Talk:Monosodium glutamate/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Michael Specter's reliability

This source in the lead states "MSG in tomatoes, Parmesan, potatoes, mushrooms, and many other foods." But there is very small amount of sodium in potatoes and tomatoes, so it is unlikely has significant amount of MSG. Also, "many other foods" is very vague statementCathry (talk) 06:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The FDA seems to think that there is MSG in tomatoes, I figure they know what they are talking about. [1]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It's actually free glutamate, not MSG. I think the FDA is just simplifying things. [Here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666310003089] is another source. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

So it is different thing, as other glutamate forms contain other elements instead of sodium Cathry (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It ends up as the same glutamate in the body. MSG splits into sodium and glutamate ions in solution, and it's the glutamate that is of interest. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

MSG is source of sodium, and other forms are source of potassium, magnium or something else, it is significant, as these elements have different properties. There is Glutamic acid article about glutamate in general Cathry (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not significant, as the article is only concerned about the health effects of glutamate, rather than the sodium. Anyway, I'm just trying to explain why the FDA website and New Yorker is wrong. If you want to fix the article, just find a better source and change the wording from "MSG" to "free glutamate" (assuming the source supports that). --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about monosodium glutamate and its health effects. So sources about other forms of glutamate are not relevant. And it seems FDA website is not very reliable too, as it has such mistakes. But maybe they mean canned tomatoes or juice (with salt), it contains more sodium, so significant amount of msg can be there. But FDA site don't mention mushrooms and potatoes, so I propose delete mushrooms and potatoes from text and New Yorker article too. Cathry (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

In fruits like tomatoes there are no soluble salts. Positive ions of sodium and potassium are dissolved in the liquid (juice), together with the negative glutamate ions (and many others, like citrate and ascorbate) and water ions like HO⁻
and/or H
₃O⁺
as needed to balance the electric charges. Thus it makes no sense to ask whether the glutamate is sodium glutamate, potassium glutamate, or glutamic acid. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

So, MSG is absent in tomatoes? Cathry (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, there isn't; just as there is no MSG in Chinese dishes, and no salt in ocean water.
When tomatoes are dried, some of the glutamate ions may pack together with some of the sodium ions to make small crystals of MSG. Some glutamate may combine with some potassium ions to form monopotassium glutamate. Some glutamate ions may take up some protons H⁺
and crystallize as glutamic acid.
But they all would get undone again in your stomach, when you eat the dried tomato. Just as they do when MSG is added to a Chinese dish. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Chinese dishes are not water or soup necessarily, so they can contain large amount of MSG, and dried tomatoes can't contain nor large nor medium amount of MSG, because there is very little amount of sodium. "But they all would get undone again in your stomach" - so what? previously MSG is present in mouth (possible interaction with mucous) and then possible specific action in stomach because of simultaneous large doses of glutamate and sodium Cathry (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless the cook has a really loose hand, every Chinese food has enough moisture to dissolve all MSG added to it (and all the salt, and all the sugar). If it didn't, you would feel the MSG (or salt) as a gritty powder. And, even extra-huge amounts of MSG would be fully dissolved by the time they reach your stomach.
It is pointless to fixate on "MSG" instead of glutamate in foods. If not in the food, certainly in the stomach, there is no MSG -- only only sodium and glutamate ions, each going their own way. Too much sodium can be bad by itself, but it is not the suspect in possible health effects of adding MSG to food. Most of the sodium will usually come from salt anyway. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify: Chinese Restaurant Syndrome and the health effects related to MSG and related substances applies to all of the various salts of glutamate, not just MSG. The section in this article used to be in the "Glutamate flavoring" article, but was moved to the MSG article because most people think of "MSG" rather than "free glutamate" or "x salt of glutamic acid". --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know monosodium glutamate properties were studied, not any food with glutamic acid or monopotassium glutamate. Actually, I didn't mention Chinese Restaurant Syndrome yet. I asked, how can they tell about MSG in certain plants, if there are very very small amounts of sodium there compared with cheeses or sausages. Cathry (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

There are relatively small amounts of sodium in practically everything on Earth, as it's so common, so reactive and so widely distributed. Glutamate flavoring contains a fairly straightforward explanation of how glutamic acid and glutamate are the same substance at different pH, and also states why salts like MSG are better than crystalline glutamic acid for use as flavoring.
In a complex solution like the ones in the mouth and stomach, negative ions like glutamate are associated with a positive counter ion (and positive ions like sodium are always associated with negative counter ions, like chloride). So, if you take potassium glutamate and add it to food, some of the glutamate will be associated with potassium and some will instead be associated with sodium that was present in the food. (Glutamate will "prefer" sodium over potassium because of the similar sizes of the ions, but there's always a mixture.)
What I mean to say is that glutamic acid, potassium glutamate, sodium glutamate, and all other forms of glutamate will convert into a complex mixture of glutamate salts as soon as you place the food in your mouth. Roches (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Fresh vegetables like tomatoes and potatoes have a lot of potassium (hundreds of mg) and a little (5-6 mg) of sodium. Compare to amount of potassium (100 mg) and sodium (600 mg and more) in cheese. Cathry (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrong molecular structure

The molecular structure shown in the chembox is wrong. In crystalline monosodium glutamate monohydrate (the form used as flavoring, Aji-no-Moto) and in near-neutral solutions, the glutamate anion is a zwitterion: both carboxyl groups have lost their protons and are negatively charged, while the amino group has an extra proton and a positive charge. The sodium cation is not bound to the glutamate, but alternates with it in the crystal lattice, and is detached from it in solution. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the image that shows the sodium atom covalently bonded to the oxygen atom. As for the skeletal formula, this is an issue that has come up occasionally over the years - how to appropriately depict amino acids. The protonation state of the amine and carboxylic acid groups can vary according to many factors such as whether it is in solution or in a solid or what the pH of the solution is. The way that Wikipedia has generally handled it is to prioritize depicting amino acids as amino acids, not as zwitterionic ammonium carboxylates (for example), and then later on discussing the complexities of pH-dependent protonation states. Skeletal formulas are shorthand approximations; they are not intended to represent all the complexities of molecular bonding. If you wish to include information about the crystal structure of monosodium glutamate dihydrate (which I think would be a nice addition), I would strongly recommend adding a new section of text in the main body of the article with appropriate imagery there, rather than replacing the image in the infobox. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Proposal to move of the health effects material to a separate article

I gather that the discussion of the "Chinese Reataurant Syndrome" and other health-related subtopics was moved to this article from Glutamate flavoring, with the excuse that readers looking for these sub-topics would be likely to come to this article first. But that is inadequate, because almost all of the discussion on those sub-topics applies to glutamate flavorings in general, including natural glutamate sources. Indeed, part of that discussion had to be left there, resulting in duplication and separation of stuff that should be discussed together.
Rather than moving the material back to Glutamate flavoring, I propose to create a separate article about "Health effects of glutamate" (or some such title), which would be clearly linked to from both articles (and from articles on glutamic acid and other glutamate salts, like disodium glutamate and calcium glutamate. The links could even be in the "hat notes" at the top of the pages. What do you think? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Chinese Restaurant Syndrome etc relevant to MSG, as far as I know, not to other glutamates Cathry (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Free glutamate is free glutamate, whatever the salt used to get it into food. Still, this is the compound popularly associated with negative effects, despite the paucity of evidence. --tronvillain (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Are sodium chloride, hydrochloric acid and potassium chloride same compound with same properties? Cathry (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

If free chlorine in solution was the relevant concern, then pretty much, yeah. Nothing on this page seems to suggest that it's the combination with sodium that's making the difference - it's almost always free glutamate that's given the blame (see the "Excitoxicity" section). --tronvillain (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

If something absent at this page, the possibility is the poor quality of this page. And where is solution when someone eating sausage with MSG? Cathry (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

In the moist sausage, the MSG is already dissoved, so there is no MSG anymore -- only sodium ions (that also come from salt, sodium nitrite, and possibly other aditives) and glutamate ions. And even if you eat dry MSG from the can, as soon as it dissolves in your saliva it dissociates into sodium ions and glutamate ions. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What is moist sausage? Anyway give link to sources, please. Cathry (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

A sausage that is not moist would be harder than dry salami and beef jerky. Sausages that you can chew have enough moisture to dissolve all the MSG (and all the salt, and all the nitrite) that were added to it. It would be pointless to add so much MSG that it would not dissolve already in the cooked sausage.
Have you ever seen and tasted pure MSG? You can usually find it among Oriental groceries in markets (Aji-no-moto is the classic brand), or sometimes in shakers on the tables of Oriental restaurants.
The dissociation of salts in solution is very basic high-school chemistry. Check the Wikipedia article on salt (chemistry) if you need sources on that. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Solid foods are not solutions. So, you can't provide proper links. Note also nearly every pubmed article about health concerns uses MSG term. Cathry (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As I explained already, very few "solid" foods are completely solid. Hard candy and sugar qualify; roasted peanuts and almonds, parmesan cheese, "dry" salami, crackers -- are close enough, but not quite. Most "solid" foods are like sponges -- a solid framework with liquid trapped in. All fruits, bulbs, and tubers (including tomatoes), contain lots of water -- oftern more than half by weight. Ditto for meat and eggs (including sausages), raw or cooked. And ditto for all Chinese dishes.
There simply cannot be any solid MSG in those foods. Any sodium and glutamate in them will be dissolved in the liquid part, together with potassium, citrate, ascorbate, tratrate, etc.
Moreover, even hard candy will have to be wetted by saliva, and then the gastric juice, in order to be ingested. Even if you put solid MSG directly on your tongue, the taste you feel is not of the solid MSG, but of the glutamate ions dissolved in the saliva.
Except for a few extreme cases like spores, every plant or animal cell is a droplet of water with some substances dissolved in it (the citoplasm), with some thingies floating inside (organelles), enclosed in a two-molecule-thick oil bag (the membrane) that separates it from the liquid outside the cells. So, even if you managed to insert a small crystal of MSG into a cell, it would instantly dissolve into separate sodium and glutamate ions.
But, in spite of their apparent fragility, cells have evolved over three billion years some very effective mechanisms (homeostasis) to keep the composition of the citoplasm suitable for their ends. Thus, if you just dissolve some MSG in the liquid outside a cell, none will enter it "uninvited".
There are some big molecules (molecular pumps) stuck through the membrane that can transfer specific substances in and out, as needed by the cell. But there is no "MSG pump". If a cell needs to take both sodium and glutamate, it will use two separate and independent pumps, one for each ion.
Other such big molecules that sit across the membrane (receptors) can bind to definite chemicals outside the cell, and, when that happens, release other chemicals inside the cell. That is how some cells in the tongue detect glutamate in the saliva, and ultimately cause the brain to feel the "umami" taste. AFAIK there are no receptors in the tongue that detect sodium ions (the "salty" sensation of table salt being due to the chloride ion); but, if there were, they would be separate from the glutamate receptors.
Again, all this is pretty basic high-school chemistry and biology. I really don't know what scientific references I could give on that, if you don't believe the basics, and are unwilling to even read a Wikipedia article.
Anyway. the point is that no one can really ingest MSG, just as no one can ingest table salt. It is always separate ions; and the sodium from MSG is exactly equivalent to the sodium from the table salt (that Chinese dishes and soy sauce have plenty of, too).
When articles talk about health consequences of MSG, it is, first of all, for convenience, just as when oceanographers talk about the salt contents of sea water (where in fact there is no salt). They are really and obviously looking at the effects of glutamate, because it is the special thing that MSG has. Just like when they study the impact of "salt" in the diet, it is actually the effects of excessive sodium intake that they are after -- because any chloride is largely irrelevant once it gets to the stomach, since the gastric juice contains a lot more chloride than there is in food.
Second, researchers say "MSG" because the way they add glutamate to the volunteers' diet, in their studies, is usually by adding MSG to the food. (But, indeed, negative results in such studies cannot conclusively disprove the reality of the "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome", because the latter may not be due to MSG, but to some other chemical that is present in some dishes -- maybe created by reaction of glutamate with some other ingredient, or maybe not related to glutamate at all.)
Third (and I don't know if that is the case in the paper that bothers you), when talking about the glutamate contents of foods that does not come from adding MSG, researchers may still use "MSG" to make it easier for readers to compare their numbers to the food research. That is, "XX contains NN mg/kg of MSG" as way of saying that "one kg of XX contains as much free soluble glutamate ions as NN mg of MSG".
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You must provide source stating "There simply cannot be any solid MSG in those foods" Cathry (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that I provided enough information already, and apparently you are not willing to check even the wikipedia articles about salts and solutions, cell metabolism, etc.. Sorry, but you came up with the implausible theory, and you claimed that the article or its references are wrong or incomplete; so you owe us a reference that says either (1) there is solid MSG in Chinese dishes, sausages, and other foods, or (2) some (confirmed or alleged) effect of MSG in such foods is not simply the sum of the effects of glutamate and of sodium separately, but specifically of the two being ingested together. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I answered early about "possible specific action because of simultaneous large doses of glutamate and sodium", so this is the reason, helth effects must be here. About solubility: you can do simple experiment, put teaspoon of salt in glass with clear water, and find that after half a hour some crystals still there. Cathry (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Health effects are fine here IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

MSG-associated Health Issues

This heading "MSG-associated Health Issues" was already summarized by the heading above called "safety"

The prior wording was more concise so restored it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monosodium glutamate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100505010232/http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/monosodium-glutamate to http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/monosodium-glutamate/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Switched from the archived link to the current live EUFIC page. --tronvillain (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

L-glutamate vs D-glutamate vs MSG

The only claimed difference I was able to find between glutamate supplements and MSG, besides the sodium atom, is the claim that supplemental glutamate is L-glutamate, whereas MSG is mixed D- and L-, which I believe would be called DL-glutamate. The article also claims impurities in MSG such as pyroglutamic acid. Assuming that were true, what would be the health consequences of consuming D-glutamate? I find nothing about it in Wikipedia nor elsewhere. Of note, Wikipedia has articles on three enzymes that act on D-glutamate, such as D-glutamate oxidase; which in turn have references to a "D-glutamate" Wikipedia article that has not been written. I found this chart for D-glutamate metabolism, if it helps. --(talk) 21:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

"WWW.truthinlabeling.ORG" is not a credible source. --tronvillain (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That is a kooky website. According to the EFSA the L-isomer is what is sold as MSG. See here. It has a section on manufacturing. I wonder why we have this separate article. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Misquote of the review article corrected

The article by Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) was misquoted. Differences were found but they suggested more research. I used their words so that no one could claim was I being biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a reason why my edits were changed. Otherwise, I will change it back to the author's words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

They weren't misquoted - that's not what a quote is. Misrepresented perhaps? But I think the existing text accurately reflects their findings without putting a massive quote into the text. --tronvillain (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

And if one did feel compelled to have a quote, using something from the conclusion of the paper rather than the abstract might be worth a try:

From the fact that the results of the human studies are not consistent and it is assumed that most studies using beverages as a vehicle are not properly blinded, we suggest that a causal relationship between MSG and headache has not been proven. In addition, statistically significant differences in the incidence of headache were not observed when MSG was administered with food, except in one case of the female group where the blind integrity was questionable. It would seem premature to conclude that the MSG present in food causes headache.

I think that could accurately be summarized as as something like "but double-blind tests have found no significant evidence of this", or perhaps even "but there is no good evidence to support this."

One out of six studies did find a significant effect when taken with food and four out of seven found an effect without food. Plus the author calls for more research. Please quote them accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not Shakespeare but here is my factually accurate paraphrase of the article findings, "A article reviewing research about the link between MSG and headaches explained that only one of six studies showed a significant effect when taken with food (and then only for women), though four of seven studies showed it caused a headache when taken without food." — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ref says "we conclude that further studies are required to evaluate whether or not a causal relationship exists between MSG ingestion and headache" This is a fair summary "but double-blind tests have found unclear evidence regarding if this is the case." of that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I quoted from the conclusion above, which says that the studies which found a significant effect were unlikely to have been blinded. The ones that were properly blinded (the ones with food, except one in which "the blind integrity was questionable") found no significant effect. That's accurately described as there being no good evidence to support MSG causing headaches. --tronvillain (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You cannot be serious. Use the facts, please. I understand that this entry is heavily monitored to ensure that no negative information is posted. I know that it has been watched every day multiple times a day for at least a decade--I have tested that multiple times. Just a word of caution: it is one thing to downplay negative information and quite another to actively mislead people about the content of an academic article. Don't go too far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have again quoted the article. What I have posted is factually correct and pretty much what you want to hear. Therefore, please don't change it to something incorrect. You cannot say there is NO EFFECT. That is NOT how statistics works nor what they found! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, the conclusion says (see above) the studies which found a significant effect were unlikely to have been blinded, and the ones that were properly blinded (the ones with food, except one in which "the blind integrity was questionable") found no significant effect. That's accurately described as there being no good evidence to support MSG causing headaches - you apparently want to bring up the studies that had a significant effect but not mention that they weren't blinded properly. I think it's pretty clearly who's trying to be misleading here, SPA. --17:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

User:FFN001 you will need to get consensus here before a change occurs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

What you wrote above is accurate "the conclusion says the studies which found a significant effect were unlikely to have been blinded." The problem is that MGS is like salt or sugar, you can't properly blind it because you can taste it. MSG does cause headaches--the research explicitly states that it does. However, in undetectable doses it does not. That just means you can't give someone a headache by slipping in undetectable amounts of MSG. However, if you eat MSG all day long, guess what--you might end up with a headache. So your statement is factually misleading. Please use the author's words, or at least their intention, if you are going to cite their work. About the consensus, you won't respond to my posts UNLESS I make changes. So I will use your words for my next change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I have written the following: "An article reviewing studies about the connection between MSG and headaches notes that few articles have actually found a significant effect, and those that did were not properly blinded--hence, people knew they had received MSG which could have caused a psychological effect." — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The article explicitly states no such thing. In fact, what it says is "...we suggest that a causal relationship between MSG and headache has not been proven." Reporting a headache after consuming MSG when not properly blinded is not good evidence of MSG causing headaches, especially when the effect doesn't appear when blinded... which is why the review has the conclusion it does. When a quality source does a review of properly blinded studies (MSG in pill form or with food) and finds a significant effect, then we'll be able to say that there's good evidence of the effect. And sign your comments - just add four tildes (~) at the end. --tronvillain (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It does multiple times. It says, "Among human studies with the MSG administration with food, significant difference of headache incidence was not found at the dose of 1.5 and 3.0 g in capsule, 3.15 g/300 ml beverage, 3.0 g in boiled rice with pork, and 3.0 g/150 ml beef broth. The significant difference was found only in female administered 3.0 g MSG/150 ml (2.0 %) beef bouillon but not in male." So it does among women (who tend to be smaller in body weight). It also says, "Because of the absence of proper blinding, and the inconsistency of the findings, we conclude that further studies are required to evaluate whether or not a causal relationship exists between MSG ingestion and headache." and "It would seem premature to conclude that the MSG present in food causes headache." The key word is "premature." You are making it sound absolute--there is not connection. The authors say no such thing. They say more research is needed.FFN001 (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

And before you undo my changes, tell me what is FACTUALLY incorrect about my statement. FFN001 (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that one of the authors has a conflicting interest. "YO is an employee of MSG manufacturer which joins International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC). IGTC is an international scientific non-profit organization, dedicated to the support of targeted scientific research on the biochemistry/metabolism, physiology, pharmacology and toxicology of glutamic acid. IGTC finances the publication fee of this manuscript." — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

No. Nothing in that quote supports the assertion that "MSG does cause headaches--the research explicitly states that it does." You're attempting to draw conclusions and make connections that are not supported by the source, like "So it does among women (who tend to be smaller in body weight)." When the only groups to have a significant effect weren't properly blinded and groups properly blinded don't find a significant effect (as I have pointed out multiple times), that is generously summarized as having no good evidence for the effect. The lack of good evidence for the effect does not mean there is no connection, it simply means that the available evidence doesn't support one. If quality evidence becomes available that does, the statement can be revised to reflect that. --tronvillain (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

See... everything above. I quoted from the conclusion above, which says that the studies which found a significant effect were unlikely to have been blinded. The ones that were properly blinded (the ones with food, except one in which "the blind integrity was questionable") found no significant effect. That's accurately described as there being no good evidence to support MSG causing headaches. --tronvillain (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Question for administrator

I am needing administrative help. We are having a debate about citing a particular study. I have explained my logic but the two editors who are monitoring this page keep undoing my changes without proper debate. The problem is that their changes are not accurate to the article and continues to refer to tangential information about foods that do not contain added MSG (e.g., cheese). Could you please look into this matter? The accurate version should read, "Few studies have found a link between MSG and headaches, and those that did were typically not double-blind." It is not correct to say that there is NO evidence or link between MSG and headaches--there was even one double-blind study showing a link. I am just trying to accurately cite the article.

--FFN001 (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if an administrator will be interested in a content dispute, but I'll also notify WT:MED to obtain input from some relevant experienced editors in relation to health issues and claims. —PaleoNeonate – 01:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Though an admin might be interested in the edit warring ... Alexbrn (talk) 06:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The edit war has not - yet - crossed the 3RR threshold, although it's not far off. @FFN001:, thank you for finally bringing this to the talkpage. You should avoid making any further changes to that section of the page until a discussion here has demonstrated consensus for your proposals. Admins have no additional authority in content disputes such as this, and since there is no current need for administrative action, I will simply point you to the dispute resolution process and close this help request. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Or, you know, you could just carry on edit warring. Enjoy your week off. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Fix the safety quote

I have changed the safety second to reflect the actual writing of the review article. Please don't change it back to "there is no evidence" because that is not factually true. It is highly misleading. The review study is sponsored by MSG and food manufacturers--it is already prone to be industry friendly as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I diagree with your edit because other sources were suppressed. GRAS status and LD (currently also lead material which summarizes the body) were also removed along with the longstanding consumption of other glutamic acid sources. —PaleoNeonate – 14:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

What other sources? Here is the exact wording from the study that you are citing "Of five papers including six studies with food, none showed a significant difference in the incidence of headache except for the female group in one study. Of five papers including seven studies without food, four studies showed a significant difference. Many of the studies involved administration of MSG in solution at high concentrations (>2 %). Since the distinctive MSG is readily identified at such concentrations, these studies were thought not to be properly blinded. Because of the absence of proper blinding, and the inconsistency of the findings, we conclude that further studies are required to evaluate whether or not a causal relationship exists between MSG ingestion and headache." — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This is almost exactly the same thing you tried in February. From above: I quoted from the conclusion above, which says that the studies which found a significant effect were unlikely to have been blinded. The ones that were properly blinded (the ones with food, except one in which "the blind integrity was questionable") found no significant effect. That's accurately described as there being no good evidence to support MSG causing headaches. --tronvillain (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Plus, as PaleoNeonate points out, you removed other relevant material and sources.--tronvillain (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a reason why it is the same--because it is accurate. You say, "The ones that were properly blinded (the ones with food, except one in which "the blind integrity was questionable") found no significant effect." That is NOT true. The study says"...none showed a significant difference in the incidence of headache except for the female group in one study." In other words, there was an effect in one study! You MUST soften your language. I am not saying MSG causes headaches, I am faithfully reporting the findings of this industry-friendly study. About removing the cheese thing, that is not relevant to the page. Cheese has naturally occurring glutamates, not added glutamates. It is like saying, soda is healthy because people have been eating fruit for thousands of years. Added sugar is not comparable to natural sugar and neither are added glutamates. I have provided cite after cite in the past showing a link because headaches and MSG and I am NOT trying to do that here. I am simply trying to get the page to accurately reflect the industry-sponsored research findings. If you want, I can go back to fighting for neutral language which would entail a more drastic change. Do you want that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

That "the blind integrity was questionable" is directly from the review:

"In addition, statistically significant differences in the incidence of headache were not observed when MSG was administered with food, except in one case of the female group where the blind integrity was questionable."

Again, the conclusion of the study is accurately summarize as there being no good evidence to support MSG causing headaches. And sucrose is sucrose, whether added or natural.--tronvillain (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for trying a new edit rather than still reverting to the old one. From the edit summary: Don't change back without a discussion. This is not how Wikipedia works though, see WP:BRD and WP:ONUS suggesting that the one who makes the edit should reach WP:CONSENSUS before reinstating it when reverted. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I saw the note at WT:MED. It looks like everyone is trying to do the right thing here, and that's always good to see. So thank you, all of you, for that.

FFN001, I think it's important to carefully consider the exact original wording: "double-blind tests have found no good evidence to support this". It's not a claim of NO evidence; it's a claim of no GOOD evidence. There is only a claim of weak evidence (e.g., a study with questionable blinding), in a small minority of studies – and even then, only in the women who participated in the trial (which smells like the results of a post hoc type of subgroup analysis, which is often a source of misleading not-exactly-scientific claims). I think that this situation is properly described as "no GOOD evidence". If the text had said "NO evidence", then of course I would have to object to that claim, as I see you rightly doing in this discussion. However, since the text says "no good evidence", rather than "no evidence at all", I think it is probably accurate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree - "no good evidence" is the correct form of words for summarizing the sources here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

yes it would be the best way to summarize agree w/ WAID and Alexbrn--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

We paraphrase and write in easier to understand language. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

references

the reference section is so... odd, with the sorting into government, industry, and "other"... and "other" contains industry and government refs. any objection to making this more normal (just one section?)

also the refs in the health section are mostly very old, and contain primary sources and even popular media. That whole section needs an update. I will work on that but have some other stuff on my plate... Jytdog (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Ironically the dispute over PMID 27189588 is in fact over one of the better sources in the article. Alexbrn (talk) 07:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monosodium glutamate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114164740/http://jn.nutrition.org/content/130/4/1058.long to http://jn.nutrition.org/content/130/4/1058.long

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Less Bias Please?

Well, I am back from my week off. Wikipedia requires consensus and I am asking for a rewrite of the safety research to make it more neutral and unbiased. Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) acknowledge industry ties—they are biased and we cannot use their study as our only source. Furthermore, they do not actually refute the evidence provided by Shimada (2013) and others that MSG causes headaches without food. For example, they raise a concern about the small sample size used by Shimada (2013) but a small sample size only increases type 2 errors (failing to find a true positive result) and does not lead to type 1 errors (falsely finding a positive result). A small sample size only makes it harder to find significance but, “if it’s significant, it’s significant. A small sample size makes the hurdle higher, but if you’ve cleared it, you’re there” (Norman 2010, p. 4). That means there is double-blind evidence that MSG causes headaches. That aside, there are other studies not discussed by Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) that also have found a link (e.g., Shimada et al. 2016) and it is not appropriate for Wikipedia editors to make judgements on these studies. Thus, you cannot say there is no “good” evidence. There is evidence and that is a fact. Many health researchers have moved beyond the question of whether MSG causes negative health effects and are now looking at mechanisms of how (e.g., Sato et al. 2016). However, Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) are correct that some research has not found a link, such as Rosenblum (1971)—though it should be noted that they actually did find effects in their survey study. Certainly, most government reviews have not felt MSG was harmful. It is perfectly unbiased to point that out. In addition to headaches and obesity (which you already discuss), researchers are also looking at how it negatively impacts reproductive systems and fetal development (Foran et al. 2017; Mondal 2017; Onakewhor 2017) so I have added that. I have also dropped extraneous references to natural foods with glutamate because that is irrelevant to discussions of a food additive and could mislead readers. Frankly, it reads like old-school propaganda and needs to be dropped. I have kept as much of your original text and tone as possible. Here is my example rewrite,

“A popular belief is that MSG can cause headaches and other feelings of discomfort. A 1995 report from the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) for the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded that MSG is safe when "eaten at customary levels." The academic evidence regarding the link between headaches and MSG is mixed. There is some evidence that relatively large doses of MSG taken without food can lead to headaches (Geha 2000; Shimada 2013). However, most double-blind studies taken with food have failed to find a link (Obayashi and Nagamura 2016). Under normal conditions, humans can metabolize relatively large quantities of glutamate, which is naturally produced in the gut in the course of protein hydrolysis. The median lethal dose (LD50) is between 15 and 18 g/kg body weight in rats and mice, respectively, five times greater than the LD50 of salt (3 g/kg in rats). Typical consumption of MSG as a food additive combined with the natural level of glutamic acid in foods are not toxicological concerns in humans.[Gov. 4]

Studies exploring MSG's role in obesity have yielded mixed results.[16][17]. Although several studies have investigated anecdotal links between MSG and asthma, current evidence does not support a causal association.[18] Some rat studies have found that MSG may impact the reproductive system (Onakewhor 2017) and fetal development (Foran et al. 2017; Mondal 2017) but these results have not been replicated in humans yet. Since glutamates are important neurotransmitters in the human brain, playing a key role in learning and memory, ongoing neurological studies indicate a need for further research.[19]”

Feel free to alter my writing if you want but keep it as unbiased/true to actual research findings as possible. Let’s not have this article featured in the next edition of Merchants of Doubt please! If I don't hear from anyone by tomorrow, I will assume you agree with me and make the changes.

My references: Foran, Lindsey, Kaitlyn Blackburn, and Randy J. Kulesza. "Auditory hindbrain atrophy and anomalous calcium binding protein expression after neonatal exposure to monosodium glutamate." Neuroscience 344 (2017): 406-417.

Mondal, Mukti, Kaushik Sarkar, Partha Pratim Nath, and Goutam Paul. "Monosodium glutamate suppresses the female reproductive function by impairing the functions of ovary and uterus in rat." Environmental Toxicology (2017).

Norman, Geoff. "Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics." Advances in health sciences education 15, no. 5 (2010): 625-632.

Onakewhor, Joseph UE, Israel AO Oforofuo, and Sarrjit P. Singh. "Chronic Administration of Monosodium Glutamate Induces Oligozoospermia and Glycoen Accumulation in Wistar Rat Testes." African Journal of Reproductive Health 2, no. 2 (2017).

Sato, H., E. E. Castrillon, B. E. Cairns, K. H. Bendixen, K. Wang, T. Nakagawa, K. Wajima, and P. Svensson. "Intramuscular pH modulates glutamate‐evoked masseter muscle pain magnitude in humans." European Journal of Pain 20, no. 1 (2016): 106-115.

Shimada, A., E. E. Castrillon, L. Baad‐Hansen, Bijar Ghafouri, Björn Gerdle, Karin Wåhlén, M. Ernberg, B. E. Cairns, and P. Svensson. "Increased pain and muscle glutamate concentration after single ingestion of monosodium glutamate by myofascial temporomandibular disorders patients." European Journal of Pain 20, no. 9 (2016): 1502-1512.FFN001 (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing reliable/due here; your proposed changes run entirely counter to the WP:PAGs. See particularly, WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I have explained myself, you have not. You do not have my consensus to keep the page "as is." According to the rules you must achieve consensus. The only question is how.FFN001 (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I should also note that I have provided HIGHLY reliable sources. They are double-blind academic research without reported industry funding. For example, Neuroscience, CiteScore: 3.42, Impact Factor: 3.277, 5-Year Impact Factor: 3.318, Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 0.955, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 1.685 So yeah, what in the world are you talking about?FFN001 (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

A change gets made tomorrow. You can decide how it happens. You will not shut out science.FFN001 (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Geha's study says "The results 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, the frequency of the responses was low and the responses reported were inconsistent and were not reproducible", so it might be worth seeing if anyone review's Geha's study, and what their conclusions are. We shouldn't use the conclusions of individual studies, only reviews. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. We need secondary sources; the primary literature is not reliable for assertions about health.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 21:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Other places on Wikipedia use individual studies. Why can’t we? The review paper we are using has an acknowledged bias. Here is an idea, can we do a quick lit review only using tier 1 journals?FFN001 (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

We only use primary studies in medical articles on very special occasions. In those cases the reason we added them was because [1] the study was very important and [2] it was the ONLY study available (no reviews). With MSG we have a lot of reviews, so there is no reason for using primary studies. The opinion of a good review trumps the personal opinion of a wikipedia editor. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I hear your point and that is why I suggest tier 1 journals. Those are vetted by at least three peer scientists and at least one editor in a blind review. Hence, not our opinion. Rankings are easy to obtain on http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php. I understand the value of meta analyses because they look at aggregate results. However, review papers without the meta analysis are often considered less impactful to science and land in far less prestigious journals with less rigorous peer review. Only using review papers would actually decrease the quality of information and opens the door to industry sponsored “retorts”. I urge you to consider including tier 1 studies. FFN001 (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

We must follow WP:MEDRS. The essay WP:WHYMEDRS explains why. Alexbrn (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I will concede the point. I don’t think the O and N (2016) paper is unbiased but even that paper is less biased than the Wikipedia entry. They specifically say that there are “inconsistent findings” and more work is needed. We have a duty to accurately cite articles. I will change it from “no good evidence” to “inconsistent findings” and remove references to non-additive foods to clean up the page. That way we are accurate and not more biased than the source article. Any problem with that? I’ll wait to change until tomorrow for feedback (don’t say “no” please work with me). FFN001 (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The current wording is spot on, as discussed above, and so must not be changed absent of new good sources. Time to drop the WP:STICK. Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Where do they say “no good evidence” in their paper? Inconsistent evidence is not an indication of good vs bad. Wiki editors are not allowed to make those judgements according the links you sent me. An example is needed. You look out your window and see a sunny day but I look out and say it is cloudy. Do you have “no good evidence” there are clouds? No, the interpretation is that there clearly a least one moderating variable—location. The moderator is causing inconsistent findings. The same is true of MSG research. There is clearly a moderating variable causing the different results. The evidence is inconsistent but all evidence coming from peer reviewed journals is “good” evidence unless it is retracted. Consequently, I am going to force a wording change. You have to do it because we need consensus and I am asking it to change. I am going to change it later today unless you change it first. No edit wars, it will change.FFN001 (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This is re-opening the discussion in the section above. That was concluded I think & consensus is clear. Your view has been rejected by many editors. Also stop with all these "deadlines" - if you continue to edit against consensus you will likely just get sanctioned again. Alexbrn (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

What you are saying is untrue--there is no reopening, we never reached a consensus. Instead, I have been continually shut out. I am compromising on whether there is a link but I am not compromising on accuracy. I have read the entire article. "No good evidence" is not an option--it is willfully inaccurate and you know it. Here are some options that are accurate and say what you want to say. You pick which one you like the best. A. "Health studies have evaluated the link between MSG and headaches. When taken in moderate doses with food, a link between MSG and headaches has not been established (the O and N 2016 citation)." B. "Health studies have evaluated the link between MSG and headaches. However, study findings are inconsistent and there does not appear to be a link between normal consumption of MSG and headaches(the O and N 2016 citation)." C."Health studies have evaluated the link between MSG and headaches. However, a link between normal MSG consumption and headaches has not been definitively established (the O and N 2016 citation). Hence, there does not appear to be a link between normal consumption of MSG and headaches." If you don't pick, I will escalate this using Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and I will make a change happen anyway.FFN001 (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Consensus ≠ unanimity. There is consensus and you are at odds with it. Using dispute resolution will at least avoid you a sanction, but I can tell you now you are wasting your time and everyone else's. Alexbrn (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is clearly against FFN001. furthermore, phrases like this -Consequently, I am going to force a wording change. You have to do it because we need consensus and I am asking it to change. I am going to change it later today unless you change it first. No edit wars, it will change. are disruptive and wont go down well with people assessing behaviour on this page. You should calm down and listen to other editors here, and at Alexbrn's Talk page. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

What is wrong with what I’ve written? Change the single phrase “no good evidence” to something more scientific sounding and I go away. Why must it be “no good evidence”? It sounds hokey. FFN001 (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The current wording is a more accurate paraphrase correctly pitched for our readership (as others have already explained above). If you're going to do WP:DR then actually do it, rather than applying a WP:BLUDGEON here - it is becoming disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You say I am being disruptive but I feel completely marginalized. I don't mean to pick on you but that phrase "no good evidence" is misleading to lay people. It implies that studies have never found a link, which is obviously untrue. I really don't want to do the dispute, I am deeply perplexed by your response. Are you concerned that acknowledging any link, even a weak one, will cause lay people to believe MSG is a health risk?FFN001 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe in characterizing the best sources correctly. If you're not going to try and resolve the dispute via DR, this matter is now closed. I shall not respond further since we're going round in circles. Alexbrn (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest rewriting and expanding that sentence ("no good evidence") to more closely match the Obayashi source. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This looks perfectly fine IMO "double-blind tests have found no good evidence to support this." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I meant: it would be worth expanding that to discuss the positive results at high concentrations, as per the abstract of that ref. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't follow why type 1 errors (falsely finding a positive result) can't be caused by a small sample size. Let's do a reductio ad absurdum and go with a sample size of one. If that sample just randomly happens to show the expected result, this would indicate a 100% correlation between the stimulus and the result (ignoring the inaccuracy caused by the sample size). StuRat (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to highlight that the industry ties mentioned above, provided that it is an accurate assessment, are not reflected in the article. I believe that it should be mentioned, as the respective research seems to be an important source of the article and neutralising or legitimising tendencies might turn out serious in the long term. lmaxmai (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Drop the Society and culture

That section is so ham-fisted and pointless. It relies on a majority of leftist outlets and really is indicative of the 'uninformed are racist/stupid' trope. Just axe it.

174.27.76.244 (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Pakistan

For WP:PARITY concerns, I tried to find a source critical of the Dawn or Pakistan's view of MSG but my quick attempt failed. Interestingly, conspiracy theories about iodized salt ([2]) and MSG appear to be promoted in Pakistan. An earlier example in the Dawn: [3]. —PaleoNeonate – 01:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding: this is in response to this edit. —PaleoNeonate – 09:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the "on it being detrimental to general, and particularly cardiovascular, health" - it's an unsupported medical claim made in Wikipedia's voice, and irrelevant to the regulation section. --tronvillain (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the court's decision references effects that are explicitly countered by empirical study (as mentioned earlier in the Wikipedia article). And confusingly, a few news reports refer to the brand Ajinomoto. Was this particular brand of MSG banned, or is Ajinomoto a genericized trademark in Pakistan? Also, if I understand correctly, the head of the court-appointed commission completely failed to show up, which may indicate a less-than-thorough investigation. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking through some other articles, the brand seems to be essentially synonymous with MSG there, the other major label being the problematic "Chinese salt." --tronvillain (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Vetsin

Shouldn't it be mentioned that monosodium glutamate is also known as 'vetsin', and why? Jan Vlug (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably not, as it's not commonly used in English. Sakkura (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Labelling claim in US

The section on labelling in the US claims that as a "natural flavor", glutamic acid does not have to be declared. However, the reference [47] is regulations for labelling animal food, not human food. Any real source? JCBradfield (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Migraine

I have reverted an edit today based on the edit comment, which is based on something allegedly said by a migraine expert. I would like to read the full quote, and background surrounding it. Migraines are only a small subset of headaches, and should not be generalised to cover this topic. I could be persuaded to change my mind, with adequate sourcing. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems the MSG apologists have taken full control of this page, and any mention of MSG causing migraines or headaches or whatever, is instantly deleted. Most neurologists and migraine specialists acknowledge that MSG is a potent migraine trigger for many people. Should their voices be ignored? Also MILLIONS of migraine sufferers report MSG as a potent migraine trigger. Should their voices be ignored? Also this page is loaded with overstatements, saying that the view that MSG causes migraine is a "misconception" and a "popular belief" but there is in fact no evidence that MSG is not a migraine trigger. The failure of scientific studies to find conclusive empirical proof that MSG causes migraine does not give us reason to use words like "misconception" and "popular belief." Scientific studies frequently fail to empirically prove things that we know are true. This site is essentially drowning out the voices of experts because what the experts say goes against what people (MSG apologists) want to believe is the case. There is ZERO evidence that MSG does not cause migraines, and there is plenty of evidence that MSG does indeed cause migraines. Many misguided people think that if science doesn't prove it's true then it's false, these people really should go to school and take a course on Logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedmosby83 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Has been attributed to xenophobic or racist attitudes?

The following content has been added (twice now) by ‎Cold Season:

The perpetuation of the negative image of MSG through the so-called Chinese Restaurant Syndrome has been attributed to xenophobic or racist attitudes, with people specifically targeting Asian cuisine whereas the widespread usage of MSG in western consumer goods (e.g. in processed food) doesn't generate the same stigma.

References

Discussion

I don't think the sourcing is good here, and the "has been attributed" construction is weasel wording. Why is this significant? Alexbrn (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It is significant, because Chinese Restaurant Syndome is a social issue with stigma in specifically Asian cuisine, and not an issue that has basis on in actual food safety. It is verifiable and notable. Vox Media and Al Jazeera are proper sources to report on the presence of social issues. Is there a reason why you want to give full weight on Chinese Restaurant Syndrome, but do not want to acknowledge the social aspect of a social topic? --Cold Season (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the eater.com source, I think there's a WP:V problem. Nowhere does it say anything like "the so-called Chinese Restaurant Syndrome has been attributed to xenophobic or racist attitudes". Rather the author of the piece frames a comment by Bourdain than CHinese restaurant syndrome is racist (it's "the Chinese guy") as relevant to MSG. Bourdain doesn't mention MSG and it's not clear he's even thinking of it. Alexbrn (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems clear to me and that's your speculative WP:OR, as the info reflects the source:

"Bourdain, on why the myth of MSG-is-bad-for-you persists: "You know what causes Chinese restaurant syndrome? Racism. ‘Ooh I have a headache; it must have been the Chinese guy.’""

--Cold Season (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I think what you could say from that is than Bourdain says Chinese Restaurant Syndrome is racist, and the eater.com writer framed it as a comment on MSG. It seeme tenuous - Bourdain doesn't mention MSG. Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Tell you what - I've reverted the content because on balance I think this is better in than out, though could do with some sprucing up. Sorry for the hiatus. Alexbrn (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've looked it up... The MSG part is also attested on the official site for Bourdain's series https://explorepartsunknown.com/sichuan/bourdain-off-the-cuff-sichuan/ --Cold Season (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

talk Isn't that only one guy's opinion on his own website? Don't get me wrong I think you have a point, but I don't think it lies in generalized racism against Chinese in America... but rather a mass media driven scare story. 2¢. 12.247.12.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The article is filling up with sources of questionable value harping on the racism train. Granted, these are from what Wikipedia generally judges to be citable sources, however, if you read the articles, they look like they (esp. the CNN article of 19 Jan) rely way too heavily on information and propaganda from the MSG industry itself. This is a way to game Wikipedia - pay for the publication of propaganda or hearsay in a "reliable source" and then have Wikipedia editors jam up the relevant article with biased language supported by such citations. There are at least three such articles published in the last week (BI, NYT, CNN), which is suspicious.

Balance out the discussion or delete this. 67.187.30.225 (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Should the furry porn site be referenced in the article?

I've heard that there is a site which shares MSG's E number. Apparently, the site contains furry porn. I've never bothered to check, just in case, but I'm wondering if this article should talk about it. 2600:1007:B01F:7B85:483D:EA01:BDA0:DFA0 (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Furry here, its an art site that just happens to have a ton of porn on it, there is not really a lot of media coverage on the site, so I don't think it should. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Text

This text

"Multiple studies and published medical journals have shown the effects of MSG as an excitotoxin."

Primary source from 2003 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12619899

Source from 1999. Not pubmed indexed

Review from 2001. But does it even mention MSG?

Primary source from 2000

A published 1994 study on excitoxins in foods determined that MSG is an excitotoxin that could overstimulate NMDA receptors in the brain, which has the potential to destroy and degenerate neurons at an alarming rate. The study also claims that consumers whose brains are not fully matured and the elderly are especially sensitive and vunerable to MSG, as MSG could potentially cause brain damage.

Review from 1994. We seriously need newer stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

References

@Doc James: The source being published in 1994 does not mean it is outdated nor does it discredit the source enough to remove what it has to provide for the article. It is also quite hypocritical that you decide my source is "too old" (despite me also providing multiple sources that are relativley recent) yet do not mind the other sources in the article published years before or only a few years after the date my source was published. The date the source was published does not affect its credibility. Also the paragraph is simply stating the concerns and possible risks of MSG, the entire reason for the "Safety" subcategory. Also the statement that precedes it "Multiple studies and published medical journals have shown the effects of MSG as an excitotoxin." is an objective statement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MJV479 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

A 2018 study found it not to be an excitotoxin

"Thus, it can be concluded, as was done in 1979 and by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration who sponsored the study, that there is no evidence in these data that dietary MSG is developmentally neurotoxic, hence, the study provides no basis for the establishment of a NOAEL and changing the ADI for dietary MSG."[4]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James:

My revision goes as follows, if you believe anything should be removed or added, feel free to make your own version.

Studies and published medical journals have studied the effects of MSG as an excitotoxin. A published 1994 study on excitoxins in foods determined that MSG is an excitotoxin that could overstimulate NMDA receptors in the brain, which has the potential to destroy and degenerate neurons at a "rapid rate". The study also claims that consumers whose brains are not fully matured and the elderly are especially sensitive and vunerable to MSG, as MSG could potentially cause brain damage in excess. However, in a 2018 study it was concluded that MSG, if taken at the acceptable daily intake (ADI) is not a developmental neurotoxin. However any glutamate in excess has the risk of "hyperexcitability in post-synaptic neurons to the point of excitotoxicity and cell death (cytotoxicity)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJV479 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not needed as does not really say anything "Studies and published medical journals have studied the effects of MSG as an excitotoxin."

Why are we trying to use a 1994 study? A lot of years have passed since than. And the 2018 study says it is wrong.

This ref does not mention MSG or monosodium glutamate https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62187/ thus it does not belong on this page.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is an excellent review with the conclusion in the title Fernstrom, John D. (2018). "Monosodium Glutamate in the Diet Does Not Raise Brain Glutamate Concentrations or Disrupt Brain Functions". Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism. 73 (Suppl. 5): 43–52. doi:10.1159/000494782. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James:

My new revision goes as follows, if you believe anything should be removed or added, feel free to say so.

Glutamic acid, a component of MSG, in excess has the risk of overstimulation in postsynaptic neurons to the point of excitotoxicity and cell death. A 2018 study it was concluded that MSG, if taken at the acceptable daily intake (ADI) is not a developmental neurotoxin. A seperate study concluded that "Monosodium Glutamate in the Diet Does Not Raise Brain Glutamate Concentrations or Disrupt Brain Functions." The study also also adresses the effects of excess by saying MSG "does not produce appreciable increases in glutamate concentrations in blood, except when given experimentally in amounts vastly in excess of normal intake levels; and the blood-brain barrier effectively restricts the passage of glutamate from the blood into the brain, such that brain glutamate levels only rise when blood glutamate concentrations are raised experimentally via non-physiologic means." So from this it can be concluded that MSG only becomes neurotoxic at increasingly high concentrations, which under normal circumstances, is not a risk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJV479 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I find this generally acceptable except that the first sentence, which triggers the paragraph, cites a source that does not appear to be in relation to monosodium glutamate. —PaleoNeonate – 01:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Well the sentence is about glutamic acid, a component of MSG. You cant just ignore it.

Yes, Wikipedia can. As original research puts it:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research...This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply [emphasis mine] a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

Note the words "directly related" and directly support". Glutamic acid =/= MSG. --Calton | Talk 07:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Calton: Monosodium glutamate (MSG) is the sodium salt of the common amino acid glutamic acid. Nice try though. MJV479 (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The proposed sentence looks like a type of synthesis (WP:SYNTH) to attempt to make MSG look more dangerous than it is. Everything has a lethal dose, including sodium chloride and dihydrogen monoxide (pun intended). And this is an article about using MSG in foods (at edible levels). Metabolism will also vary depending on the molecule. Therefore the first sentence appears to be WP:UNDUE, like in an article about tomatoes (that also contain glutamic acid)... —PaleoNeonate – 16:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Actually I'm doing the opposite. People think just because glutamic acid is in MSG means MSG is dangerous, when in fact it is not quite the case. I'm simply stating this.

References

Continued edit-warring

MJV479 is continuing to edit war off-topic content about Glutamic acid into the article, and to pile in unreliable non-WP:MEDRS sources. This is starting to get disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Specify the sources. MJV479 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It is up to you to cite your sources, rather than expecting readers to sift through reviews to find which particular "study" you are referring to. Also presenting research on rats as if it applies to humans is original research and a big no-no. Alexbrn (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with User:Alexbrn Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: The sources are cited. MJV479 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

"@Doc James: They're your sources! MJV479 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

We already say "Specifically MSG in the diet does not increase glutamate in the brain or affect brain function."

This article is NOT about glutamic acid thus "Glutamic acid, which MSG is made from, in excess has the risk of overstimulation in postsynaptic neurons to the point of excitotoxicity and cell death."

The ref you use https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62187/ does NOT mention MSG. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

References

@Doc James: Then what would be the context for the rest of the paragraph! MJV479 (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: You have no actual reason to revert my edits. stop reverting my edits. I've asked you what the problem is and you've either refused to answer or keep changing the "problem." First it was "source misrepresenting" and now it is "POV" none of which you stated in the talk page. You're telling me to refer to the talk page despite the fact you don't even wish to discuss in the talk page. You are trying to make this bureaucratic, by using the 3RR technicality. I am not psychic. Stop being disruptive. MJV479 (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I (and others) have specified what the problem is, both here and in WP:ES's: undue/off-topic/unreliable and misrepresented content. If you keep trying to force your bad edits you risk getting blocked. Alexbrn (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: "Misrepresented content" that's simply not true. and your edit summaries are vauge and unproductive. You're clearly not trying to find a solution. The "others" you are referring to were against my previous edits. This edit has basically nothing in common with the previous ones. Also the only real argument you had presented for reverting my edits was the "glumamic acid" which was what the "others" agreed to have removed. The "others" never agreed to reverting my current edits.

You're wrong. I've been quite specific.[5] You just keep mashing the revert key. If you continue to do so it's likely you'll get blocked. It it up to you to improve your content and get consensus for its inclusion. Alexbrn (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Not only are the sources cited but it is not original research. Also you're mashing the revert key and telling me to go to the talk page because you know you really have no leverage over me other than the fact you reverted first therefore the 3RR applies to me but not you. You are being a toxic and disruptive editor. Be more specific. MJV479 (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not willing to engage with insults. Read what others have said - it's all there. Alexbrn (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: What are you on about? The "others" haven't even read my new revision! You're using the credibility of editors who haven't even read my new revision! Which has nothing in common with the previous revision! It's a completely new and different paragraph! MJV479 (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

In foods

"Glutamic acid is found naturally in tomatoes, grapes, cheese, mushrooms and other foods."

User:Wisefroggy First ref says "MSG occurs naturally in many foods, such as tomatoes and cheeses." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Doc James Yes, the first ref does say that. But that is NOT the sentence I removed (twice) - and I see you had an edit war with User:MJV479 over the same problem. MSG and glutamic acid are not the same thing. Details of glutamic acid should be in the glutamic acid article, not here.Wisefroggy (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I have adjusted the text to make it clear that it was talking about MSG. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

References

'the myth is false'

Today it is written in the reactions section 'that the myth is false'. What does that really mean? That the context of the myth is false (which I believe is the intended message) or the myth is false (meaning the context of the myth is true). 198.2.80.218 (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Alexbrn (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Mention of the term "MSG symptom complex"

The term "MSG symptom complex" should be added per the sources such as FDA, Britannica, Merriam-Webster, MayoClinic, MedlinePlus.

Secondly, the fact that the term Chinese restaurant syndrome is pejorative (alternatively racist, xenophobic, and offensive or similar terms have also been used) is consistent with the sources, including the FDA panel (who state that they "considered the term "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome" to be pejorative and not reflective of the extent or nature of the symptoms") and Merriam-Webster. The word "pejorative" should be added. --Cold Season (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

In the "Reactions" sections we have in-depth treatment of xenophobia aspect. We don't editorialize in Wikipedia's own voice. Alexbrn (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It would seem, the claims of 'Chinese restaurant syndrome' may actually be Salt poisoning, as they have the same symptoms as Hypernatremia. This could be due to over consumption of sodium salt preserved meats, fish, fruits; Intensive Agriculture vegetables containing excessive Nitrates & Nitrites[6]; in addition to MSG. Cheaper restaurants do tend to use preserved ingredients. --Ne0 (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Production process

Do they really add sodium like stated in the article? Sodium is very reactive, so this information might be wrong. It would make more sense that sodium hydroxide is added, especially since it's for neutralizing it. --188.22.148.58 (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Found "naturally" in cheese

Unlike tomatoes, cheese is a processed product with varying recipes. How is cheese natural on the same level with tomatoes? Furthermore, it isn't described how the ingredients turn into MSG. --2001:16B8:31C5:FE00:D8C5:234:BA02:86BC (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, because glutamic acid makes up half of the free amino acids in breast milk read up in the article on umami. I will copy/paste the references to the research to this article, cheers, SvenAERTS (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)