Talk:Monosodium glutamate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chemicals WikiProject
Chemistry Portal
Monosodium glutamate is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Chemistry WikiProject This article is also supported by WikiProject Chemistry.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Talk:Monosodium glutamate/archive1 - 19 July 2006

Contents

[edit] Glutamic acid and the Hypothalamus

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

RiverManBlues

There is no firm evidence to the effect that MSG causes obesity in humans, although it has certainly been suggested by researchers. As such, the basic information is not included in any graduate level text on neurophysiology. The main causes of the obesity explosion seem to be an increasingly sedentary lifestyle and increasing intake of energy-dense foods. Whether or not MSG had been introduced, we would still have the obesity explosion. Sakkura 14:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
PS: Please add new subjects to the bottom of talk pages in the future. Thanks. Sakkura 14:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The link between MSG and obesity is alarming, but I'm far more concerned with the undeniable correlation between a rise in MSG consumption and a rise in the global average temperate. Though, an inverse correlation also exists between the global average temperature and the number of pirates. Here's a graph. I'm not sure which, if any, of these undeniable facts belong in this article, though. 207.148.178.122 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ranch Dressing

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

[edit] Misinformation

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

Eric 03/14/2006 1658 UTC

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, I volunteer to defend this article for a while. I reverted and warned the anon that changing statements to disagree with the corresponding references is a no-no. —Keenan Pepper 05:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!
If you want, I can watch this article and let you know. I can't revert, nor do I wish to have the responsibility. Sometime in the future I plan to clean out this discussion (alot of stuff is dated).
You don't have to be an admin to revert. See Wikipedia:Reverting. For admins it takes one click, for regular users three or four. No big deal.
In the meantime, I plan to continue my research, extend my list of current articles and help with a bit of editing. BTW, is there a list for the last item? That is, a list of article which the author wish some edit or reviews? I've done a few searches, but have not found anything yet. --meatclerk 08:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia:Peer review what you're looking for? —Keenan Pepper 18:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I've bookmarked both. As for reverting, I note that much of the misinformation about MSG is being place by annoynmous IP and they are very old, some back to May. One set was done by [222.229.46.29] Any suggestions on how to proceed? --meatclerk 18:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Fair use of "MSG intolerance" section?

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

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

Thanks for catching that. I've been watching this article since I noted that several annoymous IPs have been spiking the article clearly biased as pro-industry. My own website [1] notes the "1995 FASEB Report" as suspect itself. Right now I'm awaiting some help in how to clean up some of the spikes. None yet. I'm going to the discussion board next.
The section you mention, as I recall, is one of the spike areas.
As to your question about fair use. Yes, just about anything written by a public (government) agency can be used verbatim. However, these sources are hardly interesting reading and don't conform to wikipedia styles and, at times, do not have a NPOV.
--meatclerk 10:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert on July 13,2006

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

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

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

Um, are you sure that was necessary? You realize it's a logical impossibility to revert things that happened a long time ago without destroying productive edits that have been made since then? For example, you trashed all the references, which now link to a deleted template. I think it's your responsibility to fix the problems you caused by reverting to such an old version. If you don't do something I'll have to revert your big revert. —Keenan Pepper 16:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, exactly what was causing me to delay. I've been aware of this for more than a month. Before I started in May, 2006, I noted some issues, but thought that the stuff I read earlier was something I read at another website. Once I went back to the edits of 159.134.245.210 (on Feb 7, 2006), it was clear.
My logic is as such. Before Feb 7, 2006 it was somewhat a NPOV article, after that a hodge-podge of pro-MSG began to be added wholesale by 159.134.245.210 then later 222.229.46.29. Given that, a review of the logs will support my points.
What's left is the corrections to be made. I note that most, if not all, information of any worth was added by non-annoymous IP - wikipedians. By that I estimate they will slowly add about a dozen (12) small changes which will make the article worthy again.
But I wholey agree with your comment. It's a big mud hole I'm in, but someone must take the responsibility to get it done and correct again. I'll give it about 7 - 10 days, then I'll start adding stuff back a little at a time.
--meatclerk 19:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removed or Purged Information

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

See Reason for more information.

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

About 1.5 million metric tons were sold in 2001, with 4% annual growth expected. [1]


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

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

[edit] Meaning reversed

The article contains the following sentence:

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

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

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

Eggsyntax 19:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks as if this edit here [2] changed it. I haven't looked at the reference, but elsewhere Olney's work has been characterized as less reliable. (Causing AIDS? Huh? Very strange.) Dr Zak 19:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Eggsyntax 21:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The report can be summarized to highlight the facts AND reference the FDA, which it does not do now. As for issues with the work, the FDA is just covering their butts. If you read the report, in entirety, it states something like, "this reports confirms what we have been saying." Reading the report, it says they do nothing new, just review old data. As such, the rehash of an old report. Further, the older reports (1970s) ignores many key data points.
However, if you read the FAO report, circa 1970, you'll see human nausia reported by an MFG test. However, the FDA report completely ignores this.
My website/page has lots of information, however, nothing conclusive. Hence, I have not, and cannot, apply any evidence that supports MSG intolerance, other than suggestive data listed in the FAO report. --meatclerk 05:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Information

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

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

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


[edit] Misinformation and a rewrite

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

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

[edit] Sidebar

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

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

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

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

[edit] Abandon

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

[edit] Vaccines

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

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

chickenpox vaccines. Tell me if you find more. --Striver 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Foreign body granuloma caused by monosodium glutamate after BCG vaccination.--Striver 22:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Addiction, food additives, and vaccination in one conspiracy theory? That has to be a first. Sockatume 22:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, ain't it cool? --Striver 22:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First main contributor?

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

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

[edit] depiction of molecule wrong?

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

All the amino acids are shown like that. Apparently some illustrator has a thing against zwitterions. —Keenan Pepper 21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
That's because its monosodium, in solution all three groups are ionised but the solid (as stored) has the most acid proton substituted by a sodium cation and not the other one Knights who say ni 16:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that it does have all ionisable groups in the charged state even in the solid. I had been taught in school that this is true, and causes amino acids to have a very high melting point. Chemguide backs me up here as well: "This is the form that amino acids exist in even in the solid state. If you dissolve the amino acid in water, a simple solution also contains this ion." --137.222.132.67 19:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign and log on. I'm PhiJ

[edit] Nightmares or Nightmare?

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

[edit] "Scientific review" and "Health concerns"

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

[edit] "Alternate names"

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

[edit] Two very significant omisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AgentScully

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Contradiction

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

So, was this not the point of the contradiction tag or is nobody reading this? Sakkura 01:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that was the original alleged contradiction. The tag was added back in June, apparently over this. It looks like the problem originally cited was about penetration to the nervous system. This text must have been removed a while ago. With your clarifying edit earlier this month, I think all contradictions have been resolved. I'm removing the tag. Cool Hand Luke 02:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

←fhhdfh≠

[edit] Spelling

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

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

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

[edit] No citations for MSG in various foods

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

I'd be happy to scrap the whole section. The claim you point out is particularly problematic—neither the "most" nor the "US-originated" components are cited. However, we should mention that it's much more widely used in the west than a couple of generations ago. I'll look into finding an appropriate source and probably delete all of these bullet points. Cool Hand Luke 19:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing it's just referring to a source narrowly discussing the use of MSG in the US (ignoring the rest of the world). In any case, I certainly agree the section needs citations. Hope you find something good Luke. Sakkura 20:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Glutamate Table

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

I don't understand. These are published measured quantities of free glutamate and protein-bound GLU in foods. Its true that many of them contain no added MSG, but free glutamate is chemically identical. Perhaps we should remove references to total glutamine and stick with free glutamate? Cool Hand Luke 03:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there really isn't any difference between free glutamate naturally present in the food and added MSG. The bound glutamate is still connected to the subject since it ultimately does become free glutamate, but of course it has to be counted separately from the free glutamate since the absorbtion is slower (which may be significant in relation to the described claims about high MSG content spiking serum glutamate levels etc). The only improvement I can think of is if it were possible to further divide the free glutamate amount into that which occurs naturally in the various items and that which is added as MSG.
Oh, and I don't see where you get glutamine from - that isn't in the table, nor should it be. Sakkura 16:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Right, sorry. I meant glutamic acid. It would be hard to separate out the added and "natural" free glutamate. With the fermented products, MSG isn't normally added added (I think! The manufacture of vegemite and marmite might add extra MSG), but the whole process hydrolysizes free glutamate. It would be more meaningful with processed foods like soup and chips, but no processed foods are currently listed. Cool Hand Luke 17:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah okay. I had no idea what marmite, vegemite etc. are (I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist in my country. Eating yeast extract sounds really strange to me to be honest). It's kind of unfortunate for the table if it contains no information about foods containing MSG - it would be nice to have the numbers for comparing stuff that naturally contains glutamate to the stuff that has MSG added to it, but if the table says nothing about foods containing (added) MSG, it might be better suited for the article on glutamic acid. Sakkura 21:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

There cannot be any difference between the effect of MSG and free glutamate unless it is caused by the sodium ions in MSG - apart from MSG having purely sodium ions, they are the exact same thing; free glutamate literally is MSG if it happens to be associated with sodium ions. Since sodium ions are completely benign, there can be no difference at all between MSG and free glutamate. However, MSG could indeed have different effects compared to glutamate that occurs in protein; but you should bear in mind that this is not free glutamate. Sakkura 17:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
And it should be noted that many of these items, such as soy sauce, have high concentrations of sodium. This is MSG from any reasonable perspective. Protein-bound glutamate, like Sakkura says, is different. Cool Hand Luke 22:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sodium?

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

You are half right; if it was sodium it would violently react to water. However, MSG (like salt) dissociates into sodium ions, which are perfectly stable and very soluble in water. Perhaps we should rephrase the sentence to clarify that both the sodium and the glutamate are ions? Cool Hand Luke 03:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it could be rephrased to "...dissociates into sodium cations and glutamate anions...". In my opinion it would look a little silly to write ions twice, ie. "...dissociates into sodium ions and glutamate ions...". Sakkura 16:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
How about "into both sodium and glutamate ions"? There's still some ambiguity, but it's lessened. /85.228.39.223 18:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I put in my suggestion now. I'm not completely sure which forms reads better, but at least any ambiguity is gone. And hey, a few people might actually learn what cations and anions are, scary as that thought may be :o) Sakkura 23:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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))

[edit] Glutamate & cooking

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