral connotation with it (specifically, the word "alleged" lends itself to "doubtful"); I think the previous section's header is far more neutral and addresses the center of the issue: MSG and migraines. Anonymous081222 (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Anon, You are right that debunked is too strong a phrase since it means "shown to be false"; "unsupported by evidence and doubtful" would be a more accurate description. As for alleged ... have you read the above three papers ? A simple yes or no answer will suffice. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is another useful source for composing the medical effects of MSG section  :

Berkes, E.A.; Woessner, K.M. (2003). "Monosodium Glutamate". In Simon, Ronald A; Metcalfe, Dean D.; Sampson, Hugh A. (ed.). Food allergy: adverse reactions to food and food additives. Oxford: Blackwell Science. pp. 342–350. ISBN 0-632-04601-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

See esp. page 342, 1st column for historical context and page 349 for conclusion. Also note that even in a 9 page write-up devoted to surveying food allergies (medically/publicly) associated with MSG, migraine is not mentioned even once; headache, on the other hand, is mentioned. So, while the medical controversy section in the article should be expanded, including migraine is certainly undue. Abecedare (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Books make really bad reliable sources in science, especially since they are rarely peer reviewed. I'd like to see a single reliable source that shows that MSG does anything but make you piss more. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I am disappointed that you are advocating for publication bias on wikipedia! :)

Would you say that the article cannot say something like,

"A letter in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1968 reporting symptoms of transient numbness, weakness and palpitations following a Chinese meal, sparked great interest and controversy in the general public and medical community concerning allergic reactions to MSG. ... Data from various scientific studies since then reflects that MSG is safe as a food additive for a population at large. MSG toxicological data has demonstrated no serious nervous system effects, metabolic studies performed in infants and adults have shown ready and rapid utilization of excess glutamate, and serum glutamate levels have remained stable even when large amounts of MSG have been ingested with carbohydrates. Studies indicate that MSG is unlikely to have an adverse reaction even in people who suspect themselves of of being allergic to it. While large intake of MSG (>3g) on an empty stomach and unaccompanied by carbohydrates may infrequently result in adverse reaction known as Chinese Restaurant Syndrome or MSG Symptom Complex, such reaction resolves within 2 hours without treatment. Overall, there is no clear scientific evidence documenting MSG as a cause of serious acute or chronic mediacl problems in the general population. "

because we are writing about lack of an adverse reaction ? Abecedare (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not proposing that we include the text quoted above, only making the point that negative results of the review studies is definitely not an argument for excluding those review studies from the article. Abecedare (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I do have to say one more thing. Prior to January 26 2008 all of the appropriate health information was included on this page as it had been for months. Cacycle removed all of it without consulting anyone. Cool Hand Luke even questioned him about it, though nothing was done to put it back in. Cacycle why did you do this? I will not argue with you--I just want to know why you removed a huge section of the article which had formerly been uncontested.

FFN001 (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This remark clearly shows that you have not read my previous replies to you as I have repeatedly explained this in this thread! Hint: Search for various occurrences of "3". This disruptive "discussion" behaviour and your personal attacks will lead you straight into the next block - and that time I will take care that any sockpuppet account will be blocked too. Cacycle (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cacycle? Are you there? I am not accusing you of anything--I just want to know why you removed such a large section of sourced material in the health section last year. I can't seem to find any discussion about it, except where Cool Hand Luke questioned you. FFN001 (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The section you removed was nothing I wrote or contributed to and you can't have me blocked for asking about it! You removed several paragraphs worth of cited material about 1 year ago. You still never answered--why did you remove it? Please answer. FFN001 (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh and it didn't just talk about migraines--it was really well-cited information about a range of effects. This is not a personal attack nor is it disruptive to ask about. In fact, that's the point of the discussion page:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cacycle just accused several people (I am one of them) of being sock puppets of Anon. Is that not a personal attack? After I cooled down a bit, I did read the policies and I am REALLY trying to play by the rules here. I am trying to have a civil discussion. I don't want to be here anymore, I just had one last question which has yet to be answered. FFN001 (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Anybody is invited to discuss a possible sockpuppetry between Anonymous081222, FFN001, and Guruofmsg for reasons of edit warring on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets#User:Anonymous081222. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the statement with 5 citations is a little strong for a neutral article? Let's face it, not a single one of those references claims that NO ONE has sensitivity to MSG--even the FDA doesn't claim that. Some of the article do claim that they didn't find a link between MSG and serious health effects but none claimed that there wasn't a link between MSG and some minor short-term side effects--even the studies for the industry-sponsored conference. I still vote that we bring back the health section as it was prior to Jan 26 2008. That seemed neutral, well-cited and concise. We don't need to re-invent the wheel.FFN001 (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a WP:SUMMARY outline of the main article on the subject, where the info you seem to want was split off to. Seems a reasonable summary on the basis of the sources I've seen, the pre-Jan 26 2008 version was a shopping list of rumours, and has been superseded by more recent studies. . dave souza, talk 14:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then lets at least re-evaluate the sentence with the five citations. Those citations don't say there are no health links. They say no serious health links. The way it is written now is far too one sided. On my disscusion page I list a few of the studies that say there are serious negative health effects. I know that my strength of tone (and Anon's tone) have turned people off, but we still have to try to be balanced and include both sides of the issue. Several of the cites that cacycle have provided are NOT peer reviewed studies--they are conference proceedings for an industry conference and they are reviews. But I don't mean to pick on cacycle because not all of the articles I originally gave were peer reviewed either. In fact, cacycle is using the results from 1995 study now (and somehow saying the opposite thing as me). However, EVERY reference on my discussion page NOW comes from a truly peer reviewered journal. Though cacycle discarded several of them out of hand, they are among the strongest references presented and NONE of us have the expertise to exclude them. All I am asking for is a balanced perspective. Again, if for no other reason than cultural, we need to include glutamate health effects on the MSG page. FFN001 (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The migraine study on your talk page is based on 1 person's experience, so is irrelevant here. Also the fact that glutamate as a neurotransmitter is involved in migraines does not mean MSG causes migraines. We already know glutamate is a neurotransmitter, and if for some reason you had an imbalance of glutamate in your brain you would definitely have serious symptoms. However eating glutamate in food does not increase the amount of glutamate in the brain. (If if did you would be in serious trouble, because ALL food contains huge amounts of glutamate, as it is one of the amino acids in protein). --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant for a range of effects. Ditch migraine for now if you want--I am trying to be more broad in my scope. By the way--these are peer-reviewed research studies so they are not just the experience of 1 person--I don't know what you mean by that. Also, natural glutamates are probably not the cause of the problems, right? Natural glutamates have no contamination. It is the 1% contamination from the synthetic process of making glutamate additives that cause problems. I think I understood that correctly. That is another reason why we should put health effects on the MSG pageFFN001 (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

PMID 10792367 was just one person. Peer reviewed or not, it's not MEDRS and doesn't actually prove anything. That was the only study I saw on your page which actually investigated MSG and migraines. All the theories I've seen state that it is the action of MSG as a neurotransmitter that causes the problems. I haven't heard of the contamination theory before, and I don't believe there is any evidence that that is the case anyway. But the bottom line is that you can't just put speculation into wikipedia. It has to meet WP:MEDRS. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"In six double-blind studies involving 182 tests of dietary migraine patients..." so not just one person. But if you mean the number of authors then that is a meaningless evaluation--peer-reviewed studies use double-blind reviews so number of authors isn't known when reviewers examine the study. You are right that we shouldn't just focus on migraines. Lets broaden the scope of health links so that we can use more research from both sides. I think we should include both the pro and con studies so we are fair to both sides. We simply say there is mixed evidence that way we can ensure neutrality. The contamination theory is from the general health studies but honestly I can't remember which ones include it and I don't have time to look right now.FFN001 (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please actually read the studies you post...he is talking about the gelatin capsules, not MSG. And he never even proves that gelatin causes headaches anyway - it's just a hypothesis. Bottom line: there is no evidence that MSG causes health problems, so why should we say the "evidence is mixed" when it isn't? --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This is important because the placebo studies that find "no effect" between MSG and migraine headaches were using chemicals in the placebo that caused migraines--hence there would be no statistical difference between groups. Plus, I have something like 5 other studies that claim negative health effects of MSG. For example: "We strongly suggest reconsidering the recommended daily allowances of nutritional protein, to abstain from the popular very high protein diets, and particularly from adding the flavouring agent monosodium glutamate." , "We previously reported that injection of monosodium glutamate (MSG) in ICR mice leads to the development of significant inflammation, central obesity, and type 2 diabetes." "These results take on considerable significance in light of the widespread usage of dietary MSG and we suggest that MSG should have its safety profile re-examined and be potentially withdrawn from the food chain." . There is a lot of evidence both ways. Honestly, I have my doubts about the research presented at the industry conference. It seems like a conflict of interest to me. But for the sake of neutrality, I think that we should present both sides of the issue.FFN001 (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well your first study just correlates protein to obesity which isn't exactly a revelation. Their conclusion says to especially avoid MSG, but I don't have the full-text of this article so I can't see why they say that. Your second study shows that rats get fat when msg is injected, but is that because of the sodium or the glutamate? Clearly injecting a very large amount of sodium is going to have significant effects. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Review articles are a great way to get POV in to the literature (and wikipedia). This is generally recognized by the scientific community which regards reviews as being similar to op-eds; they are non-peer-reviewed informative, but usually selective, aggregations of prior results. They are distinct from peer-reviewed meta-analyzes of prior studies. Using 3 of these in a string of 5 citations is excessive, what does Walker, 1999 really add to this?

Somehow these are used to source the inaccurate statement in the article "placebo-controlled trials have never shown any association between MSG and symptoms." (emphasis added) This is not true, e.g. Yang et al J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1997 Jun;99(6 Pt 1):757-62 PMID: 9215242 . Furthermore, placebos in many trials that do not see an significant effect are administered via gelatin capsules (per FASEB recommendation) which are made with hydrolyzed animal protein and hence, MSG see:glutamic acid (flavor). This may reduce the observed difference in the number of headaches in the MSG and supposedly MSG-free placebo groups in primary studies and in subsequent meta-analyzes.

Considering the sources used for the statement above individually, none say or support the "never" in the above statement:

• Freeman 2006, not peer reviewed, author says the evidence is not consistent
• Walker 1999, not peer reviewed, author says "controlled double-blind crossover studies have failed to establish a relationship"
• Tarasoff L, Kelly MF. 1993, some placebos in capsules, this study found no significant association
• Geha RS, Beiser A, Ren C, et al (April 2000), placebos in capsules, this study found no significant association
• Berkes, E.A.; Woessner, K.M. (2003). unpeer-reviewed book chapter, authors say "MSG has not been clearly documented to cause [any of several diseases including headache]"

It seems that a list or table of peer-reviewed DBPC controlled studies (there aren't very many) with their findings would elucidate the controversy. Most do not find a significant association, but some do.

Also potentially of interest:

• As you have been discussing, MSG in high doses induces obesity in rats, this is a common animal model for obesity, not some new far out claim, e.g. PMID:15139282. This is a common protocol going back ~20 years. It is not because of the sodium. It is not solely because of the calories in the glutamate (from above abstract: 4mg/g body weight 7 times over 14 days). Since this is the general MSG article and not the flavor article this should probably be included.
• A 2008 dietary study in china found a correlation between dietary intake of MSG and obesity in humans PMC 2610632.

Kaelfischer (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I just discussed PMID: 9215242 below. It's a small study and doesn't compare against NaCl, unlike the larger study which found nothing. You can't use a poor study to trump a better one - please read WP:MEDRS. I agree that 5 citations is overkill, and the wording "never" probably needs changed. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops I missed this discussion up here--this is getting confusing. I make a few suggestions in the next section. FFN001 (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Migraine Headaches Part 2

I have userfied this discussion to User talk:Anonymous081222. Please make any comments there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Since that has been userfied, I will post a revised statement here that should not be misunderstood. The discussion thusfar started in the section labelled "Migraine Headaches". Please see that section for more details.

I believe that the best way to proceed is to again suggest that my "some individuals claim" statement is well-supported by the cites. If anyone has constructive suggestions on any rephrasing, new cites, etc., that would be very appreciated, but I should restate that the sentence does in fact belong in the article based on all of the evidence. Anonymous081222 (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous081222, the wording you proposed clearly gave undue weight to unsubstantiated claims. Looking at the most recent studies, it seems to me appropriate to mention that MSG is amongst a number of foods commonly listed as having a possible link to migraines, but there is no consistent clinical data to support this claim, or consistent evidence suggesting that individuals may be uniquely sensitive to MSG.[5] Review of this suggestion by editors with suitable expertise will be welcome. . dave souza, talk 23:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved my comment on sources to the sources section---

FFN001 (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"However, placebo-controlled trials have never shown any association between MSG and symptoms, even with people who were convinced that they were sensitive to the compound" is not neutral.

I am planning on changing it to:

"Some people claim to be sensitive to the compound, experiencing symptoms such as migraine headaches. Some placebo-controlled trials have not shown any association between MSG and symptoms, while other studies have shown a possible association."

This is fair and balanced, addressing all the studies and everyones' concerns in this debate.

If I hear no response to this, I will make this good-faith change. Anonymous081222 (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok with me, as long as you have WP:MEDRS refs for placebo-controlled trials showing that MSG causes symptoms. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.

As for removing the existing statement, it would be proper to do so until we have concensus on the matter, since the statement was added while we were still discussing the issue. Could you please reverse that change? If I do so again at this point, it would risk appearing as edit warring. Thanks. Anonymous081222 (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I just copied that info straight from the glutamate sub-article. It would seem to be appropriate to include it, otherwise the article would not be NPOV. Currently it says that some people may have MSG intolerance, although the placebo-controlled trials show that msg doesn't cause symptoms. This seems to be the consensus, but if you have any other info please share it. I am not an MSG advocate or anything, and I would be quite happy to believe that MSG does produce symptoms. I just haven't seen any evidence of that. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous081222/FFN001/Guruofmsg: What you disguised as a "good-faith change" [6] was CLEARLY against the consensus on this talk page and against the STRONG ADVICE to discuss changes here first. Stop your edit warring IMMEDIATELY or you will get blocked again. Cacycle (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

cacycle:

The following 4 quotes are false accusations and personal attacks in violation of NPA:

- "Anonymous081222/FFN001/Guruofmsg"

- "disguised"

- "edit warring IMMEDIATELY"

- "or you will get blocked again"

No personal attacks or accusations should be made in our discussions here, I would humbly request for you to stop. Thank you.

I disagree with "against the consensus on this talk page" with respect to the change in question. The change was appropriate for the reasons I've already stated (no consensus on the following change: 02:46, 12 January 2009, change needs to be removed until consensus).

I would suggest we get back to the actual issue now.

Thank you. Anonymous081222 (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

sciencewatcher:

See the previous discussions (sorry, long discussion I know) for the evidence. I was planning on using the cites that FFN and others found for us, such as those that were originally posted. The cites that support a connection between MSG and migraines (or other symptoms) are as valid as the cites that other claim support no connection between MSG and migraines.

I understand your point that "However, placebo-controlled trials have never shown any association between MSG and symptoms, even with people who were convinced that they were sensitive to the compound" supports the view some have of some of the studies, so something of that nature should certainly be included on the page (like the recommendation I made above to replace it). However, I think right now the first step is to remove that statement, as it does not support both views so is not neutral enough.

Thank you. Anonymous081222 (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I recommend just rewording it to say "A number of placebo-controlled trials have been conducted to determine effects. Many have failed to demonstrated a statistically significant link between MSG and serious health issues(ScienceWatcher's cites). However, some studies have claimed to have found links between MSG and health issues, such as weight gain and short-term discomfort (my cites). Thus, the link between MSG and health issues are not clear at this time and require further research (most of our cites call for more research)." How is that? ScienceWatcher do you feel comfortable enough with the cites I have given for this statement or would you like me to keep searching the medical research databases?

Hey, Anon--I recommend ignoring the more ...em...unpleasant personal comments. We took the bait last time(especially me)and it hurt both of our credibility. Rather than get into the same problem again, we need to focus on the content.FFN001 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FFN001. That violates WP:WEIGHT. In almost every article someone can state that there is a link. But until it's tested, confirmed, and published, it's just not going to be added. The number of trials that show there's nothing is pretty large. The number of trials that show that there is something is pretty much zero. As a compromise, I'd suggest "there are some further studies underway to determine the link between MSG and health issues. Results are not available at this time." Wikipedia does not predict the future, and your proposed language attempts to predict it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand your concern and I think that your compromise is quite good. On my discussion page, I present 5 studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals which directly talk about MSG (several more talk about glutamates in general). However, your statement is also true and I think that it may be less controversial.FFN001 (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As discussed above, none of the references FFN001 has provided actually show there are any health effects. As far as I can see, ALL the studies show there are NO health effects. And again, I say I am not an advocate, and I would in fact be very happy to find evidence that MSG causes migraines because a close member of my family gets them. FFN001 seems to have convinced himself that MSG does produce migraines. Also, in future when replying on the talk page it would be useful if you could indent your replies (just put one or more ":" before your text, each one will indent your text one level). If you wanted to say there are further studies underway, as Orangemarlin suggests, you would still need to have a reliable source for that, and I'm not sure it's worth it - it sounds more like wishful thinking than anything else. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Again I still don't understand why ScienceWatcher doesn't like the studies that I provided (they fit the criteria of respected studies published in peer-reviewed double-blind medical journals) but I am okay with OrangeMarlin's compromise as well. Which ever people prefer, I will go with.FFN001 (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think his criticism is pretty clear. Which citations are questioned? No, I rarely read long discussions as above per WP:TLDR, so if you're repeating yourself, I apologize, but I really hate long-winded discussions.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are the references in question. This was from a relatively quick search.

Monosodium glutamate (MSG): a villain and promoter of liver inflammation and dysplasia. (eng; includes abstract) By Nakanishi Y, Tsuneyama K, Fujimoto M, Salunga TL, Nomoto K, An JL, Takano Y, Iizuka S, Nagata M, Suzuki W, Shimada T, Aburada M, Nakano M, Selmi C, Gershwin ME, Journal Of Autoimmunity [J Autoimmun], ISSN: 0896-8411, 2008 Feb-Mar; Vol. 30 (1-2), pp. 42-50; PMID 18178378;

Sensory and autonomic nerve changes in the monosodium glutamate-treated rat: a model of type II diabetes. (eng; includes abstract) By Morrison JF, Shehab S, Sheen R, Dhanasekaran S, Shaffiullah M, Mensah-Brown E, Experimental Physiology [Exp Physiol], ISSN: 0958-0670, 2008 Feb; Vol. 93 (2), pp. 213-22; PMID 17911358;

Emerging aspects of dietary glutamate metabolism in the developing gut. (eng; includes abstract) By Burrin DG, Janeczko MJ, Stoll B, Asia Pacific Journal Of Clinical Nutrition [Asia Pac J Clin Nutr], ISSN: 0964-7058, 2008; Vol. 17 Suppl 1, pp. 368-71; PMID 18296381;

Nutritional protein intake is associated with body mass index in young adolescents. (eng; includes abstract) By Hermanussen M, Georgian Medical News [Georgian Med News], ISSN: 1512-0112, 2008 Mar;, pp. 84-8; PMID 18403817;

The diet factor in pediatric and adolescent migraine. (eng; includes abstract) By Millichap JG, Yee MM, Pediatric Neurology [Pediatr Neurol], ISSN: 0887-8994, 2003 Jan; Vol. 28 (1), pp. 9-15; PMID 12657413;

Addresses a confounding variable which might explain why the link between MSG and migraines was not found:

Why do some dietary migraine patients claim they get headaches from placebos? (eng; includes abstract) By Strong FC 3rd, Clinical And Experimental Allergy: Journal Of The British Society For Allergy And Clinical Immunology [Clin Exp Allergy], ISSN: 0954-7894, 2000 May; Vol. 30 (5), pp. 739-43; PMID 10792367; FFN001 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

One more thing--the study by Millichap and Yee in the Pediatric Neurology journal is used as a reference on the 'food intolerance' wiki article. Therefore, it has been deemed acceptable by other wiki editors.FFN001 (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

But none of those studies show that MSG causes health problems. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. They all show health problems--big ones. Could you explain what you mean more clearly? Do you mean that they don't study a specific problem or that they have overlooked something? Remember, there is the FDA sponsored review study from 1995 which finds the symptoms of Chinese Restaurant syndrome. I didn't include it because it is a private study of secondary data for the FDA and hence, not published in a peer-reviewed journal. However, I am sure I can find the original studies they used if that is the problem. If you are more clear about the specific problem, I will try to accommodate your critique.FFN001 (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The FDA study is in the text already. I think that is sufficient. If you want, feel free to propose a change to the text here and we can comment on it. My critique is in the "Alleged effects of MSG" section above, which you haven't replied to yet. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Four of the studies I provided show the effects of MSG on obesity while the Millichap and Yee study talk about MSG as a migraine trigger. The FDA sponsored study found the link between MSG and the symptoms of Chinese Restaurant Syndrome. We could word it something like this: "A number of placebo-controlled trials have been conducted to determine the health effects of MSG. In general, studies have failed to demonstrate a statistically significant link between MSG and serious long-term health issues , but have found that MSG can lead to weight gain and short-term conditions such as migraine headaches for people with sensitivity ." How's that?FFN001 (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The study referenced in the review (PMID 9215242) was quite small, and they didn't test against NaCl. Have a look at PMID 4936399, which used more volunteers, larger doses, and comparison against NaCl and they found no difference. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This was peer reviewed by seasoned medical researchers. Even if we were seasoned medical researchers, we do not have all the correlation tables and other information possessed by reviewers--hence we are not qualified to leave out studies for lack of quality. That is why I believe in including studies which are both pro and con--even though I personally feel that studies for industry conference may have a conflict of interest. We must include both sides of the issue to remain neutral. Please reconsider. What do others think?FFN001 (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review does not mean it can automatically go in the article. I urge you again to actually read WP:MEDRS. The most reliable sources are meta-analyses and systematic reviews. From MEDRS: "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to 'debunk' or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources". There are many reasons why one study could come to different conclusions: poor methodology, low sample size, or just chance (esp if sample size is low). If you do 100 studies of anything, one will probably give significant results just due to chance. That is why we use meta-analyses. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are sources that say 'no effect' okay but those that find effects are not? As a fair compromise, we focus on raising awareness of the MSG health controversy rather than the health effects themselves. We could say that "the Glutamate Association claims that MSG is no more dangerous than salt, the FDA says MSG can trigger short-term conditions in people who are sensitive but should generally be considered safe when eaten at customary levels, while various grassroots movements opposed to MSG say that MSG can lead to dangerous long-term health problems. Each party points to their own research as evidence. The true effects are unclear and research continues." I guess what I am trying to say is that we need to get everything out in the open as much as possible--let's be reporters not medical researchers here. Let readers know there is a controversy and we at wikipedia are not taking sides in this article. FFN001 (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The MSG article appears to be a short summary of the health effects, so that being the case we should probably summarise it to two sentences: one sentence saying people claim to have health effects, and another saying that studies have found no evidence. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be okay with one sentence claiming some research has found health effects and another saying that other research has not found health effects. I am flexible so long as neutrality is maintained, though at this point, I'd prefer just to use the statement I provided above about the three different positions. What do others think?FFN001 (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not okay. Research has not "found health effects". You have failed to show any evidence here. One study that goes against a meta-analysis is not evidence. Please read WP:MEDRS. Unless you come up with something else, I think this discussion is over. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't another guy in the section above find even more evidence that there were negative health effects--in addition to all the studies I have shown you and those that Jack-A-Roe provided. Plus, your argument to exclude an entire stream of research is based on a review paper from a conference which cites a total of 24 studies and does no quantitative analysis. So basically you are left arguing based on your opinion. You ARE correct that some research has not found effects but myself and others are also correct that some studies have found effects. You believe in the same position held by the Glutamate Association and there is nothing wrong with that. I believe in the same position held by the FDA and there is nothing wrong with that either. Other's might believe in the same position of msgtruth.org (and other grassroots organizations) and there is nothing wrong with that. We ALL have evidence. So lets be neutral and include all sides of the issue. How is that not reasonable? FFN001 (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:weight and WP:MEDRS. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As the WP:Weight article says "let the facts speak for themselves"--Everyone can see all of the many peer-reviewed medical journal articles showing evidence of an MSG health link and they can also see your studies showing no link. Which is better? Well, let's show both sets of research for the sake of neutrality. FFN001 (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Protected for 1 week

I have protected this article from editing for a period of 1 week. Please use that time period to come to a consensus on how and whether the "migraine headache" issue should be dealt with in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandesuka (talk • contribs) 16:18, 10 January 2009

I removed the protection template because it looks like you forgot to actually protect the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, "whoops". I applied the protection "again", for 5 days this time. Nandesuka (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

New Vector Skeletal Model Available

Once this war has subsided, please change the skeletal model image to monosodium_glutamate.svg

Benrr101 (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Inconsistency

sciencewatcher:

With respect, "However, placebo-controlled trials have never shown any association between MSG and symptoms, even with people who were convinced that they were sensitive to the compound" is not neutral. It was added during the period of time when this issue was still under debate and myself and others had been explicitly forbidden from making changes on that issue. I appreciate your edit efforts and agree that at some point this viewpoint should be included, but we have not reached that point - I do not think the timing was right - the issue hasn't reached consensus at this time.

If I had added a statement with my own viewpoint, it would have been removed since the debate is still underway (it was explained to me that I can't make additions to that issue because we are still trying to reach consensus). Therefore, it is inconsistent that the above statement with the opposite viewpoint was added but not removed. The rules need to apply equally to those with both points of view in the debate.

Meaning one of two thing must be true:

- Everyone, yourself and myself included, can make additions to the article on the subject currently being debated

or

- No one should be making additions to the article on the subject currently being debated, and the above change should be reversed

By the way, I know we already started to discuss this issue above (sorry to repeat myself), but I feel that we did not reach a conclusion as the conversation is now centered around the new content (as well it should be). So that is why I started a new section to address this issue. I do understand why you felt it appropriate to add the statement in terms of content itself (as you already explained above), but again I do not think the timing was right yet given that the issue was still under debate.

I do not want to distract from the debate of the new content above, but I do want to deal with this particular issue now, as the debate may not reach a conclusion anytime soon (based on past experience - this started weeks ago).

I do not want to risk appearing as edit-warring, so I will ask this question before removing the statement again (it would actually be much better if someone else, such as yourself, were to do it for me - thanks).

In conclusion: I'm requesting that the above statement be removed due to the inconsistency in the editing rules I have already described in detail (either any additional statements are allowed, or no additional statements are allowed - please pick one or the other). Anonymous081222 (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As the article is now locked, I cannot change it. But here is my suggestion: remove the first and last citations (just leaving the 3 reviews), and change the wording to reflect the wording in the reviews, e.g. "controlled double-blind crossover studies have failed to establish a relationship between Chinese Restaurant Syndrome and ingestion of MSG, even in individuals reportedly sensitive to Chinese meals". --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. However, I would have to disagree that rephrasing it will resolve the issue; I think the statement needs to be removed until we reach consensus on the issue in general. At that time, a statement that reflects NPOV should be added.

I'll bet Nandesuka (who appears to have applied the lock) can remove the statement for us before the lock is over, perhaps temporarily unlock it for that purpose then lock it again.

Thank you. Anonymous081222 (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the statement is already in the main glutamate article, and it really needs to be in, otherwise the article violates WP:Weight and WP:NPOV. You haven't demonstrated any opposing evidence. There is some evidence for obesity - it is discussed in the glutamate article. If you wanted to put something in, make a suggestion, but it should probably be a short summarising sentence. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the statement needs to stay, possibly reworded. Looie496 (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

the only problem is that the 1995 review of studies for the FDA cited in the preceding sentence did, in fact, find evidence for minor short term symptoms. In fact, virtually every article--pro and con--find at least some minor effects. Note that Freeman (October 2006) is a nurse practitioner--not a research-- and he didn't do any research or meta-analysis. He didn't even do a systematic literature review (like a table comparing studies). You are aware that the text of the article is only 5 pages long (including references and abstract) and only references 24 studies, right? This article was for a conference and was not intended to be held to a journal standard.FFN001 (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The FASEB report relied on testimonials, and they say "The testimonial reports submitted to the ARMS and LSRO suggest, but do not establish, causality by MSG. However, the overall impression of the Expert Panel is that causality has been demonstrated." All of this info should be included in the article. And as I said before, we should only keep a few of the reviews, so let's figure out which ones are the most reliable/authoritative. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

From the FDA website: "FASEB held a two-day meeting and convened an expert panel that thoroughly reviewed all the available scientific literature on this issue. FASEB completed the final report, over 350 pages long, and delivered it to FDA on July 31, 1995. While not a new study, the report offers a new safety assessment based on the most comprehensive existing evaluation to date of glutamate safety." I think that this should be considered a relatively rigorous review and it has the FDA stamp of approval. It sure doesn't sound like they only examined testimonals, though they obviously did use some (as you note above). They do find short-term health effects (i.e. Chinese Restaurant syndrome) but do not find long-term health effects. If the wikipedia article reflects the FDA's position, we should feel pretty confident in the strength of the article. Unless someone knows why we might have better or more up-to-date information than the FDA, I suggest that we follow their example.FFN001 (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You should read the report itself - it says they used testimonials. There is a link to the text on my talk page. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Inconsistency - break 1

Sciencewatcher: I'm sorry, I should clarify: The subject of this section that I was attempting to discuss is an editing inconsistency. That is the matter I'd like to address in this section. The value of the statement is not the issue in this context, it is whether or not a non-NPOV statement should have been added without consensus during a timer period in which we were forbidden to make changes to the article. Again, if I'd made a change on the 12th without consensus, it would have been removed, so we have an inconsistency with the editing rules.

So in debating the removal of that statement, I would request that we focus on the consistency of the editing rules rather than the contents.

I would ask again for someone such as Nandesuka to remove this statement until we have reached consensus on a new NPOV statement.

Not to distract from the main issue and FFN's valuable point, just I don't want to lose track of this editing inconsistency for a second time, which is why I created a new section explicitly to discuss it.

Thank you. Anonymous081222 (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

For example of a revert of one of my suggested changes:

13:00, 10 January 2009 KillerChihuahua (Talk | contribs) (10,320 bytes) (Reverting to Andrew c. Onus is on the editor wishing to ADD content to gain consensus.

I am just looking for consistency while we debate the issue.

Also, I wanted to suggest addressing FFN's point he made here, but perhaps moving the discussion of that back up in the "Migraine Headaches Part 2" section.

Thank you. Anonymous081222 (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We will not be editing the article while it is locked. Please see m:The Wrong Version. Furthermore, if we need to lock the article for a longer time in order to give editors here time to reach consensus, we will do so. Nandesuka (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That is good. I think that Anon was saying that ScienceWatcher came in and somehow made a change while it was supposed to be locked. I don't care if it is reverted back or not but could you put a notice up on the main page which says we are still discussing? That way people know to look at our discussion. FFN001 (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the argument is about. sciencewatcher's wording seems acceptable until further reviews or studies become available. There seem to be a few in the pipeline. --TS 21:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What about all the many peer-reviewed research articles published in medical journals which show adverse health links? The discussion is getting sort of long but some of them are on my discussion page or you can try to dig through the mass of discussion above. The research says pretty much the opposite of ScienceWatcher so I am just arguing that since both sets of research comply with WP:weight and WP:MEDRS, wouldn't it be most appropriate to include both sides? FFN001 (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So far you have not provided a single reference that meets WP:MEDRS. The reasons have been explained by me already, so I won't go into them again. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We can always update the article if some study is found to pass WP:MEDRS, but Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball so for now we say there are none. --TS 01:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

TS I guess you missed them. Here they are:

Monosodium glutamate (MSG): a villain and promoter of liver inflammation and dysplasia. (eng; includes abstract) By Nakanishi Y, Tsuneyama K, Fujimoto M, Salunga TL, Nomoto K, An JL, Takano Y, Iizuka S, Nagata M, Suzuki W, Shimada T, Aburada M, Nakano M, Selmi C, Gershwin ME, Journal Of Autoimmunity [J Autoimmun], ISSN: 0896-8411, 2008 Feb-Mar; Vol. 30 (1-2), pp. 42-50; PMID 18178378;

Sensory and autonomic nerve changes in the monosodium glutamate-treated rat: a model of type II diabetes. (eng; includes abstract) By Morrison JF, Shehab S, Sheen R, Dhanasekaran S, Shaffiullah M, Mensah-Brown E, Experimental Physiology [Exp Physiol], ISSN: 0958-0670, 2008 Feb; Vol. 93 (2), pp. 213-22; PMID 17911358;

Emerging aspects of dietary glutamate metabolism in the developing gut. (eng; includes abstract) By Burrin DG, Janeczko MJ, Stoll B, Asia Pacific Journal Of Clinical Nutrition [Asia Pac J Clin Nutr], ISSN: 0964-7058, 2008; Vol. 17 Suppl 1, pp. 368-71; PMID 18296381;

Nutritional protein intake is associated with body mass index in young adolescents. (eng; includes abstract) By Hermanussen M, Georgian Medical News [Georgian Med News], ISSN: 1512-0112, 2008 Mar;, pp. 84-8; PMID 18403817;

The diet factor in pediatric and adolescent migraine. (eng; includes abstract) By Millichap JG, Yee MM, Pediatric Neurology [Pediatr Neurol], ISSN: 0887-8994, 2003 Jan; Vol. 28 (1), pp. 9-15; PMID 12657413;

Addresses a confounding variable which might explain why the link between MSG and migraines was not found:

Why do some dietary migraine patients claim they get headaches from placebos? (eng; includes abstract) By Strong FC 3rd, Clinical And Experimental Allergy: Journal Of The British Society For Allergy And Clinical Immunology [Clin Exp Allergy], ISSN: 0954-7894, 2000 May; Vol. 30 (5), pp. 739-43; PMID 10792367;

The study by Millichap and Yee in the Pediatric Neurology journal is used as a reference on the 'food intolerance' wiki article. Therefore, it has been deemed acceptable by other wiki editors. For others, sorry to repeat myself.FFN001 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it may or not be "deemed acceptable", but do these studies tell us that monosodium glutamate is responsible for migraine and other food intolerance symptoms? I also think the article should characterise the FDA's backgrounder better. It's full of caveats such as "Many of these safety assessments were prompted by unconfirmed reports" and "They are not controlled studies done in a scientifically credible manner", and " FDA has not fully analyzed the FASEB report." We should handle this very much more carefully than we do here. The FDA is very properly responding to public concern about the content of processed food and its potential health effects. This article should mention that but it should also correctly reflect the science. --TS 03:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And if you look at the main glutamate article you'll see it includes some of the caveats. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Inconsistency - break 2

I firmly disagree with your interpretations. It has become crystal clear to me that it is very important for the sake of neutrality to represent both viewpoints within the article. The last sentence in that paragraph (the one I have been questioning) is not neutral, but supports a single viewpoint on the matter. Does it not make sense to compromise when two conflicting viewpoints disagree? Representing both viewpoints is a very simple way to resolve this matter, right? Anonymous081222 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your recent edit, restoring the following crucial wording:

While many people believe that monosodium glutamate (MSG) is the cause of these symptoms, an association has never been demonstrated under rigorously controlled conditions, even in studies with people who were convinced that they were sensitive to the compound.

That is an established fact and must not be removed from the article. --TS 20:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not mean to offend, but I believe what you have done is what I was informed previously was called "edit warring". My change was made in good faith, in order to present a neutral viewpoint. The wording of the statement you have given is not NPOV. Why have you changed my carefully-worded NPOV statement in favor of a statement that is NOT NPOV and had no consensus?

Also, you failed to address my two questions (above).

There are only two choices: 1 - Compromise with a truly neutral statement (not the existing state - try the one I suggested) or 2 - Remove the statement altogether until we reach consensus

Which will it be? Anonymous081222 (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not edit warring. You were being bold in making a change, I reverted and now we can discuss it. See WP:BRD for a whole editing methodology based on the concept.

What you removed is a statement of fact.

1. there are beliefs that MSG causes migraine, etc
2. adequately controlled tests have failed to confirm the suspicions

It isn't a viewpoint, you don't get to remove it unless it's false. We could discuss how it's presented, of course. But don't remove the facts, please. --TS 21:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As TS says, it is an established fact that MSG has not been demonstrated to cause health problems. One small study showing health effects is irrelevant when meta-analyses of RCTs show no effects. We have already reached consensus on this issue - it is you who are going against the consensus, and you're treading on thin ice by accusing others of edit-warring when they revert your POV edits. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

TS: I'd agree with the "being bold" point. Unfortunately, this is not how my previous edits that were treated (in past weeks, I am not refering to interaction with you), so I though perhaps I was mistaken in my understanding of the concept.

Sorry to repeat myself, but I was told in no uncertain terms by admins that additions were not good until we had reached consensus. We have apparently not. The statement in question was added without consensus (and during a period when the article was suppose to have been locked), so therefore we are presented with the two afore-mentioned choices.

1 - Compromise with a truly neutral statement (not the existing state - try the one I suggested) or 2 - Remove the statement altogether until we reach consensus (as you have just removed my statement, it would be proper to likewise remove the statement sciencewatcher added because there is reasonable doubt on whether it is NPOV or not)

There's really only these two choices. Please pick one of them and we'll go with it. I've now done one edit for each choice, but both were reverted. Something is wrong with that.

sciencewatcher: It is NOT an established fact and we do NOT have consensus. The NPOV statement I added was a tremendously valid representation of the current consensus (that there are two distinct viewpoints of the results). Both viewpoints can be reasonably argued, as we have demonstrated. BOTH viewpoints need to be represented. They are not. Your viewpoint of the results is no more a fact than the viewpoint FFN and myself hold.

My edit was a strong neutral statement that represented NPOV. You are badly mistaken in perceiving it as POV when it is crystal clear in representing both viewpoints.

Further, please refrain from terms such as "thin ice" which I have trouble interpreting as anything other than a personal attack. Anonymous081222 (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to talk the way out of this hole. Can you name a peer reviewed, adequately controlled study showing that MSG has a medical effect on humans? --TS 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Every cite FFN has made. Disagreeing with whether that is the case or not has been the root of the problem. So the only neutral answer I see is to compromise by representing both viewpoints (as per my first edit today). Anonymous081222 (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you address my question by naming a particular peer reviewed controlled study demonstrating an effect on humans? I assure you I'm not being deliberately stupid when I say that I see no suggestion that such a study exists. If you can name one we can examine it and see if it does demonstrate an effect. --TS 21:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way I notice that your latest edit while again tagged as a "compromise" again removed the facts. Please don't do that. --TS 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we can do that, but haven't we been down that road several times already? Please see the previous discussions - FFN debated several of the cites in depth already. I think we're well past that - we're stale-mated and it is time to compromise - and at the very least remove that terribly non-NPOV statement that currently is there and should never have been added per the established rules. Why not just say the results are a matter of considerable debate? That is true. Anonymous081222 (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I replaced a glaring POV (no consensus on it being a fact) with NPOV. Anonymous081222 (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please just respond by naming one of the studies that you think contradicts the factual statement that you want to be removed ("compromised") from the article. --TS 22:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

PMID 10792367, which has already been discussed, above, in painful detail.

I didn't remove any "facts". I revised a POV statement in favor of NPOV statement that clearly represents BOTH viewpoints instead of just the one viewpoint - thus, a compromise. How would you suggest I rephrase the existing statement to represent both viewpoints? I felt it had to change in order to do so. How is saying "an association has never been demonstrated" a NPOV on something that is clearly heavily contested? Please feel free to make a suggestion on a NPOV statement (and please do not repeat what is already there - that statement is POV). Anonymous081222 (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Looie496: Please either involve yourself in the discussion, or do not make any further changes to my edits. Anonymous081222 (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen any need to comment because I fully agree with Tony. Looie496 (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, PMID 10792367 was discussed before, and you still don't seem to understand certain basic, obvious facts: it is a study on a single person, therefore it does not pass WP:MEDRS. You can't be serious. I say we call bullshit on Anonymous081222 and don't bother responding to him any more. He is obviously a troll. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the abstract of that article make it clear that none of the desired evidence is or could be obtained by the test, which was directed at the problem of using gelatin capsules for controlled tests involving foodstuffs. Anonymous081222, why did you choose that particular study? --TS 23:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You lose the debate and therefore decide to make accusations. Well, time to point some things out:

- Two personal attacks have been made

- The word you used is inappropriate and would have me banned in a second. Lucky for you, the rules seem to only apply one way based on my experience so far.

- I don't believe in debating the same points over and over. If you think that is wrong, ok, but don't become nasty about it.

- I address all your points but you don't address mine - see all my questions above.

My insistence is for the reasons I have stated over and over and over (it is important that people have the facts since many people believe wikipedia is a reliable source of information). Why suddenly call me a troll? Because you do not agree with me and I stand my ground when I am right? I have bent over backwards to compromise and all I get in return are totally inappropriate debate/edit tricks.

TS: I picked one that appeared to have been heavily debated already to make my point.

Anonymous081222 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous081222, perhaps you didn't understand my question. I asked you to name a study contradicting the statement you want removed. You gave this one. It does not contradict the statement you want removed. It may well have been debated before--and if that's true why are you still trying to push it as a study requiring "compromise" on a statement of the known facts? --TS 23:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Inconsistency - break 3

This cite, along with many, many others that FFN and others have given, can be quite reasonably interpreted as supporting the viewpoint I am making. Because we cannot come to uniform agreement on that point (it is the very root of the debate), I am suggesting we represent both interpretations. Why is that unreasonable? Anonymous081222 (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, please refrain from using the term "known facts". It is a "known fact" that MSG causes migraines, but I am respecting that some people may not agree with that. Anonymous081222 (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain how the article you cited supports the viewpoint that the following statement is false or is an opinion?

While many people believe that monosodium glutamate (MSG) is the cause of these symptoms, an association has never been demonstrated under rigorously controlled conditions, even in studies with people who were convinced that they were sensitive to the compound.

You seem to think it's obvious, or that it is a reasonable interpretation, but I don't see that at all. The test in question doesn't even involve MSG, as far as I'm aware. Could you please explain? --TS 23:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That one does involve MSG (do a search for the term), but it is more of a supporting study of the capsule issue, which may be where you are becoming confused. I picked that one based on all the discussion around it to show that we've already been down this road, but there are even more concise examples. Just go look back at the prior discussions and you'll find them.

Anonymous081222 (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it suggests there's a capsule issue. But how does that make the statement in the article false or POV? How is a statement that there is no solid data yet to support the notion that MSG is the cause of these headaches out of place in the article? --TS 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

All the studies in question demonstrate that there is a possible link between MSG and symptoms such as migraines. The existing statement says that "an association has never been demonstrated". Thus, it is far more neutral to say something like "some studies seem to demonstrate that there may be a link between MSG and symptoms, while others do not". Or reverse the order, if you would like. Either way, it is incorrect to say no association has ever been shown.

I will most likely not be responding to any further comments for a while because I've spent way too much time on this today. I will be glad to continue the discussion at a later time. Thank you.

Anonymous081222 (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The study you gave was carried out on a single subject--the researcher--and found that there was a potential problem with using gelatin-encased dosage to reduce the effects of aftertaste in controlled tests. What response do you have to the comment that this single-subject test doesn't pass our standard criteria for inclusion? --TS 00:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, last one: I would firmly disagree with your analysis and with discounting the study. More importantly, there are many other studies in the prior discussions if you don't like the alleged technicalities of that one.

I see this discussion has again veered away from the section topic: sciencewatcher's non-NPOV statement was added without consensus.

The issue here is "the onus is on the person wishing to make an addition", meaning I do not really have to prove the statement wrong to disagree and remove it (this has been done to me numerous times, two of them today), but sciencewatcher needed to gain consensus to add his statement; he did not have it and my attempts to remove it kept landing me in trouble (extremely inconsistent edit rules). The proof he has shown appears to me to be one-sided information to insert an opinion into the article, whether or not you feel that what he added was fact. My well-intentioned attempts to compromise by rephrasing it to represent both viewpoints are putting me on the "defensive" with requiring proof and such (such as above, where you are trying to discount a valid study based on technicalities). That could be a very long road given our very different interpretations of the various studies. I think that I will need to instead focus on removing sciencewatcher's statement for the time being, as it is not NPOV and we do not yet have consensus (the whole point of this section, actually). Once that is done, we can continue our extremely lengthy debate on the correctness of various studies.

i.e., sciencewatcher's statement does not have consensus yet - it should be removed, it should have been removed many days ago. Please respond to my "two choices" question from above.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous081222 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous081222 (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I think I know, and others also know, that you "firmly disagree" with discounting the study. But what is your response to the statement that it's being discounted because it fails our agreed criteria? If there are other studies, we can move on to another, if you would care to name it. --TS 00:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I disagree that it fails the meet the criteria. Even if it did, you are using a technicality, meaning, an excuse, to avoid the results of a valid study. I would suggest we let the people doing the studies bring us the results, then we use it, rather than trying to nitpick technicalities.

I don't have the time today to go through and find the study most likely to hold up against technicality attacks (i.e., any study can be questioned, including those that hold up your own viewpoint). Perhaps you could go check them?

Anyway, what about that non-consensus addition? If we're going to talk rules/technicalities, there's a big one.

Anonymous081222 (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I wanted to hear your side of it. I'm not sure I agree that the paper itself fails WP:MEDRS. Where I do have a problem is when we're asked to make an assessment on the importance of that single paper. I'd be much happier with a review article written by an expert looking at the field. But another problem is that I don't know what relevance it is supposed to have to the statement you object to.

I don't want to include or withhold any potential Wikipedia content on a technicality.

Now could you explain how you think that paper, if we decided to take it into account, would negate the following statement, which I believe is what you refer to as a "non-consenus addition"?

While many people believe that monosodium glutamate (MSG) is the cause of these symptoms, an association has never been demonstrated under rigorously controlled conditions, even in studies with people who were convinced that they were sensitive to the compound.

--TS 01:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Inconsistency - break 4

I would be happy to address your question (it has to do with the fact that the current statement is made with no regard for the opposite, well-supported viewpoint).

First, however, I need the answer to the question that started this section: Why can sciencewatcher add content but my additions get removed? Sorry, but it can't be both ways. Please pick one or the other. If content can be added, I have content to add. If no content should be added, sciencewatcher's content needs to be removed. We need to resolve this before we can proceed. Anonymous081222 (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If I ever find that my edits are consistently removed, I assume that it's probably because of a lack of consensus for my edits. If my edits consistently prevail, I assume that it's probably because of consensus for my edits. --TS 04:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we were still debating sciencewatcher's changes. If my changes can be removed, then sciencewatcher's can also be removed until the matter is resolved. You have added content to his statement, so I suppose that should also be removed.

(Also: Of course I'm not just addressing you, but rather everyone who has been reverted my changes or my attempts to remove sciencewatcher's changes. Several of those folks have not been involved in the conversation. I must insist that they participate before reverting my changes, largely due to the impact multiple editors has on the 3RR.)

Thank you

Anonymous081222 (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing remains in Wikipedia at any point except by virtue of consensus to keep it, for the moment, as it is. It will change tomorrow. --TS 04:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It will change today if people keep immediately removing every compromise I suggest without any regard for neutrality. Please suggest a reasonable neutral compromise, otherwise don't remove my statement. Either my statement stays, or sciencewatchers/etc goes. Otherwise there is no neutrality. We disagree on the interpretation of the studies, so there are two different but both well-cited interpretations of the facts. Anonymous081222 (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. The statement reasonably reflects the majority view as shown by sources. . . dave souza, talk 13:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw this on the fringe theories noticeboard. The four sources for the old statement (8,9,10,11), including a meta review, 100% support the old text and do not support the new text that you added. Particularly, the statement "other studies do seem to show a connection" has no support from those references and should not be followed with those references, as if they support it. They do not. You also can't qualify with "some studies seem to show that an association has never been demonstrated under controlled conditions". Either an association has been demonstrated under controlled conditions (which is a positive claim and requires support by reliable sources), or it has not and the old wording is correct, since it is supported by the four sources. So I disagree with all of your changes pending reliable sources for those changes. Phil153 (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with those points for reasons I've already stated many times over in this discussion (please review this discussion). Further, this particular section of the discussion was intended for addressing the bewildering edit inconsistency problem (I will move on the the matter of opinions on the validity and results of studies afterwards). But beyond the edit inconsistency (or as a part of it), there is no consensus or neutrality on what you and others have suggested, so I have made endless suggestions that compromise and address both viewpoints. I am finding the lack of neutrality and unwillingness to find a reasonable compromise extremely disturbing - I would like to make sure that this article is accurate. It seems that the opposite viewpoint would like to censor any opposition.

What we know right now is that some people believe that cites show there is no association and the others, such as myself, believe that the cites do show an association. Both are therefore supported by the cites. You can no more call my cites or my interpretations of the cites invalid than I can call your's invalid. The two opinions on the cites can certainly both be represented in the article - that is neutral, and that is a 100% accurate representation of where we are right now in this discussion. Why the resistance?

We're not there yet, but let me just say that the accuracy of the cites is something that I haven't even touched yet. Some of the studies being used by the opposite viewpoint were actually fixed (invalid), so I could dismiss them. But most are just being badly misinterpreted. But I would rather say the opposite viewpoint's opinion should ALSO be represented rather than just dismissing it. THAT is what I mean by compromising and why I keep insisting on representing both viewpoints.

The best contribution anyone could add would be a reasonable compromise - a neutral statement based on the beliefs that both sides currently have, not the current one-sided POV opinion. Although I understand why people are not doing so - those that would seem to agree with me have been accused of being sockpuppets, banned, etc (review what happened to FFN). So we're only getting those that don't. Anonymous081222 (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, you don't have to agree with me any more than I agree with you to accept that my interpretation MUST be represented for the sake of neutrality. Thus, compromise and make sure BOTH interpretations are represented. Anonymous081222 (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. You must support your claims with citations. Saying that you think the existing sources support your view doesn't help, you have to support your words in a manner that satisfies our (Wikipedia's) standards. You don't get to impose your own interpretation on the facts. --TS 13:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We report what reliable sources say about the subject. The gold standard of a reliable source are peer reviewed meta reviews published in high impact journals. They 100% support the existing text. Another type of reliable secondary source is something like the New York Times, which states "“[the] Chinese restaurant syndrome” has been thoroughly debunked (virtually all studies since then confirm that monosodium glutamate in normal concentrations has no effect on the overwhelming majority of people)". Your "intepretation" of the cites has no basis, when the cites themselves, published in reliable journals, state:

"rigorous and realistic scientific evidence linking the syndrome to MSG could not be found." (8)

"Findings from the literature indicate that there is no consistent evidence to suggest that individuals may be uniquely sensitive to MSG" (9)

"Results of surveys and of clinical challenges with MSG in the general population reveal no evidence of untoward effects"(10)

"controlled double-blind crossover studies have failed to establish a relationship between Chinese Restaurant Syndrome and ingestion of MSG, even in individuals reportedly sensitive to Chinese meals, and MSG did not provoke bronchoconstriction in asthmatics."(11)

I have tried and I can't see any reading of these studies that supports the previous changes you've made to this section, or the removal of the section as POV. If you come up with some reliable sources for the changes you wish to make to the article, then that will change. Phil153 (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

TS:

That is incorrect. It is a fact that there are two different viewpoints on the results and facts is what wikipedia is about, right? I have supported my words at least as much as you or sciencewatcher or anyone has supported their words. You simply don't agree with my interpretation. I don't agree with your interpretation. The difference is that I am willing to admit there are two different opinions on the results and even studies that sometimes conflict with each other, and so it is absolutely factual to represent both.

So it does work that way.

As far as wikipedia rules, I haven't spent much time quoting them, but I do understand them. I just vastly prefer to stay away from lawyer-like discussions and stay on topic with good reason. wikipedia is about facts. So let's make sure we get ALL the facts in the article, even the fact that people disagree. Right now we have an industry-friendly interpretation of the facts, which is NOT neutral! Why is the alternate interpretation of the facts not represented? It isn't for a lack of cites. It should be obvious to everyone that there IS something to this. Fringe view? No. Do an internet search. Read some articles. Ask around (I'll be the first to tell you that MSG = migraine). And then look again at the cites without trying to fit them into your own viewpoint and you'll see my intepretation has more than enough merit to include as a fact. Anonymous081222 (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil:

Ok, let me start by pointing out that the New York Times article, if it does in fact say that (which I would have to check again), is wrong - someone would have obviously been bribed (and I mean that literally, not sarcastically). Therefore, we can no longer consider it a reliable source. But wait, you would say that I can't dismiss valid cites. Well, there's a laundry list of valid cites that FFN and many others pointed out - sometimes over and over. But those were dismissed or interpreted differently. I'm sorry you disagree with that, but it's a fact.

Now we're debating cites, but let me make this crystal clear: MSG causes migraines in some people. Period. That's a fact. So the verifiability is available, it is just a matter of finding it (and I am saying that it HAS been found, many times over).

That said, about wikipedia rules: People keep quoting rules at me, but I don't like lawyering and won't play ball there; I'm not going to debate that. This isn't a game to me - I won't play "World of Wikipedia" (someone on another cite made this great analogy). This is very important - think about how health information impacts REAL people, not online anonymous posters. That said, I AM familiar with, and following, the intent of the wikipedia rules (and the letter according to how I read it). The core purpose of those rules is to get facts onto the pages (along with supporting cites), and that's what I'm doing. I'm just not going to start quoting rules and pasting links.

I'm going to go now, so I will respond later. Anonymous081222 (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the evidence you pointed me to. I consider myself a completely uninvolved editor. I have never edited this or health/toxin related articles, am generally sympathetic to the danger of toxins in food, and prefer natural, unprocessed food wherever possible. So take my opinion on this dispute for whatever you think it's worth. From a review of the cites by FFN, I'd conclude the following:

• The link between MSG and obesity appears to have substance, and little contradicts the scientific evidence showing said link. However, it's already included in the article, so nothing is being suppressed there.

• The link between MSG and migraines has no substance. Looking at specific studies in order:

• The Millichap study is an indiscriminate list of what they consider to be possible causes. It does not address the topic in detail, but is one man's opinion. Further, it's published in a journal not capable of assessing the claims made.
• The Strong study addresses the possibility of placebo causing migraine. This has no bearing on the hypothesis. Besides, if placebo pills are causing similar symptoms to MSG (also given in the same pill), then that shows nothing about MSG. Indeed, it could be the causative mechanism in the scant number of poorer quality studies that aren't placebo controlled. Or it could indicate the role of stress and expectation in causing migraines, which has the power to explain anecdotes of the Chinese Restaurant Syndrome. If anything, this is evidence against the MSG-migraine link.
• The other three studies, discussing a possible glutamate-migraine link, refer to levels of the neurotransmitter and are unrelated to diet. You would have to show a number of intermediate stages and unrelated causative mechanisms to link dietary glutamate to these studies, especially in the long term. For a comparison: If you're depressed, which may involve low dopamine levels, you can't just ingest or inject dopamine to cure it. The body is far more complex than that, involving countless metabolic pathways, homeostatic cycles and cell responses.

• The link between MSG and Chinese Restaurant Syndrome has no substance, and is heavily contradicted by reliable sources. The current text related to this is NPOV.

I'm sympathetic to your comments about public health being a higher purpose. But you don't advance the cause by claiming things unsupported (and indeed, contradicted by) evidence. Phil153 (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But we all agree that we need the obesity link on the page though, right? Why is it only presented in the Asia health section? It seems strange.FFN001 (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, *I* think it deserves a mention, others may not. But all of this health stuff is fully and IMO fairly covered at Glutamic_acid_(flavor)#Chinese_restaurant_syndrome, which is prominently linked. MSG is but one form of glutamate used in food, having the same health info in every glutamate related article is redundant. Phil153 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a new section at the bottom regarding obesity. Thanks for taking the time to look over this stuff, Phil153. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"claiming things unsupported (and indeed, contradicted by) evidence" = untrue, sorry. That's the problem. I really don't understand how the facts can be right there and so misinterpreted. But ok, everyone has the right to their opinion.

Phil153: The pattern here has been this: someone comes in claiming to be neutral. Maybe they act that way for a day or two. Then suddenly they turn non-neutral without a good reason, sometimes even acting inappropriately (see above for countless examples). I'm really truly hoping you are neutral and will not follow that pattern, and this isn't the same old thing.

If you are neutral, you can show that. All you need to do is this: if you really are sympathetic to my cause, then the first thing that must be done is finding one of the dozens of cites that you prefer. It is there somewhere. Let's start with what we know: MSG causes migraines. That's a fact. So now the issue is now finding a cite that you find acceptable. Rather than shooting down and arguing the ones that FFN found, how about finding some you prefer.

Thank you. Anonymous081222 (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's start with what we know: MSG causes migraines. That's a fact.

That's not just a fact, it's the Truth!. Seriously though, I can't find something that doesn't exist. If you want me to find cites for an MSG-obesity link, I can find plenty, but you're asking for the impossible.

FFN's cites don't support what you claim they do, and I've clearly explained why. To me, such false claims are red flags for someone on a truth crusade. You talk it up a lot, claim conspiracy and bias like the homeopathy and perpetual motion quacks, but I don't see a single cite to a scientific paper showing this "proven link". If you want allies, that's a good place to start. The ones you pointed me to simply don't support your claims. Seriously man, homeopathy and water memory (non existent phenomena) have more scientific evidence in their favor than MSG-migraine.

Even if your alleged link is true, the lack of evidence published in reliable sources means that Wikipedia must reflect that. verifiability, not truth is the principle of Wikipedia. Your crusade is a waste of everyone's time, including your own. If you really care about human health, go edit the endosulfan or expand the Brominated_flame_retardant#Environmental_and_Safety_Issues articles (see Polybrominated_diphenyl_ethers). These are real toxins with real, long term effects on human healh, scientific evidence for their harm (unlike MSG-migraine links), and concerted campaigns by industry to delay their banning. Phil153 (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, now that you have admitted to working for the industry (see where he admits it, below), I guess we can safely ignore your lies and snide comments ("it's the truth!" - rude).

Let's make a few things clear for other readers, anyway:

MSG causes migraines in some people. This is a fact no matter how many ways you attempt to belittle or discredit it.

I don't know anything about endosulfan. I do have years of experience with MSG. Do a bunch of food producers put endosulfan in food? I don't know, but I do know that they put MSG in a bunch of food and about 3/4 of everyone I know reacts to it one way or another (some less than others). Many of us react with a migraine headache.

There are hundreds of perfectly valid cites to choose from (I refered to those FFN posted AND those previous posters have given - see revision history). Are you saying you went through them ALL? I rather doubt that. You are obviously not neutral when you say "I can't find something that doesn't exist" - how the heck do you know that it doesn't exist? You obviously made up your mind ahead of time.

There's NOT "a lack of evidence". FFN is better with cites than I am, but from the very first one he gave, they have been spot on (thanks FFN). You and your allies just won't admit it.

I dislike debating with immoral people who post health-endangering lies for money, but it is not a waste of time because the more the debate continues, the more people who click on this talk page will see how false the article is - that's the best I can hope for because I can't afford to hire a bunch of people to guard the article. We've covered the same ground over and over and you and your allies refuse to admit to the facts right in front of your faces. Now we all know why.

Anonymous081222 (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that other editors "post health-endangering lies for money" is a severe personal attack, and you may be blocked for it. Consider this a warning. Cool Hand Luke 22:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In case you missed it, it was a joke to lighten the mood - you were getting kind of disruptive below and I wanted to defuse it. I'm sorry it didn't work.

I'll try to appeal to your reason here, one last time, before I take further action to stop this disruption and pretty extreme personal attacks. Look at the contribution histories of the people disagreeing with you. Many of them have thousands of edits, going back several years, encompassing hundreds to thousands of hours, on all areas of Wikipedia. Much of it is boring thankless work. I myself have been here since 2006 and only turned up the article less than a month ago after seeing it on a noticeboard highlighting edit warring. To claim that I and all the other contributors are some MSG company hacks defies basic reason. On the other hand, you have nearly 200 edits here, and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them relates to MSG in some way. The other person who supports your stance, FFN001, also has all of his edits to MSG. Given the objective evidence, who is more likely to have some hidden bias or unreasonableness? Seriously? Actions speak 100000x louder than accusations, and the contribution history of all editors here is plain to see. Perhaps it would be worth your time considering that the people disagreeing with you are merely ordinary people who have sound reasons for not sharing your view of things. Phil153 (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sections removed?

Did anyone else notice that an entire section was removed from the discussion? What happened to "lack of evidence is not evidence of safety?" I see that someone removed it for being a "soap box." Why did it only get removed now and not when it was first created? If the discussion is too long maybe we can just archive it. I hate to delete relevant material... FFN001 (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed a section that appeared to be an argument of the kind one would have on a forum. That is, not about the content of the article but about whether or not monosodium glutamate is in fact safe. --TS 21:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It makes sense, it does duplicate our current discussion somewhat--except there were no references. In case anyone else is wondering "Misinformation" was removed earlier, as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of TS's revert of edits by User:Shootbamboo

Shootbamboo made two edits removing the following qualifying phrase from a description of scientific tests:

under rigorously controlled conditions

and a reference to the mechanism used to control for after-taste.

I have restored them.

Shootbamboo's reasons for the two removals are, respectivaly, "aren't all scientific studies "rigorously controlled"? appears too strong of language that doesn't impart real information, IMHO" and "boldly deleteted a sentence that appears to be authored for POV pushers, not general readers, revert if you think it should be included, i just dont see the value to readers"

I couldn't disagree more. It's pretty important when describing clinical tests to be specific about what kind of tests one is referring to. --TS 02:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes yes, I boldly removed some content because the phrase and sentence appeared to give undue weight. Aren't all studies "controlled"? Why the emphasis on "rigorous"? Is a similar word in the secondary sources? Otherwise, IMHO, it violates WP:OR. I'm pretty new at this, but it looks POV to me at its root (in order to push back against [or educate] POV pushers) so i was bold =). -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What point of view do you think was being pushed? --TS 03:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

MSG causes migraines. (Not trying to call you a POV pusher if that is the motivation to your question - as it appears defensive and doesn't address my concerns.) Can you please address my concerns over the word rigorous? If a similar word is in the secondary sources, I'm OK. If its not, then it adds an extra, unnecessary endorsement to the results, without imparting real information, IMHO. -Shootbamboo (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. I'll think about it. It kinda freaks me out to be accused of pushing a point of view that I've considered but am not persuaded by. But that isn't inconceivable. Could you elaborate? --TS 04:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse - not accusing you of being a "POV pusher". I'm referring to other editors on this talk page who were pushing the POV that migraines are caused by MSG. Can you address my concerns over the word rigorous? -Shootbamboo (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The answer is that no, it is not true that all scientific studies are rigorously controlled. For studies of food effects, only a small minority are. It is very common to see "correlational" studies where all that is done is to see whether people who consume more of X have a different health status on average. Such studies are considered publishable on the grounds that it is very difficult to do rigorously controlled studies of food consumption, because it requires instructing subjects about what they should eat. For example, a rigorous study of caffeine effects would require telling each subject how much coffee to drink. It's hard to find subjects willing to cooperate. Looie496 (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Looie, I guess I wasn't communicating effectively. You answered a rhetorical question. We are not here to decide the importance of primary sources, see WP:PRIMARY. My concern is that the word "rigorous" is not lifted from a secondary source. My concern is that it is a WP:SYN. Is it (or another similar word) referred to in a secondary source? (That's my real question.) Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The term "rigorous" refers to adequate controls, particularly for the placebo effect which tends to plague food trials. If you can think of a better way of putting that than using the word "rigorous", we can go with it. --TS 14:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what the word rigorous implies in the article. But you still did not answer the question (about secondary sources). I agree that the principle is important, thus, IMHO, that content should be encyclopedic at a placebo effect page or food trial page. It is important, when one runs studies, of course, that they are adequately controlled. Yet this has nothing to do with MSG per se. Thus my concern about not adding any understanding and verging on opining on the relevance of studies - not our role. -Shootbamboo (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't respond to your question because I don't understand it. Could you explain exactly how the use of the term "rigorous"--which you appear to agree is important--is inappropriate in the context? --TS 18:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to repeatedly. Is any part in particular unclear? -Shootbamboo (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's all unclear. Nevertheless, the passage probably works reasonably well without "rigorous" and so it's not worth the time it would take to educate me in the nuances. --TS 18:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please participate in the discussion or don't remove my edits

... or suggest another phrasing, or suggest additional references if you don't like what is already there.

Further, please refrain from using inaccurate buzz words like "fringe". That word is often misused to discredit valid facts.

In other words, please use appropriate methods of editing and debating. And compromise.

Anonymous081222 (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, see WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, which has a broader application of "fringe" than might seem appropriate to you. The appropriate method of editing is full compliance with WP:V and WP:NOR as well as with the various WP:NPOV policies and guidelines. . dave souza, talk 16:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have again removed Anonymous081222's attempt to water down the lack of scientific evidence on medical consequences. There is no consensus for his edits. --TS 10:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not in compliance with what we were asked to do weeks ago: the article was locked due to the controversy and we were asked to find a solution before it was changed again (and, by the way, sciencewatcher decided to add a comment while the article was supposedly locked (but wasn't for some reason) - then no one could change it because it was locked again - see "Edit Inconsistency" above).

Anyway, my request that people participate in the discussion is simply trying to force people to be consistent with the rules that my side in the debate has been forced to use (were explicitly asked to use, as I mentioned above). It can't be both ways: either we can all change things without discussing them or no one can. Do not ask me to follow one set of rules and everyone else to follow another. Anonymous081222 (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

TS: Pure hypocrisy. Sciencewatcher's additions lack scientific evidence on medical consequences and there were no consensus for his edits (which were done when the article WAS LOCKED!! -- supposedly). Why can't I remove those? Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Anonymous081222 (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The article wasn't protected when ScienceWatcher edited. ScienceWatcher's edits are supported by me, Dave souza, and Phil153 amongst others and they also correctly represent the facts of the case as known at present. --TS 11:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

More hypocrisy. Your opinion is not neutral. MY edits are supported by FFN and others and "correctly represent the facts of the case as known as present". Who's right? Why not represent BOTH viewpoints? THAT is what is known "at present". THAT is neutral. THAT is more than reasonable. Anonymous081222 (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your last edit removed several references and also removed this: "an association has never been demonstrated under controlled conditions, even in studies with people who were convinced that they were sensitive to the compound. That is unacceptable. Please stop. --TS 13:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I keep changing it because that it is against concensus and NOT neutral. THAT is what is unacceptable. My edits are mearly attempts to integrate some small measure of neutrality into the industry propeganda that is currently there.

Please stop reverting MY changes. Very hypocritical. Anonymous081222 (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Obesity

This is covered in the glutamic acid article, but not in this article. It might be worth mentioning. Looking at the research presented in the glutamic acid article it appears to be inconclusive as to whether or not MSG causes obesity in humans. If you want to mention it here, I would suggest adding one sentence saying that the evidence is conflicting, and putting in refs for the Hawaiian and Chinese studies which showed differing results. Unless anyone can find a recent/better review. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

!!! WARNING: MSG article is NOT neutral

Please be aware that there is only one side of the debate being represented in the article.

This is a note for anyone coming to this page and potentially confused by the endless debate on this page. That said, you are welcome to read the debate and come to your own conclusions. Again, just be aware that there is only one side of the debate being represented in the article.

[Opposing side: Please do not respond - at least compromise enough to give us this note. You already have the article guarded with you own opinion.] Anonymous081222 (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Weight gain

I wonder if this edit is appropriate. Should we put so much weight on a single recent animal study? --TS 06:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I vote get rid of it, especially since it's contradicted by numerous other studies and the topic itself is covered fairly and with appropriate weight in Chinese Restaurant Syndrome, where it belongs. Phil153 (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not related to Chinese Restaurant Syndrome but all nutrition-related and pharmacological aspects should be discussed in the glutamic acid (flavor) article. The findings of this reference should be summarized in one sentence, not more. Cacycle (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Restaurant Syndrome redirects to the section you mention, hence the link. Perhaps it needs retitling. As for one setence for this reference, IMO that is still too much weight for this particular study unless the other studies at Chinese_Restaurant_Syndrome#Obesity are mentioned as well. Phil153 (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should cut this animal study down to one paragraph, move it to the glutamic acid (flavour) article, and then add one sentence to the MSG article summarising the situation ("conflicting evidence" for weight gain or similar). --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I vote not to get rid of it, since it is empirically supported. Wikipedia prides itself on having higher coverage/information availability than other encyclopedias and it doesn't make sense to deviate from that mission in this article. However, if you can convey the same information more concisely that would be fine. FFN001 (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

First we don't vote. Second, Wikipedia prides itself on NPOV backed by reliable sources and such. The animal study is barely relevant and deserves, at most, one sentence. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Which studies is it contradicted by? The earlier animal toxicity studies used a different design. If you're referring to the (observational) obesity studies in humans, a lot of factors can explain the difference. The fact that rats and humans (may) metabolize MSG slightly differently can well explain the difference. Also, this study is MSG specific; the authors only speculate that the result is not influence by sodium, but they have not demonstrated it; hence moving it to another article is inappropriate. Furthermore there are other studies, full of pretty infrared pictures (PMID 11150573), showing a clear thermogenic effect of MSG in rats; I will add them soon enough. As to "cut it down to one sentence": why do you assume everyone reading this is interested only in human aspects? This isn't Medpedia.com. This is a well controlled study of the kind you don't get to do in humans; it was actually repeated 3 times with slightly different rat populations (to measure various things, most of which did not vary, so I haven't written about them). There is a lot of scientific info on MSG; it could well become a FA. Cutting stuff down to one sentence because you don't care about it is not appropriate. Xasodfuih (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I hope I'm insulting you (all of you), but the WP:TLDR discussions above makes me think that editors on this article do little else besides constantly edit warring and haranguing over the same 2-3 sentences about health concerns. With all that time spent on this article you could get it to GA status at least. Xasodfuih (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Because MSG has no effect on anyone. Unless this study actually has any meaning, it's not going to have much support.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is too much scientifically supported peer reviewed evidence for any of us to actually believe that MSG has "no effect on anyone." You are sounding dangerously biased...more like tobacco companies use to than a neutral contributor fighting for a neutral entry. FFN001 (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It has pretty important meaning: that earlier studies which forcibly fed rats with MSG may be quite misleading as to what normal consumption does. Here's a relevant quote from the article comparing with earlier studies:

“ In contrast to the effects of MSG observed in the present studies, some earlier studies suggested that MSG administration produces

increases, not decreases, in body weight (and fat mass) [8,10,17,26]. However, these earlier studies were designed specifically to produce toxic effects in the brain (where GLU is an excitatory neurotransmitter), through the administration of extremely high doses (2000 mg/kg or more, administered repeatedly) to infant animals, either by single, direct injection or intubation. The production of obesity in animals treated in this manner required that plasma GLU concentrations be elevated to very high values [24,25], sufficient to penetrate into the brain. However, large increases in plasma GLU, and the passage of GLU from the blood into the brain are phenomena that do not normally occur [4,31]. These studies thus bear no relevance to the present work (or to normal metabolic physiology), since in our study, rats chose to ingest the MSG solution; and, MSG ingestion produced no increases in plasma GLU concentrations. Hence, the effects seen in the present study, as discussed above, are probably linked via a physiologic mechanism, to a local action of GLU in the gut, rather than via a pharmacologic/toxicologic mechanism to a distant action of exogenous GLU forced on the brain.

”

Another issue: while discussing the toxicity of glutamate it's okay to put it all in one article, complex behaviour like feeding can be affected by whatever glutamate is attached to. So I don't think it's okay to a priori claim that MSG, when normally ingested, will have the same effect on obesity as any other glutamate salt. (Has this been demonstrated experimentally?) I suggest that the old rat MSG obesity studies discussed there be moved here in the animal studies section. Xasodfuih (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

For cross-referencing purposes, ref 8 above is PMID 16132059 cited in Chinese_Restaurant_Syndrome#Obesity; PMID 645905, also cited in the other wiki page is not cited in the 2008 Japanese study, but similar studies are (e.g. PMID 5778021 from Science is 17 above). Xasodfuih (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

MSG versus glutamate

Regarding the issue of MSG versus glutamate: if you look at the obesity section of the glutamate (flavour) article, all of the studies talk about "MSG". In fact most of the health concerns in the glutamate flavour article actually discuss MSG, and a lot of the other sections are also about MSG rather than glutamate. So maybe it would be better just to merge the two articles. I don't see any value in the current split unless someone can fix these problems. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ho hum about this. The German consensus statement I recently cited (to cover the previously unsourced EU info) on the "flavor" page (PMID 16957679) goes to some length to explain that for toxicity purposes all glutamate salts should be considered equivalent given how easily they hydrolyse. But for more complex behaviour studies, like feeding on some glutamate compound ad lib, it's not clear a priori how equivalent these compounds are. Xasodfuih (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(Minor remark: The salts do not hydrolyze, the just dissolve, that is enough to set the glutamate free. Cacycle (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

I meant dissociate; sorry for the brain fart. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that if you look at how the flavour article is currently written, it mostly talks about MSG. So either it needs rewritten, or we should just have one article and point out the differences where required (which will likely be just in one or two places). It just seems a huge waste of everyone's time to have two articles for this. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's a waste of time, but glutamic acid (flavor) needs a separate article, and so does MSG. MSG is very notable as a specific food additive, has a rich history of discovery and production, and notability as a separate chemical compound. None of that can fit in glutamic acid (flavor), and a redirect would be very confusing to most of the 4000 people who view the article each day. I'd suggest stubbing the health section down to a couple of lines, and explaining that glutamate is the active compound, with a direction to the main glutamate article. We would keep the per-country labelling requirements as they're very notable and people come looking for that kind of information specifically as it relates to MSG (most people are ignorant that MSG is the naturally occuring glutamate with a meaningless Na attached, or have other weird ideas). Phil153 (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Before starting to merge, split, or move content around, we have discuss a complete proposal that takes into account the following problems:

• Technically one could argue scientific results obtained with the sodium salt (MSG) could not be generalized to other salts. But in the absence of any evidence of the contrary it is safe to assume their general equivalence. At least for lexicographical ordering.
• There are many glutamate salts used as flavor enhancer (monosodium glutamate, monopotassium glutamate, calcium diglutamate, monoammonium glutamate, magnesium diglutamate, and glutamic acid, as well as many glutamate containing preparations and foods). We have to keep the Chinese restaurant syndrome story and the scientific work inspired by this in one article.

Cacycle (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral language

Why aren't we using neutral language in this article? There are two sides--at least that much has been established, right? Then lets use neutral language when addressing the health concerns. We don't have to agree with one another, but we do need to acknowledge there is more than one perspective. My wording is more neutral and does not detract from your point of view. If not these exact words, then at least change it to SOMETHING neutral please. Do you really think anyone is going to take this hard-line "MSG is healthy" seriously? Offer a balanced perspective and people will believe you. The current article isn't believable.

"There are some health concerns over MSG as a food additive. A report from the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) compiled in 1995 on behalf of the FDA concluded that MSG was safe for most people when “eaten at customary levels.” However, it also said that, based on anecdotal reports, some people may have an MSG intolerance which causes “MSG symptom complex” — commonly referred to as Chinese restaurant syndrome — and/or a worsening of asthmatic symptoms.[7] Many people believe that monosodium glutamate (MSG) is the cause of these symptoms, though an association has never been definitively supported in empirical studies.[8][9][10][11] Adequately controlling for experimental bias includes a placebo-controlled double-blinded experimental design and the application in capsules because of the strong and unique after-taste of glutamates.[8]"FFN001 (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Which version exactly are you complaining that sounds not credible? The one you just quote above sounds credible enough to me: it describes both the anecdotal evidence and the lack of statistical evidence using accurate terminology. Seems WP:NPOV to me; I've added links that hopefully clarify things. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, there aren't two sides. There is just the one side: science. As for your comment about the current text: you're right, it gives too much attention to the FASEB reports saying there might be health effects when there aren't any. Perhaps we should just remove this, because newer, better quality reviews show no health effects. --sciencewatcher (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I would give it less text coverage, but still cite it because the link contains details about the FDA ARMS data, which is the most credible source about anecdotal evidence I can think of. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not give undue weight to fringe theories. There is no need to discuss anecdotal evidence, except in a historic sense, and then only a sentence at best. All of the scientific evidence shows that all MSG does is...make food taste a bit better. Like other fads, this was tested and debunked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

See--you keep saying that the side you don't agree with isn't even worth mentioning. That is not valid or even believable. The health concerns are not a fad--it lasted 30 years and counting and there is a body of evidence which supports MSG negative health links (several of which are listed on my personal page). You just don't agree so you don't want to admit there is another side. I am trying to be neutral--you are not. Please soften the wording. Xasodfuih agrees that the wording in my potential rewrite is pretty neutral. Use it or something similar but not completely ignore the other side of the issue just because you don't agree.FFN001 (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I confused you, but you confused me as well. I had the impression that you had quoted from the current version at the time; I didn't read the text you posted on the talk page because it doesn't have any actual references. I then made these links to make the text more accessible. But you pasted a version that obscures the difference in levels of evidence discussed above, and is not an improvement. Phil153 has already reverted you, and I agree with his action. Xasodfuih (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted FFN's unsupported changes for a second time. Since they're lumped together, here are the changes he proposes, one by one for discussion:

• MSG as a food ingredient has been the subject of scientifically unsubstantiated health concerns. -> There are some health concerns over MSG as a food additive.

Four journal cites, as well as the official positions of pretty much all food authorities, support the fact the claims are unsubstantiated, and this is extremely important information. I don't support its removal.

• Removal of link to anecdotal evidence in the sentence it also said that, based on anecdotal reports, some people may have an MSG intolerance

I think the removal of this linking makes the article poorer. Some people don't know what anecdotal evidence is or why it may be unreliable, and the link provides further information. There is zero reason to remove it.

• Many people believe that monosodium glutamate (MSG) is the cause of these symptoms, though an association has never been definitively supported in empirical studies

This change gives the impression there is evidence, just not definitive. The opposite is true - there is evidence that there is no connection, and the evidence is strong. The old version more correctly summarizes and quotes the four very strong sources given.

Feel free to add your thoughts on the individual changes he's proposed. Phil153 (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hold on--there is lots of evidence for the position I have given. Even the FDA agrees with my neutral position. Aren't they a credible source?FFN001 (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Asserting something isn't helpful. Cites that fit our reliable sources are, and the cites in the article support the old verison. The four meta reviews given support both the spirit and actual wording of that paragraph. It would also help if you address each change individually - you're proposing multiple changes and I don't know what you're referring to.

P.S. The FDA's study found "no evidence to suggest that MSG contributes to any long-term health problems". "No evidence" for is the very meaning of unsubstantiated. Phil153 (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There is lots of evidence and you have been made aware of it even if you haven't read it yet.FFN001 (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's an unsupported assertion. Do you see how you're neither helping, nor being civil, nor assuming good faith. I have both read and responded to the cites you've mentioned, in detail, here and here. If there are others that support specific text you wish to include, please link to them, here, in this discussion, so we can move forward. Phil153 (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There is lots of discussion above and, in an attempt to be as neutral as possible, I am not going to address your attack on my character. Please refer to the discussion above.FFN001 (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I included two more studies below.FFN001 (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Scientifically unsubstantiated health concerns

I see a potential contradiction between the strong language "scientifically unsubstantiated health concerns" and the INTERMAP study findings; obesity is classified as health concern. On the other hand INTERMAP is a recent study, and despite the fairly convincing steps take to eliminate confounding factors, it's still an association study. I'm not sure how to adjust the language though. Perhaps "scientifically unsubstantiated health concerns, possibly with the exception of obesity" better reflects the text that follows? Xasodfuih (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a few other concerns which have been supported too. Check out the links on my page and, if you have stamina you can dig through the comments above, you could find probably another dozen peer reviewed studies citing other health concerns. Not only that, several of the no-health link citations in the current article are pretty weak. The problem is that some people on this page are really PRO or ANTI MSG and they aren't taking a time-out to look at this from a neutral perspective. I think that emotions are running too high. I was guilty of it too before I took a break:( Anyways, I am purely shooting for neutral now and trying not to take sides.FFN001 (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh and opinions are not 2:1--it just seems that way because the PRO sides is very vocal and persistent. Most of the neutral and anti editors have either been run off or just got tired.FFN001 (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I read your references: the only one which appears to conclude that MSG causes migraines is "The diet factor in pediatric and adolescent migraine". I can't find the full-text for this now, but as I recall it bases this conclusion on a single small study. If you can remind me of the study which it references, we can discuss it. Regarding your migraine/glutamate references: those are discussing glutamate as a neurotranmitter, not as food. Eating glutamate doesn't affect your neurotramitters.

As for MSG and health concerns, you need to consider two facts: [1] lots of research over the years has failed to show any health effects at all, except possibly for obesity and even that seems to be conflicting. [2] MSG breaks down into sodium and glutamate when it is dissolved (or you eat it), and pretty much any food you eat has large amounts of glutamate, so it is highly implausible that MSG could cause health problems. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that some research has failed to demonstrate a health link. However, other research has found the link. According to the second study, the cause is unknown. However, some researchers have suggested that it caused by impurities in the glutamate or the presence of unnatural glutamates (e.g. Herbert H. Schaumburg, Robert Byck, Robert Gerst, and Jan H. Mashman 1969 "Monosodium L-Glutamate: Its Pharmacology and Role in the Chinese Restaurant Syndrome Science" 21 February: Vol. 163. no. 3869, pp. 826 - 828)

Here are two studies which demonstrate a health link (including their abstracts):

Vasospasm contributes to monosodium glutamate-induced headache.By Merritt JE, Williams PB, Headache [Headache], ISSN: 0017-8748, 1990 Sep; Vol. 30 (9), pp. 575-80; PMID: 2262310; Consumption of monosodium glutamate has long been considered to precipitate headaches in susceptible patients. In this study the direct effects of glutamate and its metabolite, glutamine, on arterial contractility were examined using rings of rabbit aorta. In a high concentration glutamate caused significant concentration-dependent contractions (EC50, 10(-1)M; maximum tension, 188.4 +/- 33.3 mg wt tension/mg tissue). Agonists and antagonists for alpha-adrenergic, histaminergic, serotonergic, cholinergic, and GABA-nergic receptors as well as inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis failed to influence glutamate contractions. At high concentrations (10(-5)M) the calcium channel blocker, verapamil, inhibited the glutamate response. Glutamate and glutamine both exhibited concentration dependent relaxation of norepinephrine (NE), phenylephrine (PE), histamine, serotonin (5-HT), and prostaglandin F2 alpha (PGF2 alpha)-induced contractions. Kainic acid (10(-4)M), an agonist of one subpopulation of central glutamate receptor, potentiated glutamate-induced vasoconstriction; a higher concentration (10(-3)M) produced an irreversible inhibition of glutamate contractility. Only the central glutamate receptor antagonist, ketamine (10(-4)-10(-2)M), induced a reversible, concentration dependent inhibition of glutamate-induced contractions. Glutamate contractility was not dependent on extracellular calcium, an intact endothelium or neuronal function. These results demonstrate a direct effect of glutamate on peripheral arterial tone. Dietary consumption of large quantities of MSG may represent a serious health hazard to certain individuals with pre-existing vascular disease.

A half-maximally effective dose (EC50) of 0.1 g/mol - that is 17 g/L! This is several orders of magnitude beyond any physiological relevance. Cacycle (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The monosodium glutamate symptom complex: assessment in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study.Yang WH, Drouin MA, Herbert M, Mao Y, Karsh J, The Journal Of Allergy And Clinical Immunology [J Allergy Clin Immunol], ISSN: 0091-6749, 1997 Jun; Vol. 99 (6 Pt 1), pp. 757-62; PMID: 9215242; BACKGROUND: Considerable debate swirls about the validity of symptoms described by many people after ingestion of monosodium glutamate (MSG), and the question has remained unresolved largely because of a paucity of well-designed challenge studies. METHODS: We conducted oral challenge studies in self-identified MSG-sensitive subjects to determine whether they had a statistically significant difference in the incidence of their specific symptoms after ingestion of MSG compared with placebo. First, 5 gm MSG or placebo was administered in random sequence in a double-blind fashion. Subjects who reacted only to a single test agent then underwent rechallenge in random sequence in a double-blind fashion with placebo and 1.25, 2.5, and 5 gm MSG. A positive response to challenge was defined as the reproduction of > of 2 of the specific symptoms in a subject ascertained on prechallenge interview. RESULTS: Sixty-one subjects entered the study. On initial challenge, 18 (29.5%) responded to neither MSG nor placebo, 6 (9.8%) to both, 15 (24.6%) to placebo, and 22 (36.1%) to MSG (p = 0.324). Total and average severity of symptoms after ingestion of MSG (374 and 80) were greater than respective values after placebo ingestion (232 and 56; p = 0.026 and 0.018, respectively). Rechallenge revealed an apparent threshold dose for reactivity of 2.5 gm MSG. Headache (p < 0.023), muscle tightness (p < 0.004), numbness/tingling (p < 0.007), general weakness (p < 0.040), and flushing (p < 0.016) occurred more frequently after MSG than placebo ingestion. CONCLUSIONS: Oral challenge with MSG reproduced symptoms in alleged sensitive persons. The mechanism of the reaction remains unknown, but symptom characteristics do not support an IgE-mediated mechanism. According to Food and Drug Administration recommendations, the symptoms, originally called the Chinese restaurant syndrome, are better referred to as the MSG symptom complex.FFN001 (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The first study demonstrates that glutamate, in extremely high concentrations, contracts dissected rabbit aorta. Plenty of harmless substances do all kinds of nasty things at high concentrations which are never reached in the bloodstream.

The second study is a tiny study that has a p of 0.324 for actual effects. This is worthless. Out of a group of self identified MSG sensitive subjects, 15 responded to placebo, vs 22 to MSG and 18 with no effect. This is not statistically significant, as the authors themselves note. The only thing statistically significant is the severity of response.

The trouble with this study is that there is no inidication if the placebo effect has been adequately controlled for, since the taste, combined with expectation, is profound (just look at the placebo responses!). These issues are noted in the four meta reviews (far more reliable than individual studies) which are given in the article and also summarized here: [7]. These are damning to the few individual studies that exist. Note that a single study does not show or even indicate anything. This is a basic fact of science and the reliability and strong preference for meta reviews is expounded in our reliable sources policy. To give an example, homeopathy, a non existent phenomenon, famously has evidence for its effectiveness published in the most prestigious journals in the world: [8][9].

Given the nature of these reviews, it is right to call it "scientifically unsubstantiated". Phil153 (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the (now deleted) animal study discussed above, it's clear that one should not rush to generalize from toxicity results. MSG (GLU carboxylate anion to be more precise) seems to have different effects depending whether it enters the bloodstream or not, which is concentration-dependant. Even though rats prefer a 1% MSG solution over plain water, they apparently do not ingest enough MSG that way to suffer any adverse effects; this is in contrast to the adverse effects observed from overdosing experiments. PMID 16957679 has some recommendations for safe levels in human consumption. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The PMID you linked seems to indicate that added glutamate (MSG) is well below natural glutamate intake from food: Total intake of glutamate from food in European countries is generally stable and ranged from 5 to 12 g/day (free: ca. 1 g, protein-bound: ca. 10 g, added as flavor: ca. 0.4 g). Perhaps this is worth mentioning explicitly? Phil153 (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this Yang et al. study quoted a few times, but I don't have access to the full-text. Here are some questions you need to ask about this trial: are the participants properly blinded? You need to see what they actually used as a placebo. If they used water, then the trial is worthless because obviously people will be able to tell the difference. For a high quality trial you would expect them to interview the participants afterward to check the blinding - the same % of people in each group should say they think they are on the placebo. If there is a big difference then the blinding is not adequate and the trial is worthless. Also you need to check to make sure it isn't the sodium that is causing the effect, so ideally you should be using sodium chloride or something similar as a placebo. Clearly if you eat a lot of sodium it is likely to have health effects, but that doesn't tell you anything about MSG.

However, even if the study did do everything properly it still doesn't necessarily mean that it proves that MSG has a health effect, as 61 is a relatively small group. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The consensus paper is a review, not an original study. They don't give details as to whether the studies they cited were blinded or not. I'm fairly busy with other stuff, but if you are interested in look at their references, I can email the pdf to you. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My comment above was in reference to the Yang paper, sorry for any confusion. But it would be useful to put in some comments from the European review. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

On the second paper, there was an effect in the challenge study (P = .026 and .018). I do admit the rabbit aorta in the first paper seems a little weak. Still, it does show that there is interest in the scientific community about the health effects of MSG. Plus, keep in mind that we are supposed to just be reporters of peer reviewed scientific studies, not reviewers or scientists ourselves. Something to consider anyways.FFN001 (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yang Paper (PMID 9215242)

Here is the info regarding the placebo used in this study:

"All subjects underwent an initial challenge in which they ingested on an empty stomach 5g of MSG (dissolved in 200ml of a strongly citrus tasting beverage, containing sucrose as a sweetening agent) or placebo (same beverage without MSG) in random order on different days"

As you can see, the placebo did not have any sodium. Therefore any effect could be due to the sodium. Do you think you could eat 5g of sodium chloride on an empty stomach without any side effects? --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Also:

"The data from the study suggest that large doses of MSG given without food may elicit more symptoms than a placebo in individuals who believe that they react adversely to MSG. However, neither persistent nor serious effects from MSG ingestion were observed and the frequency of the responses was low. More importantly, the responses reported were inconsistent and were not reproducible. The responses were not observed when MSG was given with food." --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

While I understand your point, I think that the fact that some evidence does point to MSG having negative health effects calls for more neutral language in this article. The wording right now sounds like it has been definitely proven that MSG is healthy and that anyone who doubts it is a conspiracy theorist--which is not believable anyways given the 60 Minutes news report describing the terrible health effects of MSG or the half a dozen webpages saying MSG is horrible stuff. It would be fine to say that many studies have not found MSG causes health problems--that is true. But it is not okay to say that the scientific community has definitely concluded that MSG is not the subject of health concerns--that is not true. If absolutely nothing else, there is a significant link to obesity. It is also not okay to say that health problems are a fringe theory, because there are many researchers, journals and policy makers interested in reading about and publishing studies on this issue.

If someone else agrees to soften the strong wording, or let me soften the wording without immediately reverting my changes, then I think we will have a good article. If not, this article is going to keep being a battlefield long after you and I get tired of editing it.FFN001 (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There is also powerful evidence that homeopathy works. I linked two studies above, there are many more. In fact, there's more positive evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy than there is for an MSG-health link. The trouble is, like MSG, there are mountains of evidence that no such health link exists, and a number of solid meta reviews supports that conclusion. It is also, like homepathy, totally at odds with well established understanding of basic chemistry (MSG is just free glutamate + free sodium, and people get significantly more of it from nature than they do from additives). Unless you want to start calling cheese and grapes "the subject of health concerns", there is no basis for saying it about MSG.

The current version accurately reflects the state of current knowledge. MSG has been the subject of scientifically unsubstantiated (i.e. inadequate evidence to make credible) health concerns. This is not point of view at all - anything which gives a substantially different impression is POV, and I don't think text which is amply supported by the evidence should be made less descriptive and accurate and less NPOV because of a notion that failing to do so will get the anti-MSG rioters up in arms. It wasn't done at homeopathy or other fringe article based on unsubstantiated ideas and it shouldn't be done here until the evidence supports it.

I would support changing the text, but not to what you propose (I outline why above). Maybe something like "MSG has long been the subject of health concerns, which are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific evidence". Phil153 (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

FFN001 is right: we are not supposed to be reviewing the articles ourselves. We simply have to say what the reviews state, and that is what the article already says. My points above were simply to help FFN001 understand why the reviews come to the conclusion that MSG is perfectly safe. We might just need to change the article to make it more clear why MSG is safe, by putting in some more detail from these reviews. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that goes without saying. I've expounded on the point about meta reviews constantly, and it's the basis of my arguments to not support FFN's revisions. But FFN seems to think that a handful of poorly controlled, poorly done studies (which the reviews themselves look at, rigorously) are somehow proof that there's controversy, that science somehow thinks there are credible health threats despite what the gold standard of reliability (secondary scientific sources) says about the topic. So in a sense I'm trying to educate FFN, who doesn't seem to realize that positive results in poorly done studies are business as normal, even in the most highly rejected fields like homeopathy. I don't mean to be condescending but the way he/she keeps throwing up these studies as proof of controversy demonstrates a lack of understand of science and evidence and how the process works. It's frustrating, particularly combined with offensive accusations of being pro-MSG or an industry lackey or whatever else, of not reading cites, and so on. Time for a break before I get uncivil. Phil153 (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Phil, first, there is no evidence (let me repeat, none), that homeopathy works. In fact, it fails basic principles of science. But I'm trying to figure out your logic for discussing it, but I actually don't care. I've noticed the same thing on tons of these fringe articles. One or two editors focus on one or two citations that may or may not support their POV. Fortunately, the vast majority of research over a long period of time says MSG is safe. According to WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, we don't have to give undue weight to these fringe theories. A brief mention is fine, but we're not going to give it much weight. Yes, maybe in the future the research will be confirmed, but we don't predict the future. Time to move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not do research on MSG or medical conditions but I am quite familiar with research. I am also familiar with the politics of publishing. However, my research qualifications are irrelevant because our job is to report, not research or review. There are more than a "handful of articles" pointing to a variety of negative health effects and there are not RIGOROUS review articles saying all of these articles are rubbish. The one article which does say all negative health effects are disconfirmed is a review article from an industry conference which was 5 pages long and only cited 25 articles--not what I consider strong evidence. However, there are some research studies which provide evidence that there are not headaches or migraines related to MSG. There are also some studies that provide evidence that MSG leads to obesity. And confusingly, there are some studies that contradict both findings. Therefore, we can't be 100% certain of anything given the information we have available. I think we should err on the side of caution and, despite calls to the contrary from the anti-MSG sorts, take the same position and style of language as the FDA. Their position is that MSG is safe for most of the population when consumed at normal amounts. Some people may have higher sensitivity than others but this should not be evidence that MSG is not safe for the majority of the population. There is plenty of evidence to support the FDA's position so it would be very difficult to dispute. Hopefully, we can end this long-winded debate and move on to other topics. FFN001 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Move on & do not feed the trolls

WARNING: THIS IS A PERSONAL ATTACK. I AM LEAVING IT HERE SO EVERYONE CAN SEE EXACTLY HOW CACYCLE AND HIS ALLIES BEHAVE AND THE REPLIES. NORMALLY SUCH A THING SHOULD SIMPLY BE REMOVED OUTRIGHT. Anonymous081222 (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should have a break here. FFN001 and his other incarnations/friends have been proven to be resistant to rational discourse and have resorted to trolling and disruptive behavior early on. There is simply no point in repeating the very same arguments over and over again with ever new well-meaning editors. It is simple: do not feed the trolls - ignore them! Keep the page on your watchlist, and revert any disruptive edits. Do not waste your precious Wikipedia time with this any longer. Cacycle (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow--your attack is uncalled for and not in the spirit of wikipedia. There are many editors who don't agree MSG is perfectly harmless. I wanted to get perspective on this debate because I arrived only a few months ago. Turns out this debate has been going on for literally years--since the article was first created. Not only have there been a large number of editors who believe that MSG is not completely harmless, there was even a 60 minutes special on the negative health effects of MSG (link removed due to copyright fear--it is available on youtube with key words '60 minutes' and 'MSG'--thanks for the warning Phil). Other editors must have got sick of the debate or they were banned/run-off like Cacycle tried to do to me TWICE already (yes I have been sent to wiki jail and gone through a sock puppet check). Eventually, I will get sick of it too but I know that down the road someone else will see how biased this article is and the debate will rage on...

Or you can end the debate now by taking a strong, believable position. Take the position of the FDA as I have described in my comment above. MSG is pretty much harmless for most people at normal levels but some people are sensitive. The FDA's position is reasonable. It is the morally responsible position, it is the scientifically supported position, it is the most defensible position--it ends debates and silences the call-to-arms against MSG. How can you lose?FFN001 (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence supporting your statement. There is no biology that supports your statement. And there is no chemistry that supports your statement.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

no evidence except for all the evidence I have provided + the position of the Food and Drug Administration. The article is getting better because it is more precise. Just two more changes before it is great. The hardline "MSG-is-great-for-your-health-and-only-fools-and-Nazis-think-otherwise" wording of the first sentence is not believable and gives fuel to the anti-MSG people who think that corporations are using wiki to cover up some MSG scandal. I suggest that the wording of the first sentence is changed to "MSG has been subjected to a variety of health concerns, most of which have not been scientifically substantiated." Second, the obesity link should be added but you can also add some potential explanation of why the link may be false if you are so inclined. Wiki may be the first stop for many people, but how long do you really think it will take for them to figure out this article contains false generalizations? All your credibility will be lost--even the parts that are true. Control the presentation of the information, don't deny that it exists.FFN001 (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

My personal suggestion is that you read WP:RS, WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV. And I'm about done with feeding you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you OrangeMarlin, indeed FFN001 should read those, excellent suggestion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

On my page, I list 13 cites published in respected peer-reviewed journals which give empirical evidence supporting the notion that MSG is NOT perfectly healthy. By now, I have more scientific evidence than the pro-msg people have and I have only looked on Medline and Healthsource Academic. All people have to do is click on the discussion page or my page or another webpage and BANG all the information they need to contradict the absurd notion that "MSG is the subject of scientifically unsubstantiated health concerns" is right there. Just be aware that 'card stacking' (providing only evidence that supports your point and ignoring all other evidence) is a terrible technique in the days of the internet. Sure didn't work for the Bush administration, anyways. Note that Obama immediately switched strategies. FFN001 (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the main article is at glutamic acid(flavor), with far more detail, I'm cleaning up the health concerns sections per WP:SUMMARY. This may take a few edits. Phil153 (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

cacycle (and his other incarnations/friends):

A troll is someone who gets a kick out of angering people online. If you think I enjoy debating with a bunch of morally corrupt people like yourselves, you are deeply mistaken. My intent, as I've stated over and over, is to put something about migraines on the page, and now it is also to fix your non-neutral opinions. Anonymous081222 (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Guarding an article with opinions and making personal attacks is inappropriate

The above section outright condones guarding this article with an opinion as well as using personal attacks - myself and those who share my opinions are not "trolls". That behavior is inappropriate and against the spirit of wikipedia (and the rules, as I understand them). What is on the MSG page regarding migraines is not only a non-neutral opinion that is clearly against concensus, but it is inappropriate to guard it in any case. I call that a form of edit warring.

The whole reason there is now opinion in the article is that I wanted to add a note about the connection to migraines. So instead of that, we get a bunch of non-neutral industry propeganda showing up and notes about how those who dispute it are "trolls" and a call to guard the article with their non-neutral, industry-friendly opinions.

This would be the same as if I add a section called "Don't feed the industry lackies" (only in that case, it would almost certainly be true). Anonymous081222 (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting the health section

Since the main article is at glutamic acid(flavor), with far more detail, I'm cleaning up the health concerns sections to conform with WP:SUMMARY. This may take a few edits. Phil153 (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the outline of what I want to add, about two small paragraphs, to summarize glutamic acid(flavor):

• MSG is but one form of glutamate existing in and added to food (most people don't know this). Glutamate is the active part.
• Recognised as safe, placed in the safest category of food by major authorities (WHO, FDA, EC, etc)
• Typical consumption is significantly less than the amount of free glutamate found naturally in an average diet (two refs)
• Chinese restaurant syndrome (headaches, etc) is unsupported by evidence, but speculation exists about excitotoxicity and conflicting evidence about an obesity correlation.

I'd remove the regulation section since it's merely a duplicate of the glutamic acid article.

Phil153 (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I approve of this outline, but I'm confused as to where do you want to remove the regulation section from? This article doesn't have one, and glutamic acid (flavor) certainly needs it to give all the E-number etc. If you're suggesting that we remove the country subsection headings from health concerns, I'm for it as there's little variation in how regulatory authorities on three continents percieve the (lack of) health risks associated with MSG. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the health concerns section

Below is what I propose for a rewrite of the section per a WP:SUMMARY of Glutamic_acid_(flavor)#Research_into_health_effects. Given the revert wars that happen around here, I want to give people a chance to air objections or propose changes first. I've marked unreferenced sentences, everything unmarked is referenced. Please help with references if you can. The below will be wikilinked, etc.

Monosodium glutamate is but one form of glutamate found in food. Glutamate is present in many natural foods, such as aged cheese, tomatoes, meats, peas, and grapes, and the average diet provides a higher intake of glutamate from natural sources than from additives. As such, negative health effects specific to MSG but not glutamate are very unlikely.^{[ref needed]}

Health concerns about MSG have a history in anecdotes of Chinese Restaurant Sydrome, a group of symptoms claimed to occur following ingestion of glutamate. Symptoms reported include headaches, triggering of asthma, numbness, and chest pain. A number of reviews of the scientific evidence conclude that the phenomenon has failed to be demonstrated in controlled studies, even in people who were convinced they were sensitive to the compound. Many of these sensitive individuals report similar sympmtoms after unknowingly ingesting placebos containing no MSG.^{[thanks to FFN001 for the two refs for this section]}

Other concerns about MSG include speculation about excitoxicity, due to a possible increases in blood glutamate levels, and conflicting evidence of correlations with obesity. However, given typical dietary intakes of glutamate from sources other than MSG^{[already referenced]}, such concerns would also apply to many commonly eaten foods.^{[ref needed]}

Health authorities consider MSG safe at normal consumption levels. The World Health Organization, the European Community's (EC) Scientific Committee for Foods, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration place MSG in their safest food categories, setting no official upper limits on its use.

Phil153 (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"As such, negative health effects specific to MSG but not glutamate are very unlikely.^{[ref needed]}": This formulation is too speculative and would need more explanations. BTW, it would be very interesting to get more concentrations for common glutamate-rich foods such as "normal" cheeses and other aged foods such as salami. Cacycle (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We have a table in Glutamic_acid_(flavor)#Concentration_in_foods; I'm not sure we need that level of detail in this article, especially since it's not clear that the free variety is MSG, but Phil's proposal futher above (which got lost in the flame war) was to mention the contribution of free glutamate to the daily European diet [other coutries would be fine too if we can find the data]: "Total intake of glutamate from food in European countries is generally stable and ranged from 5 to 12 g/day (free: ca. 1 g, protein-bound: ca. 10 g, added as flavor: ca. 0.4 g)[PMID 1695767]". Xasodfuih (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion not directly related to the proposed outline

Discussion in violation of WP:TALK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I hope you are keeping it neutral. That means you MUST also include the well-cites scientific facts that myself and others who share my opinions have been presenting over and over. Anonymous081222 (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC) My boss doesn't pay me to keep it neutral. Sorry, friend. Phil153 (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Wow, you admit it. I had hoped you weren't one of them. Doesn't this mean you should be banned or something? Getting paid to post industry propeganda has got to be against wikipedia rules. Or is that how they were getting their donations back when they were begging for money? ps: My post here was taken out of context, as originally it was a reply to a comment without a "proposed outline" - see revision history. Anonymous081222 (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC) For future reference, he has explained above that his reply was a joke. Please comment on the content, not the contributor. Cool Hand Luke 00:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC) As you know, it is possible to hire wiki editor mercenaries on reward boards or get PR people editing. Personally, I only want readers to know that MSG may cause problems when taken in excess or for people with sensitivities--the position held by the FDA. It does make a person wonder how it is possible for Phil and Cacycle to take such a hard stance against such a logical and morally responsible position backed up with so much evidence... If their logic is that monosodium glutamate is only made of salt bound to free glutamate--and both salt and glutamate are harmless--they are incorrect and they know it. Remember, the glutamate in MSG only has to be 99% pure--therefore there can be up to 1% 'contamination' from the manufacturing process. Plus, loading something down with salt and free glutamates is hardly "normal consumption" as the FDA states. Even salt taken in excess is bad for you! Plus, statistical studies can never 100% certain of an outcome (especially non-findings) and it is ALWAYS appropriate to indicate that there may be exceptions and boundary conditions (such as allergies and sensitivities), especially in cases like this where there are conflicting findings. Just ask yourself why a neutral editor would try this hard to suppress such a widely held, strongly supported, and safe position? For anyone who is an edit-for-hire or PR type, suppressing important allergy/sensitivity health information hurts people. Ask yourself if hurting people--even if it is just a small number of people--is really worth the money. Unless someone outright insults me (as they have been doing a lot of lately) or asks me a direct question, I am going to take a break for a few weeks. I want to do the right thing, but this debate is bothering me and I need another cool-off period to remain neutral. Good luck Anon.FFN001 (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC) perhaps you find it "logical and moral", but it is not supported by the data. MSG simply is a salt of sodium and glutamate, it just is. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Except for all the studies on my page which DO support a variety of health problems... I forgot to meantion about interactive chemical properties (where the properties of X and Y are different from the properties of X+Y together) chemical reaction and drug interaction. So both glutamates and salt have separate properties which are bad in excess, MSG contains 1% contamination which may be bad, combining glutamate with salt may create interactive properties...hmmm the argument that salt+glutamate must be harmless because salt and glutamate are 'harmless' is REALLY weak. Read the studies on my page instead of just assuming.FFN001 (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Refined glutamate is significantly more pure than glutamate from traditionally-fermented products like Worcester Sauce.[10] Moreover it really is an amino acid salt—if you add salt to a soup, there will be free glutamate and there will be MSG. Now that doesn't mean that it's necessarily healthy to eat 5g of free glutamate in a serving, but your arguments don't make chemical sense. At any rate, I'm going to put this whole conversation under a hat if no one disagrees. Speculation about other editors and soapboxing is not allowed per WP:TALK. Cool Hand Luke 20:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Don't feed the trolls :-( Ignore and revert. Cacycle (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC) But it is sad when someone doesn't understand the basic principles of chemistry. And you're right. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Doubt my knowledge of chemistry? Go breath the oxygen in water and let me know how that works out for you:) Or better yet go eat some sodium cyanide--I mean that is just salt combined with nitrogen and carbon, right? Three completely harmless things--salt, nitrogen and carbon...what's the harm in putting them together? Educate me:)FFN001 (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC) To Coolhand--Salt does not naturally bind with free glutamates without using a manufacturing fermentation process. Thus, it wouldn't bind naturally in your soup--but both sodium and glutamate would be present.FFN001 (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Refined sodium glutamate is not "bound" when it is added to soup. No, it disassociates as ions. CHEM 101. It's chemically identical. Cool Hand Luke 22:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Believing that things make you ill

Although not MSG, here is an interesting experiment done on people who believed that mobile phone base stations made them sick (scroll down to "What about base stations?"). The experimenters found that the people only had symptoms when the transmitter was off and they were told it was on. When the transmitter was actually on (but they were told it was off) they had no symptoms. The same could be true for MSG (or it might be the sodium). I don't know if anyone has done a similar experiment for MSG, but if you look at the double blind placebo controlled MSG trials you see that usually about half the people on the placebo report symptoms. --sciencewatcher (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

So with the exception of Cool Hand Luke, who says that glutamate rapidly entering the bloodstream could plausibly cause a problem--and MSG could enter the bloodstream faster than glutamate in meat or other foods--the rest of you believe that people are just having mass delusions. Well, mass delusions doesn't sound very scientific to me. That was said about dozens of other illness over the years, including Tourettes syndrome and stomach ulcers--both of which were found to have a physiological cause years after they were first diagnosed. Well, although there is substantial research supporting my position and I just don't believe that people are so fearful of MSG that they are conjuring up such a complex and stable array of physical symptoms, I will leave this alone until I find more evidence about WHY this effect occurs in the body. Anon, if you are still watching these discussions, I will post any more studies I find on my page and just remember, if people are so fearful of one food ingredient that they can cause that level of physical symptoms, it means the MSG is so hated it will eventually be removed from the food supply anyways.FFN001 (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually CHL admitted to not being very familiar with physiology, and was speculating that the glutamate could enter the bloodstream faster, only because it is disassociated. Once again MSG doesn't exist anymore once it meets a water molecule. And when the glutamate enters the bloodstream, it is simply an amino acid that is quickly metabolized by all the cells and incorporated into proteins. It is chemically undifferentiated from the other billions of glutamate ions floating around the bloodstream. No one said there were mass delusions, only that there are NO effects from MSG. There are no symptoms. And ulcers? Are you talking about H. pylori effects? Well, ulcers were an identified, chronic symptom of a highly specific diagnosis. What caused many ulcers was found to be a bacteria. In the case of MSG, people have symptoms after eating chinese food and pointed to MSG? How scientific is that? And when science did double-blind studies, isolating just MSG, nothing happened. That's science. Pseudoscientific beliefs eventually get pushed to the fringe area, and that's what's happening to MSG. It will eventually be a non-issue. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I should explain that that theory is at least plausible. Phil153 seems familiar with these studies and says that taking >3g of MSG without food may cause CRS symptoms. That could very well be. My main point is that free glutamate is present at some level in any protein-rich food source, and that this free glutamate is the same stuff as purified glutamate in MSG. If MSG causes symptoms beyond what sodium causes, it must be because of the level of free glutamate consumed—not because MSG is deleterious at any dose. Again, glutamate (and even concentrations of free glutamate) is contained in literally everything with protein. Cool Hand Luke 17:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Even protein can be toxic in high doses - see protein toxicity. Makes you wonder about the Atkins diet. Basically anything in high doses is bad for you. Lots of people have been killed by drinking too much water - see water intoxication. There isn't anything inherently dangerous about MSG, and people who believe they are "sensitive" to small amounts of it are simply wrong. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I should also add that in spite of what I said about it being "plausible," pages 16-17 of the Australia report linked above cite studies suggesting that MSG is primarily absorbed in the intestine, and that most of it is metabolized and doesn't cause blood level spikes when taken with other carbohydrates. Also, studies apparently suggest that glutamate levels in the brain don't spike even with large doses of MSG. Finally, I find it interesting that human breast milk contains about as much free glutamate as foods with added MSG (0.5%). Cool Hand Luke 19:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

sciencewatcher, I'm a little curious as to why you are so skeptical about the link between MSG and sensitivity. I stumbled upon this talk page after a discussion in a forum about MSG. Most people were pro-MSG. I mentioned that I get killer headaches every time I consume it (i.e. Chinese food, top ramen), so I did a little research, and lo and behold I find a raging debate going on here about a connection between migraine headaches and MSG. I had no idea there were other people who had the symptoms I share. So if nobody was there to tell me about the link (or to give me a so-called placebo effect), then why should my anecdotal evidence be so readily dismissed? I'd also like to point out I do not suffer from headaches on a regular basis, so the link between headaches and food is more readily apparent. Astræa (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence is entirely useless. It cannot be confirmed, and, your experience is hardly peer reviewed.Dbrodbeck (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I am no chemist, however, I know a few things about psychology. Why do I bring up psychology? Well, there are many cases of people, and lots of them, believing things affect them that don't, or having false beliefs (Elvis being alive, backwards masking of Satanic lyrics in music etc). This is a well documented phenomenon. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And it's not just a tiny minority of nutjobs that believe these weird things. Only 59% of Canadians believe in evolution, and 42% believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed and Americans are even more ignorant. So it really shouldn't surprise anyone that lots of people believe they are sensitive to MSG. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

well, at least we beat the Yanks..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And I always thought Canadians were smart. Of course, according to those polls, at least 1% of Canadians believe in Evolution AND think that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. I guess they just can't decide.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Almost everyone knows about the placebo effect. It can’t be denied. But you should also know that if you look at the double blind placebo controlled MSG trials where, sciencewatcher says, “you see that usually about half the people on the placebo report symptoms” you will be looking at research where the things called “placebos” contained processed free glutamic acid delivered in ingredients with names other than “monosodium glutamate,” and/or they contained aspartame (which FASEB, in its 1995 report to the FDA, said should not be used in placebos). You would have to read the industry-sponsored articles carefully to discern the fact that the same glutamic acid found in monosodium glutamate was used in ingredients used in placebos. Those ingredients would have had names like autolyzed yeast, and natural flavoring. And you would have to have seen the letter written to FASEB by IGTC chairman Andrew Ebert to know that aspartame was used in placebos supplied by the IGTC to their researchers. For your convenience, I have put a copy of that letter on the Internet:
http://www.truthinlabeling.org/Ebert.AndersonLetter.pdf
Truthinlabeling (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That letter doesn't satisfy WP:MEDRS. But let me humour you anyway. If you read the Tarasoff study (PMID 8282275) you'll see they used actual MSG and their placebos were gelatin (no aspartame, as far as I can see). --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Shame on you for taking information from an abstract instead of reading the whole study. The abstract says: “Capsules and specially formulated drinks were used as vehicles for placebo and MSG treatments.” I guess you don’t know this, but “capsules” are gelatin capsules, and gelatin is 11-12% processed free glutamic acid (which is the toxic component of monosodium glutamate). For that, and other reasons, use of capsules in double-blind studies of the safety of monosodium glutamate is not appropriate.

More interesting, and more significant, is the fact that the capsules and drinks were “Vehicles.” Do you want to guess what was in the placebos? You’ll have to guess about the capsules, because Tarasoff and Kelly didn’t say what was in the capsules. But on page 1022 of the article, Table 4 at the top of the page lists Aspartame as a component of the drink placebos. If you have interest, there is a letter to the editor in that peer reviewed journal criticizing the Tarasoff and Kelly article – and, of course, a rejoinder from the authors.

Isn’t it great what you can learn when you have a good sense of humor!Truthinlabeling (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I do have the full-text, it just isn't searchable so I didn't see the aspartame. Anyway, if you look at the actual results, you'll see that there are pretty much no reactions for either the placebo or MSG, either in capsule or drink form. Your argument would be valid if there were a lot of placebo responses, but that is not the case. The only difference I can see is for higher thirst with the MSG capsule, which I imagine is because the MSG capsules had much higher sodium than the gelatin and so would be expected. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I do concede that the Tarasoff and Kelly article is difficult to follow, and that you have to dig a bit to find information about how many people actually reacted to the monosodium glutamate and/or placebo. First you might want to ignore their focus on “intensity,” for it seems to have distracted you from ascertaining how many subjects reacted to monosodium glutamate and how many reacted to the placebo. Then go to Table 6 (page 1023) which gives the “Intensities of responses to capsule and drink treatment experienced by 33 volunteers.” Those are the 33 volunteers who reacted to something. First bit of data, then, is that 33 of the 71 subjects who took part in the study (46%) reacted to monosodium glutamate and/or the placebo.

If you care to look at the detail given in Table 6, you can count the number of subjects who reacted to monosodium glutamate and/or placebo during the capsule protocol and/or the drink protocol. The fact that there is a record of intensity of response is acknowledgement that there was a response. Right? A quick look tells me that there were approximately 23 subjects who reacted to the monosodium glutamate and 17 who reacted to the placebo. I didn't see where you got the idea that "there are pretty much no reactions for either the placebo or MSG."

You said my "argument would be valid if there were a lot of placebo responses." I guess you'll have to concede that my argument is valid.Truthinlabeling (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Gelatin is not "11-12% processed free glutamic acid" in any sane sense of those words. What distinguished MSG from ordinary protein is that it's free. Gelatin is still protein (only partially hydrolyzed collagen), so unless you want to argue that every food with bound glutamic acid (that is, everything with protein) is "toxic," your criticism has issues. I'd like to see the letter though. Cool Hand Luke 23:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to Truthinlabeling's comment above: I was looking at table 12, which gives a better overview of the symptoms triggered during each test. As you can see, about 60 subjects in each test report "none", all other symptoms are reported by 3 or fewer subjects (apart from thirst). --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It all seems to depend on one's point of view. Table 6 gives intensities of responses,while table 12 gives types of sensations. According to Table 6, 33 subjects reacted to monosodium glutamate and/or placebo. According to Table 12, 11 subjects reacted to Capsule placebo, 10 reacted to Drink placebo, 16 reacted to 1.5g MSG, 12 reacted to 3.0g MSG and 11 reacted to 3.5g MSG in drink -- but the reader has no way of calculating the total number of subjects who reacted to either monosodium glutamate/and or placebo. It was certainly 16 or more, because that many reacted to 1.5g Capsule. But whether the other reacters were the same or different people, we have no way of knowing. The best information, therefore, comes from Table 6.Truthinlabeling (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look at table 12 it puts it into perspective - basically it just seems like random noise. In each test the vast majority show no reaction. Clearly people's bodies have occasional glitches, and if you do lots of tests eventually someone will feel some reaction for no apparent reason in one of the tests. This seems to be what happened. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke, Your comment is very interesting. If the hydrolyzed collagen used to produce gelatin is partially hydrolyzed, I would think that there would be peptides and individual free amino acids produced. But until this time, I had not considered that there might still be some remnant of intact protein in a hydrolyzed collagen product.

Your point about the glutamic acid bound in protein not being toxic is well taken. The only difference between the bound and the manufactured free that I have been able to identify is the fact that the letter is always accompanied by unwanted byproducts of production. (That point is easily documented with RS documents.) I have seen reports of people who claim to have reacted adversely to gelatin both in processed food and in capsules. I wonder if they weren’t reacting to the byproducts of the partial hydrolysis in combination with, or as opposed to, reacting to any processed free glutamic acid present.

Or it could be a placebo effect. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Gelatin is the remnants of the collagen protein. Have you actually handled amino acids? If you mix them in the proportion of gelatin, they are not gelatin. I've no doubt that there's some free glutamate, but there's at least some free glutamate in basically everything that contains protein; it's no where near completely hydrolyzed in gelatin.

At any rate, what byproducts of production do you think there are? Commercially-used MSG is quite pure and actually contains less of the D-glutamate enantiomer than occurs in traditionally-fermented food. I used to run assays on the product as part of my job; the raw material was never significantly different. Yeah, there's some D-type in there, but less than in nature. Cool Hand Luke 07:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the letter you are referring to is the one in which Andrew Ebert acknowledged to Sue Ann Anderson of FASEB that the IGTC had been supplying its researchers with aspartame-containing placebos since 1978. (That’s the date of the publication he referenced.) It can be accessed at :
http://www.truthinlabeling.org/Ebert.AndersonLetter.pdf
If that’s not what you are asking for, please let me know.Truthinlabeling (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sciencewatcher: I guess we’ve come to the parting of the ways. My interests lie in understanding how things work, why and how things happen.

Thank you for helping me work with and understand Wikipedia.Truthinlabeling (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Confident" vs. "100% certain": Accurately reporting statistical evidence

Statistics offer an educated guess at some empirical reality. It is not possible to know something with 100% certainty unless you do a census (and even then, mistakes can be made). I am asking that we change our current wording, which makes it sound like we are 100% certain, and replace it with wording that reflects confidence. I am not asking for us to change meaning or point of view. All I am asking is for at this point is that this point of view to be clear and accurate based on the evidence available.

The first sentence is incorrect. Why do we need the words "scientifically unsubstantiated"--we explain the findings in the rest of the paragraph? It is not even true based upon the experimental evidence that MSG may lead to obesity and the rest of our paragraph which explains that there are some short term health problems in high doses on an empty stomach. Therefore, the words "scientifically unsubstantiated" are not accurate anyways. It sounds like we are pushing a point of view. The only other parts that are incorrect are where we say that there "is no evidence" which should read "inconsistent evidence" or something.

Note that there actually IS peer reviewed empirical evidence--it is just that many of the other contributors believe we should not include it because they cannot understand how the evidence could be true given the chemical structure of MSG. Okay--fine, we had that debate and my point of view was not agreed upon. But lets at least be clear and accurate about the evidence we ARE including. FFN001 (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

MSG and gluten

The claims that MSG contains no gluten and is safe for celiacs were in the introduction and unsourced. The claim it contains no gluten is now sourced (although not a great source - surely there's some peer-reviewed journal out there which mentions that MSG contains no gluten?), but that it is safe for celiacs can only, in terms of the sources we have, be asserted through WP:OR. Darimoma (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would any scientist write a peer-reviewed article about the absence of gluten from MSG? You might as well write an article about the absence of (poisonous) chlorine gas from table salt, or the absence of skyscrapers from steel girders (in that order). Celiacs react against gluten, and since it does not contain gluten it is thus safe for them. Or do you really expect another source here to accept that celiacs (only) react against gluten? Sure, but lets also get a source that celiacs are human while we're at it, since it would be original research to just say that they are. Sakkura (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have found an article (p 1052) in the American Journal of Nursing listing MSG as a gluten-free food. However, I've found another article (p 1310) in the AJN which lists it as food "with gluten-containing ingredients to be avoided" on a gluten-free diet.

The problem with the MSG article as it stands is that it uses several sources to make a conclusion which is not explicitly stated by any of those sources. See WP:SYN - it states: "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." Without an explicit source stating:

It is safe for celiacs

That MSG is no longer produced from wheat (the source itself states that said production method is no longer the major method)

Neither can be stated.

Regarding what is to be put in the article, I propose the following compromise:

It is permissible on a gluten-free diet, the treatment for sufferers of Coeliac disease.

using the AJN article I mentioned as a source. Would that be acceptable? If it is, feel free to change the article, or I'll change the article once you've responded. Even if you don't find it acceptable, though, would you mind removing the OR claims? They should be removed, but I don't want to engage in an edit-war. Darimoma (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'll put in a reference that specifically states that MSG (as long as it is pure) is safe for celiacs and no longer produced from wheat. It should follow from logic that this is the case, but I guess following the letter of the law is more important than accurately representing the scientific knowledge about MSG.

Changing the article in the way you propose would remove scientifically accepted information from the article.

As for OR claims, I don't know what you're referring to. You're the one talking about OR here. Sakkura (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - "OR" refers to WP:OR. Anything which falls under WP:SYN also falls under WP:OR.

How about this reworking:

It used to be predominantly made from wheat gluten, but is now mostly made from bacterial fermentation; it is acceptable for celiacs following a gluten-free diet.

The references are the two Celiac associations, the Encyclopedia of common natural ingredients, and the AJN article. Your thoughts? Darimoma (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I can live with that. I would still prefer if the article could state that MSG in itself cannot ever contain gluten or harm celiacs specifically (eg. eating 20 pounds of MSG would probably be bad for you, but not because you were a celiac). Any gluten present would always be an impurity in a particular formulation labelled as MSG. Sakkura (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added the section in as proposed. I have no objection to adding in that pure MSG contains no gluten, as long as we can get a reliable source which directly makes the claim. I'll have a look around, and see what I can find. Darimoma (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Monosodium glutamate

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Monosodium glutamate's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Smith00":

• From Excitotoxicity: Smith, QR (2000). "Transport of glutamate and other amino acids at the blood-brain barrier". The Journal of nutrition. 130 (Supplement 4S). The American Society for Nutritional Sciences: 1016S–1022S. PMID 10736373. Retrieved 2007-01-31. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• From Aspartame controversy: Smith, QR (2000). "Transport of glutamate and other amino acids at the blood-brain barrier". The Journal of nutrition. 130 (Supplement 4S). The American Society for Nutritional Sciences: 1016S–1022S. PMID 10736373. Retrieved 2007-01-31.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)