MSG - Should it be banned?

MSG is next to last, and a distant third on your list, sodium wise. Take that to your nutrition professor <snipped unnecessary rudeness>
I don't see how that disproves my point at all.

I didn't say it was the highest in sodium. I said it was extremely high in sodium. 12% sodium IS extremely high.

Do you dispute that 12% sodium is, comparatively speaking, an extremely high amount? Do you have contradicting evidence? Something that shows that 12% sodium isn't a high concentration?
 
Last edited:
I don't see how that disproves my point at all.

I didn't say it was the highest in sodium. I said it was extremely high in sodium. 12% sodium IS extremely high.

Do you dispute that 12% sodium is, comparatively speaking, an extremely high amount? Do you have contradicting evidence? Something that shows that 12% sodium isn't a high concentration?


What has this got to do with banning MSG, as the OP suggested?
 
I don't know if this is true in other countries, but MSG is often listed on packaging as 'Flavour enhancer (621)'.

This is so they don't get paranoid people avoiding their products because they list MSG as an ingredient. Very few people actually look up the code numbers for enhancers and preservatives.
 
Yes, I wasn't clear. I have heard people say, if I have a craving for a food, then that is a sign my body needs the nutrients, vitamins, and minerals found in that particular food. That claim is false. Perhaps I was leaping too far from one idea to another in trying to make the link between these ideas.


Raw lemons, spinach, and broccoli are good for the average person, but most people
who are completely ignorant of nutrition do not put these foods in their mouths and say, "Aha, this food is good for my body." Similarly, a diet of nothing but apples might be very tasty but is not healthy.

In any case, I do take issue with the idea that MSG somehow tricks the brain.

Concur - MSG no more tricks the brain than sugar or salt does - it activates the flavour receptors sensitive to umami taste (as opposed to sweet or salty) and the brain says "yum".
 
What has this got to do with banning MSG, as the OP suggested?
Nice evasion. I'll take that to mean you have no evidence to back up your ridiculing my position.

As to this question: It was an educational sidebar because someone asked about why MSG was being removed from so many products -- which is, at least, tangentially related to the subject of MSG being "banned" or removed from the market due to health concerns.

Any other questions?
 
Then I suggest you touch base with your high school organic chemistry teacher and review your notes.

Back on topic, there is no reason to ban MSG. There is sound evidence that elevated serum glutamate levels strongly correlates to increased suffering for those who are genetically predisposed to migraine and fibromyalgia, but for the rest of the world, there is also evidence that not only is it harmless, it can actually be quite beneficial as an appetite stimulant and digestive aid.

"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. The responses were not observed when MSG was given with food."
Review of Alleged Reaction to Monosodium Glutamate and Outcome of a Multicenter Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study
So the results really support "no effect". "responses was low and the responses reported were inconsistent and were not reproducible" is not consistent with "suggest that large doses of MSG given without food may elicit more symptoms than a placebo".


"Treatment with MSG induces a dose-dependent swelling and death of mature neurons (12-14 days in culture) with little effect on young immature neurons (<1 week in culture). The threshold concentration of MSG for neuronal injury is 3 microM…"
Deciphering the MSG controversy
Again, "has been claimed and tested to have side effects" is not evidence of the claim. This study is backward. They look at the effect in mice before establishing a reason to do the study. We know from lots of experience that mice results do not always translate into human results.


"Plasma levels of glutamate were significantly higher in migraine patients—either before (61.79 ± 18.75 μmol/l) or after prophylactic treatment (17.64 ± 5.08 μmol/l)— than in controls (9.36 ± 2.1 μmol/l) (P < 0.05, ANOVA followed by Newman-Keuls' test). After prophylactic treatment, with headache frequency reduced, plasma glutamate levels were significantly lower in the same patient with respect to the prior baseline level (P < 0.0001, Student's t-test for paired data), without any differences depending on the kind of prophylactic drug."
Effective Prophylactic Treatments of Migraine Lower Plasma Glutamate Levels

"Patients overall had higher CSF glutamate levels than controls. Mean pain score correlated with glutamate levels in chronic migraine patients."
Cerebrospinal Fluid Glutamate Levels in Chronic Migraine

"No muscle pain or robust changes in mechanical sensitivity were detected, but there was a significant increase in reports of headache and subjectively reported pericranial muscle tenderness after MSG. Systolic BP was elevated in the high MSG session compared with low MSG and placebo."
Effect of Systemic Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) on Headache and Pericranial Muscle Sensitivity
All three of the above studies are with very small sample sizes. Without larger studies and in light of the fact that larger studies don't confirm the effects of MSG, these studies are not reliable.


This is an excellent example why just citing the results of a Net search is not sufficient to support a claim such as, MSG causes headaches. You have to actually look at the studies, not just the titles.
 
Last edited:
I often wonder about the effect MSG has on flavour. Whilst it isn't banned, a lot of products seem to be dropping it nowadays e.g. stockcubes and instant noodles. I've noticed these things don't taste as good as I remember them but I'm not sure if its because they used to contain MSG or if its because the salt levels have been reduced, perhaps both ?

Similarly, I wonder if there is really a significant difference between MSG and regular salt, for that matter. I wouldn't be surprised if you could get similar contributions by replacing the MSG with the proper texture NaCl crystal, at least for most people.
 
The second is that MSG is extremely high in sodium, and many products are attempting to reduce their salt content to be more in line with "healthier" options.

Huh?

Dash for dash, msg has a LOT less sodium than table salt.

1) Table salt is 39% sodium by weight. MSG is 12% sodium by weight
2) An often overlooked issue: MSG is also less dense than salt. The specific gravity of MSG is 1.6 g/ml. Table salt is something like 2.1.

Therefore, a teaspoon (volume) of table salt (5 ml) has 2.1*5*.39 = 4 g of sodium

A teaspoon of MSG has 1.6*5*.12 = .98 g, so about 1/4 as much.

So a tablespoon of MSG has less sodium than 1 teaspoon of table salt.
 
Similarly, I wonder if there is really a significant difference between MSG and regular salt, for that matter. I wouldn't be surprised if you could get similar contributions by replacing the MSG with the proper texture NaCl crystal, at least for most people.

I'm no expert in taste, but according to this, it is considered a newer but recognized basic taste--which MSG provides.
 
Last edited:
It wasn't a scientific study but some TV show here in the UK (my Google-fu eludes me) tried feeding people who reported ill effects from MSG, foods that are naturally high in glutamates (such as paremsan, tomato sauce). They reported the same symptoms as from MSG so it may be possible that there is a more general glutamate intolerance (or that they are hypochondriacs).
 
Last edited:
It wasn't a scientific study but some TV show here in the UK (my Google-fu eludes me) tried feeding people who reported ill effects from MSG, foods that are naturally high in glutamates (such as paremsan, tomato sauce). They reported the same symptoms as from MSG so it may be possible that there is a more general glutamate intolerance (or that they are hypochondriacs).
Or, they knew they were getting glutamates making the results invalid. If this wasn't a blinded study, it is useless information.
 
"Conclusions: Oral challenge with MSG reproduced symptoms in alleged sensitive persons."
The monosodium glutamate symptom complex: Assessment in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study

OTOH, MSG has also been investigated as a dietary supplement.

"In a controlled trial, fortification of commercially marketed monosodium glutamate (MSG) with vitamin A improved serum vitamin A levels of young children and the vitamin A content of breast milk of lactating women. These improvements in vitamin A indices were accompanied by dramatic changes in health and anthropometric status."
Vitamin A-fortified monosodium glutamate and health, growth, and survival of children: a controlled field trial

"A number of studies have examined the potential usefulness of L-glutamate, added to food in the form of monosodium glutamate (MSG), in promoting better nutrition in the elderly and in patients with poor nutrition. Some positive effects have been observed."
Can dietary supplementation of monosodium glutamate improve the health of the elderly?

These at least demonstrate that while there is no good reason to ban MSG, it makes sense to clearly label prepared foods that include added MSG so that those who are known to be sensitive to it can choose to avoid it.

From the study reproducing symptoms in MSG sensitive persons:
"On initial challenge, 18 (29.5%) responded to neither MSG nor placebo, 6 (9.8%) to both, 15 (24.6%) to placebo, and 22 (36.1%) to MSG (p=0.324)."
So 36.1% responded to MSG, while 63.9% had no, or a nonspecific, response. How does that result support the conclusion the MSG challenge reproduces the symptoms?
 
From the study reproducing symptoms in MSG sensitive persons:
"On initial challenge, 18 (29.5%) responded to neither MSG nor placebo, 6 (9.8%) to both, 15 (24.6%) to placebo, and 22 (36.1%) to MSG (p=0.324)."
So 36.1% responded to MSG, while 63.9% had no, or a nonspecific, response. How does that result support the conclusion the MSG challenge reproduces the symptoms?
It doesn't.
 
Huh?

Dash for dash, msg has a LOT less sodium than table salt.

1) Table salt is 39% sodium by weight. MSG is 12% sodium by weight
2) An often overlooked issue: MSG is also less dense than salt. The specific gravity of MSG is 1.6 g/ml. Table salt is something like 2.1.

Therefore, a teaspoon (volume) of table salt (5 ml) has 2.1*5*.39 = 4 g of sodium

A teaspoon of MSG has 1.6*5*.12 = .98 g, so about 1/4 as much.

So a tablespoon of MSG has less sodium than 1 teaspoon of table salt.
Please read the rest of my posts in this thread. I did not claim that MSG has more sodium than table salt. I also did not claim that MSG is the highest in sodium content. I claimed that MSG is extremely high in sodium. There is a difference between those claims.

When comparing to other foods and food additives, 12% sodium is a very very high concentration. It may not be the highest, but it's still extremely high.
 

Back
Top Bottom