MSG - Should it be banned?

[Dinwar]

It seems, given the data presented in this thread, that the data strongly suggest that MSG is not, by itself, dangerous. In high doses, and if you have a VERY rare allergy, sure, but in general, moderate use is fine.

However, this conversation has focused solely on "Is MSG harmful?" That's not the question--the question is "Should we ban it?" This is a whole different ballgame. Even if MSG were harmful, it may not be appropriate to ban it.

The underlying assumption of this conversation thus far has been "If it's harmful, it should be banned." However, this is not a universal policy, anywhere. Driving is the most dangerous thing we're likely to do today--it's one of the leading causes of death in the USA. Yet we don't ban driving, and in fact actively encourage it. Similarly, smoking is unhealthy, yet allowed. Soda has no health benefits and has been linked to a disturbing number of health problems, yet is available cheaply and nearly anywhere in the USA. Alcoholic beverages are similar, though there are moderate health benefits from moderate use.

There are a number of other things I could point to; I limited myself to those things which I could think of off the top of my head which have as many benefits as MSG and are known to cause serious health problems (well, that and driving--any statement of "This is dangerous and we must ban it!" which doesn't explain how something less dangerous than driving should be banned, but driving shoudln't, is missing some important information at best).

For those who think MSG could potentially be causing problems: Givin that there are numerous other things on the market which have health consequences as bad as or worse than what has been attributed to MSG, what is the logic behind banning MSG? It obviously isn't the health risks alone.

 

[John Jones]

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.

Sodium is most commonly found on the surface of the earth as sodium chloride, which is ~39% sodium. MSG has less than a third of that.

What's your definition of "extremely high in sodium", or "12 % sodium is a very, very high concentration ? Give us a point of comparison.

Additionally, glutamate is the active ingredient, and the major molar fraction of MSG.

 

[John Jones]

double post deleted

 

[tesscaline]

Sodium is most commonly found on the surface of the earth as sodium chloride, which is ~39% sodium. MSG has less than a third of that.

What's your definition of "extremely high in sodium", or "12 % sodium is a very, very high concentration ? Give us a point of comparison.

Additionally, glutamate is the active ingredient, and the major molar fraction of MSG.

You quoted it.

"Compared to other foods and food additives"

 

[TX50]

I don't know if this is true in other countries, but MSG is often listed on packaging as 'Flavour enhancer (621)'

In the European Union it's listed as E621. You might see it listed as such on some imported items in the U.S.A. too

 

[tesscaline]

In the European Union it's listed as E621. You might see it listed as such on some imported items in the U.S.A. too

Not in my experience. It's usually listed as monosodium glutamate, hydrolyzed vegetable proteins, autolyzed yeast, or hydrolyzed yeast.

US labeling requires the use of common and usual names of ingredients. Listing it as something like E621 probably wouldn't be in line with that requirement.

 

[tesscaline]

It seems, given the data presented in this thread, that the data strongly suggest that MSG is not, by itself, dangerous. In high doses, and if you have a VERY rare allergy, sure, but in general, moderate use is fine.

However, this conversation has focused solely on "Is MSG harmful?" That's not the question--the question is "Should we ban it?" This is a whole different ballgame. Even if MSG were harmful, it may not be appropriate to ban it.

The underlying assumption of this conversation thus far has been "If it's harmful, it should be banned." However, this is not a universal policy, anywhere. Driving is the most dangerous thing we're likely to do today--it's one of the leading causes of death in the USA. Yet we don't ban driving, and in fact actively encourage it. Similarly, smoking is unhealthy, yet allowed. Soda has no health benefits and has been linked to a disturbing number of health problems, yet is available cheaply and nearly anywhere in the USA. Alcoholic beverages are similar, though there are moderate health benefits from moderate use.

There are a number of other things I could point to; I limited myself to those things which I could think of off the top of my head which have as many benefits as MSG and are known to cause serious health problems (well, that and driving--any statement of "This is dangerous and we must ban it!" which doesn't explain how something less dangerous than driving should be banned, but driving shoudln't, is missing some important information at best).

For those who think MSG could potentially be causing problems: Givin that there are numerous other things on the market which have health consequences as bad as or worse than what has been attributed to MSG, what is the logic behind banning MSG? It obviously isn't the health risks alone.

Personally, I don't think MSG is any more harmful than any other food. I also don't think it should be banned when there are numerous studies demonstrating that it is not harmful.

Of course, I'm not a fan of banning harmful things. I think people should be allowed to screw themselves up as much or as little as they like, as long as it's not hurting anyone else. I realize that's not a common view on things. But it's my view.

The thing is. A food producer using a known harmful substance in the production of a product is not the same as someone voluntarily and knowingly screwing themselves up, and only themselves. We don't allow the sale of unsafe foods simply because we, as a society, understand that not everyone knows how to read packaging, not everyone knows to ask at restaurants if X ingredient is used, and even if they did, there are so many ways of describing a particular ingredient or preparation process that it'd be too easy for a manufacturer to hide the matter.

Food, in general, is held to a higher safety threshold than other things in life (at least, here in the US). Society has decided that everyone should be able to go to a store, pick up something off the shelf, and know that it will not kill them (barring specific illnesses that might require special diets, and even out of respect for those, labeling requirements have been enacted). Things must be fit for general consumption in order to be sold. I don't have a problem with that particular ideology. If something is really harmful, then no, it should not be allowed to be used by commercial producers in their food items. Should someone be able to buy the raw ingredient and add it themselves if they so desire? Yes, I'm fine with that. But there's simply too much room for abuse when you have commercial products with ingredient lists that are 50 items long to allow known harmful substances to be used without regulation.

I still wouldn't want a known harmful substance banned outright. Everything is harmful to some degree, so where would you draw the line? I'd prefer these things be regulated (as they are already), and monitored, and tested for. Just as there are laws about how many PPM of insect can end up in your food.

That said: There is no evidence that MSG is harmful (and a fair amount demonstrating that it isn't harmful), so all of the above is a moot point. And I think that's why people in this thread aren't discussing whether or not banning is a good idea. Because unless something is harmful, there's no reason to even think about banning it. You need to demonstrate it's harmful first, then we can decide what to do about it.

 

[pgwenthold]

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.

This makes no sense.

You don't use MSG as an alternative to "other foods and food additives." It is a salt-like seasoning, used in that way, and so it only makes sense to compare it to them.

It doesn't matter one whit whether MSG has higher sodium content than e.g. vinegar, because no one would use MSG instead of vinegar.

 

[tesscaline]

This makes no sense.

You don't use MSG as an alternative to "other foods and food additives." It is a salt-like seasoning, used in that way, and so it only makes sense to compare it to them.

It doesn't matter one whit whether MSG has higher sodium content than e.g. vinegar, because no one would use MSG instead of vinegar.

See, this is where we run into problems. MSG is not just a 'salt-like seasoning'. It is used to add savory flavor to food, to create "umami". There are other ways this can be done, by using a variety of other ingredients and cooking methods that don't have nearly the same amount of sodium. Tomatoes, for example, have plenty of naturally occurring glutamate. Yeast, as well, has lots of natural occurring glutamate (in fact, yeast is one of the main sources for deriving MSG). So do beef, chicken, scallops, corn, cheese, and mushrooms. But how much sodium does a tomato have? How much sodium does yeast have? How about beef, chicken, scallops, corn, mushrooms, etc.? MSG is just a cheap, easy way to accomplish a goal. It's perfectly possible to meet that goal by using other, less sodium rich, ingredients. It's just that they cost more, and require more handling and processing. So yes, you do use MSG instead of other foods and food additives. You use it in chicken broth instead of needing to use more actual chicken. You use it in beef with broccoli instead of having to actually use more beef. Heck, it's even in some cream of mushroom soups to avoid having to use more mushrooms.

So, it makes perfect sense if you actually understand the food science behind what MSG really is and why it's used.

 

[leonAzul]

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.

Agreed, and to underscore that, these were among the more competent studies I could find that suggested a basis for concern. This is why, where possible, I included links to the full article, in order to more properly assess the methodologies and the strength of the conclusions.

It is exactly from skimming titles and not looking more skeptically into the claims that people would even consider banning MSG a reasonable goal. I don't.

 

[Prometheus]

This makes no sense.

You don't use MSG as an alternative to "other foods and food additives." It is a salt-like seasoning, used in that way, and so it only makes sense to compare it to them.

It doesn't matter one whit whether MSG has higher sodium content than e.g. vinegar, because no one would use MSG instead of vinegar.

OTOH, it also doesn't make sense to compare MSG to table salt, because
it doesn't taste the least bit salty. It adds a unique flavour to some foods (it's not noticeable if added to foods that are very sweet or very acidic). It would make more sense to compare it to other mild savory seasonings like paprika. How much sodium is in paprika?

 

[leonAzul]

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?

Good question.

Near as I can tell the authors based their conclusion on the largest category, a tenuous position at best.

 

[leonAzul]

How much glutamate does the average human digestive system produce under similar conditions?

Next to 0 g. Glutamates are primarily synthesized in muscle tissue, as well as glial cells and neurons.

 

[shadron]

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.

Hmmmmm: C₅H₈NNaO₄, so the sodium is 23/169 or 13.6% by weight. Table salt is 23/58 or 39.7% by weight. Wherefore is it extremely high in sodium? Is it commonly used in higher concentrations in preparations than table salt? Is it more chemically available? Trisodium citrate (commonly sodium citrate), a tart tasting preservative in many foods, for example, is Na₃C₆H₅O₇, and is 26.7% sodium.

 

[tesscaline]

Hmmmmm: C₅H₈NNaO₄, so the sodium is 23/169 or 13.6% by weight. Table salt is 23/58 or 39.7% by weight. Wherefore is it extremely high in sodium? Is it commonly used in higher concentrations in preparations than table salt? Is it more chemically available? Trisodium citrate (commonly sodium citrate), a tart tasting preservative in many foods, for example, is Na₃C₆H₅O₇, and is 26.7% sodium.

Asked and answered. Several times. Not to mention, your math is wrong somewhere. MSG is 12% sodium.

 

[arthwollipot]

Not in my experience. It's usually listed as monosodium glutamate, hydrolyzed vegetable proteins, autolyzed yeast, or hydrolyzed yeast.

US labeling requires the use of common and usual names of ingredients. Listing it as something like E621 probably wouldn't be in line with that requirement.

The US is also the country that lists an ingredient as 'evaporated cane juice'.

Back on-topic.

 

[tesscaline]

The US is also the country that lists an ingredient as 'evaporated cane juice'.

Back on-topic.

Yup. I think it's just as stupid as you do. Don't take my saying what the requirements are as an endorsement of them.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yup. I think it's just as stupid as you do. Don't take my saying what the requirements are as an endorsement of them.

No, of course not. I just found it interesting that you can't refer to MSG as 'flavour enhancer 621' but you can refer to sugar as 'evaporated cane juice'.

Seemed a little inconsistent, that's all.

 

[tesscaline]

No, of course not. I just found it interesting that you can't refer to MSG as 'flavour enhancer 621' but you can refer to sugar as 'evaporated cane juice'.

Seemed a little inconsistent, that's all.

It is. Quite. Labeling reform is something I'd really love to see done.

 

[shadron]

Asked and answered. Several times. Not to mention, your math is wrong somewhere. MSG is 12% sodium.

You're welcome to add up the atomic weights yourself and do the long division; I personally know of no other way to compute a percentage by weight. Perhaps your reference is not up to your typing capabilities, or your neutrons weigh more that they do in reality?

Just how stubborn does a person have to be? It seems to me to be no real disgrace to just admit that your sources may be just a bit faulty (the difference between 12 and 13.6 isn't that great, but you made the issue out of it) and that "extreme" was obviously not the right word in your sentence.