> MSG is a naturally occurring food substance, with a distinctive savory taste known by Japanese as umami. “It’s a chemical the same way water is a chemical,” said LeMesurier, who is herself of Korean descent, raised by white parents. “If you have ever eaten aged cheese or heirloom tomatoes, you’ve eaten MSG.” Its powdered form was created in 1908 by a chemist in Japan, and it made its way with Chinese immigrants to the United States, where it was commonly added to dishes in Chinese restaurants.
> More recently, studies have roundly debunked the idea that MSG is harmful. Multiple studies using placebos have shown no difference in effects on people eating food with or without MSG. In 1995, the Food and Drug Administration asked an independent scientific group, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, to study MSG’s safety. It found that only a small number of people experienced any side effects, and that was only after consuming six times the normal serving of MSG on an empty stomach.
Actually we do have a lower bound for the MSG dose that will negatively affect 50% of the population. But that dose is about six times higher than the normally-served dose. The fine article mentions that.
Some people have a lower tolerance than "most people", for any given chemical, MSG included.
6 times many things will probably have people react to things they have zero reaction at normal amounts. 6 times the alcohol, 6 times the salt, 6 times the capsicum yet they all consume it just fine at 1x, same as MSG.
Interesting. Six times is in the same order of magnitude, so it’s entirely plausible that a significant number of people would be affect by MSG with its normal dose. And it’s entirely plausible that some restaurants would put six times the normal dose in some meals, especially fast food restaurants that don’t use standardized measurements like Chinese restaurants.
I don't think this sentence has any meaning. What is "the same order of magnitude"? By the normal definition (still not great, but at least it's well-defined), 6 times x is only in the same order of magnitude as x when x is in the range [0,1.7), and it's in the next order of magnitude up when x is in [1.7,10). Even if we adjust that to a log scale, 6x is in the same order of magnitude when x is in the interval [0,0.23] and in the next higher order of magnitude when x is in (0.23, 1).
This is not a solid foundation for the idea that "six times is in the same order of magnitude", even if we think the sentence is interpretable.
An order of magnitude is 10x, this is 6x so within an order of magnitude. Specific numbers are meaningless. Calling it same order of magnitude seems an unfortunate (and technically incorrect) phrasing.
Still, the point stands - a 6x difference between normally-served dose and a harmful one is way too small to call it non-harmful. How do you even define a normally-served dose? This needs further clarification with better definitions.
Give me a break, this is not a math lecture. Less than 10x means the same magnitude is good enough for forum posting.
The underlying message that some restaurants might plausibly put 6x the MSG of the standard dose comes across just fine and it doesn’t need to be nitpicked to hell.
Fair point, but both ions in MSG are vital to human health in significant quantities. Plus, we've got a heck of a lot of epidemiological data in the countries where it is eaten liberally vs. where it is not, and there is nothing suggesting any significant negative effect aside from known overconsumption of either of the ions, regardless of their compound form.
Yes, thank you for pointing out natural != healthy, and likewise artificial != unhealthy. People are too quick in general to assume one way or the other on that poor heuristic and ignore the evidence.
Heuristics are a mental shortcut, not evidence themselves.
> Multiple studies using placebos have shown no difference in effects on people eating food with or without MSG.
And multiple other studies _have_ shown a difference in effects on people eating food with or without MSG. The fine anti-MSG article even mentions that.
Do you realize how many non-celiacs claim glutten intolerance? The existence of a fad does not preclude the existence of a condition.
It's a pretty frustrating article. There is a specific section titled "The truth about MSG" .... which ... doesn't tell you the truth about MSG. Instead, the "truth about MSG" is buried half way through the next voluminous section titled "A cautionary tale". Which appears to be ... no evidence has conclusively shown its harmful in the quantities used in food, and in fact, randomized blinded studies found no effect at all.
> randomized blinded studies found no effect at all.
And other randomized blinded studies have found an effect. Hence, the controversy. Not to mention that the American food industry is very dependent upon the availability of an inexpensive, effective flavour enhancer.
The studies I've seen that show an MSG reaction allow respondents to taste the MSG. In studies in which respondents cannot taste the MSG (by putting it in a capsule), there's no effect demonstrated.
I'm not familiar with those studies, but here are just a few ideas (made up now, on the spot).
1. MSG in a capsule is not how MSG in food is delivered. So perhaps the delivery mechanism has something to do with it. Perhaps the capsule allows the MSG to pass the tongue, or esophagous, or stomach, with far less reactivity than free MSG does. Maybe the interaction of MSG with other chemicals is necessary for the effects to manifest.
2. Maybe there exists a psycophysical element for some subjects? Such as the commonplace phenomenon of non-celiac "gluten intolerant" people. If those types of people self-select to take part in a study, no wonder no connection is found. And real sufferers would stay far away from a study that promises to expose them to a chemical that they know to be harmful to themselves.
3. There have been many studies which have found no connection between smoking and lung cancer. There have been many studies which have found no connection between fossil fuel usage and climate change. The existence of a study which finds no connection does not mean that such a connection does not exist. Especially when a huge industry depends upon no connection being found.
Or, instead of buying into a pharmacokinetic hypothesis someone on a message board just made up to avoid losing an argument, it could be the case that all the studies are simply right, suggesting as they do that the body doesn't discriminate between forms of glutamate, nor is there significant uptake in the bloodstream from glutamates ingested orally, nor does MSG sensitivity square with the very large amounts we get relatively from natural food sources, and so MSG simply isn't a problematic food additive.
> it could be the case that all the studies are simply right
Let's take that argument at face value. The fine article mentions that the first studies all showed a link between MSG intake and ill effects. Only after the food industry started taking an interest did other studies show otherwise.
There have been studies which get self-selecting individuals to test their reaction, which would make #2 less likely. The best study, I think is https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/027869..., where none of the individuals tested knew what they were being tested for. Maybe all msg sensitive people opted out of any food challenge, but that's not always the case, given the 2000 study in the linked tweet.
It's perfectly safe. Soy sauce and parmesan cheese has naturally occurning MSG. MSG is added in campbell and lipton soups, Doritos and Pringles chips, and dozens of menu items at McDonalds and KFC.
Ajinomoto is the powdered form that makes MSG easy. Traditionally umami is extracted through fermentation (as it is in soy sauce) or through konbu (seaweed) or fish (vietnamese fish sauce, katsuo dashi).
The only potential issue, as with any food, is with allergies. Growing up in Japan, there was a rumor that Ajinomoto may contribute to atopic dermatitis (atopy). Still doesn't appear to be any evidence of it [1].Of course, peanuts, milk, soy, wheat, fish, and eggs are the most common culprits, so it's not bad company to be in even if it were true.
I don't think the point was whether or not it is unhealthy. It asserts most definitely that it is not. The story was about how the claim went viral. The story was introduced in 1968 by the New York Times picking up on the NEJM article.
It's an amusing tale, but rather unsettling how easily fooled we can be. I remember (growing up as late as the '80s) people legitimately wondering whether an MSG allergy was responsible for their loaginess and fatigue. A number of tv news programs like 20/20 ran cover stories about it. To hear it was all bunk is a sobering reminder to take what we read with a grain of salt. Even much of the hysteria surrounding coronavirus and the like.
I don't have an answer to this, but these publications take a serious long term credibility hit with stories like these. And rightfully so.
> The story was introduced in 1968 by the New York Times picking up on the NEJM article.
And I think that's ultimately the culprit for this hoax.
Just because a reporter at a NYTimes lacks the most basic scientific knowledge to understand that this "letter to the editor" was merely a joke, doesn't mean that it's the fault of the scientific/medical journal -- with a very specific audience, mind you -- for taking a comedy minute.
What's next? We're not allowed to talk in our professional roles and circles using the long established terms for technical concepts, just because the jargon could be misinterpreted by people unfamiliar with the field and the subject matter? Oh... Nevermind...
Oh, of course, they are allowed mistakes and an occasional humourous aside. But it did say in the article that the NEJM refused to correct it or elaborate upon it for quite some time. Probably just an oversight, in my opinion, but was posed as a serious letter to the editor, and in order to get the humor, you had to be able to pick up on the subtle clues. What the motivations were for the New York Times Reporter were can only be guessed here. Probably just eagerly looking for some novel bit of news that would be interesting. Based on how these things generally go viral, I think it's unfair to blame any single person or entity.
MSG is healthy because it causes no harm and makes food taste better. All else being equal, food tasting better will make you enjoy life more. Enjoying life is correlated with good health outcomes.
But MSG can make unhealthy food taste better also. Which leads to eating more unhealthy food.
Counter-tip -- if your children prefer to eat fast food, that may be due to the additives that make the fast food more enjoyable than home-cooked food. So learning how to incorporate some of their tricks into your own cooking can help your family enjoy the home-cooked foods more. In other words, learning how to enhance your cooking with MSG (Accent) can lead to more (healthy) meals consumed at home (assuming you are otherwise preparing healthy meals).
As for proportions -- I've used 1/4 teaspoon per pound of meet, or per 6 servings of stew/soups/vegetable dishes, etc.
I stumbled upon this article after reading some more recent commentary on MSG [0], in which the author wrote:
"There’s no evidence to substantiate the claim that MSG causes ill effects in most people who consume it. A minority of people are hypersensitive to glutamate and MSG in food—added or natural—and in a study where MSG was given at 3 grams, in the absence of food, sensitive individuals had short-term, transient adverse reactions."
This could be a good place for that, but it would bolster your case if you were to add some more details. For example, did you conclude that it increased your blood sugar because you wear a continuous glucose monitor and did a self-blinded home experiment with MSG? Then absolutely yes, your info is incredibly valuable. If on the other hand your data is at the level of "I often feel tired after going to Chinese restaurants", then it's probably not very useful to others. Probably you are somewhere in between these extremes, but in any case offering more background would help others to assess how much weight to put on your observation.
Yes, there was blood testing data that had skyrocketed and an insulin requirement 8-10 times the normal amount for the given set of carbohydrates and time of day adjustments.
I suppose I'm sharing my personal experience that anecdotes of this nature are fairly useless compared to the available peer-reviewed large studies we have on the matter.
