MSG - Should it be banned?

[pgwenthold]

You're welcome to add up the atomic weights yourself and do the long division

Let's do that.

The molecular weight of MSG is 187.13. The atomic weight of sodium is 23.0.

Long division is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

[shadron]

Let's do that.

The molecular weight of MSG is 187.13. The atomic weight of sodium is 23.0.

Long division is left as an exercise for the reader.

Hmmmmmm.

C₅H₈NNaO₄

5 * (12.011) + 8 * (1.0079) + 1 * (14.0067) + 1 * (22.99) + 4 * (15.9994)

60.055 + 8.0632 + 14.0067 + 22.99 + 63.998 = 169.113, agreeing with the value on monosodium glutamate^WP of 169.111 g/mol.

How do you get 187.13? Disodium glutamate is Na₂C₅H₇NO₄, and weighs 191.09 g/mol, but that's DSG, not MSG.

Perhaps wiki is wrong, but I want to know why it is.

 

[ZirconBlue]

All this bickering about exactly how much sodium is in MSG is stupid. tesscaline's point was to discuss the reasons why MSG and salt were being removed/reduced in foods. One of those reasons was to reduce sodium. But, John Jones has his panties in a bunch over something, and several of you seem to have decided to follow his lead. Does MSG cause PMS symptoms in men, or something?

 

[Dinwar]

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.

You're doing minerological comparisons. This is, simply put, wrong here. We're not comparing the percentage of sodium in individual molecules, and no one has ever stated that MSG has the highest sodium content in foodstuff. We're comparing sodium in foods/ingredients (remember that the individual MSG molecules are most likely not the only thing in the ingredient), and saying "MSG is really far on the high side". The precise percentage of the mollecular weight made up by sodium is irrelevant here.

Think of it this way: NaCl is 39.7% sodium by weight. However, you can have fresh, brackish, salt water, and super-saturated water, with different levels of sodium.

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.

My point was, we DO in fact allow the sale of unsafe foods. Sugar, for example, is causally linked to all kinds of health problems. Soda is basically a slow poison. Peanuts are deadly poison to some people (as are citris fruits, other nuts, etc). And these have been linked causally to deaths (I mean, the nuts/fruits have--sugar is just linked with risks of death). And alcohol is worse--it's EXTREMELY unsafe, causing a huge number of deaths both directly (alcohol poisoning) and indirectly (drunk driving, etc--I know of one case where a guy froze to death in a city because of alcohol) each year.

Obvious "unsafe" isn't enough. Even "Universally unsafe", meaning that it's not limited to just particular allergies, isn't enough. There has to be something else going on as well in order to justify banning MSG, but not whiskey.

 

[tesscaline]

My point was, we DO in fact allow the sale of unsafe foods. Sugar, for example, is causally linked to all kinds of health problems. Soda is basically a slow poison. Peanuts are deadly poison to some people (as are citris fruits, other nuts, etc). And these have been linked causally to deaths (I mean, the nuts/fruits have--sugar is just linked with risks of death). And alcohol is worse--it's EXTREMELY unsafe, causing a huge number of deaths both directly (alcohol poisoning) and indirectly (drunk driving, etc--I know of one case where a guy froze to death in a city because of alcohol) each year.

Obvious "unsafe" isn't enough. Even "Universally unsafe", meaning that it's not limited to just particular allergies, isn't enough. There has to be something else going on as well in order to justify banning MSG, but not whiskey.

The problem is how "unsafe" is determined. You'd think that we'd have some sort of risk assessment metric to come to these sorts of decisions, but by and large that's not the case at all. Sure, the FDA bans substances from foods all the time (okay, not all the time, but hyperbole seemed justified). But those things aren't commonly known household items that people have become accustomed to using. It seems science only really gets taken into consideration when the substance in question is one that the unwashed masses have never heard of. In those cases, things like cancer risks and overall toxicity are taken into account, and "universal safeness" is considered, and it's all pretty darned civilized.

However, when it is a substance that average uneducated folk know and use, society seems to defer to "public opinion" -- or at least, whoever happens to shout the loudest and hire the most expensive lawyers. Are transfats more "dangerous" than alcohol? Well, I don't think so. But in some places (California, NYC, Denmark, Switzerland) the use of transfats in certain types of food production is banned, and alcohol is not. Social outcry seems to be the culprit -- no one wants to give up their alcohol, but OH NOES FAT IS EVIL!

Another example is the current public hysteria in the US over peanut allergies has lead to peanuts being banned entirely in some public schools, just to protect one or two students, even when that "protection" has little to no basis in science (there was a thread on this in the education forum not too long ago). Mainly because a few parents screamed loudly enough, and threatened enough legal action.

It's really a case of "squeaky wheel gets the grease" and "what makes the easiest scapegoat". Because, honestly, none of the things we're talking about are harmful in moderation. The problems with them only really occur when you abuse them or overuse them. But we can't legislate personal responsibility.

We can, however, ban a substance. *shrugs*

 

[tesscaline]

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?

You're assuming that MSG molecules are the only molecules in the product. This is a flawed premise.

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.

It was totally the right word.

Compare the sodium content of MSG to the sodium content of other common sources of free glutamates. Here, I'll even help you:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814602005010 says mushrooms have between 100 and 400 ppm of sodium. MSG has 120,000 ppm sodium.

Parmesan cheese has 1.5% sodium as compared to MSG's 12%.

Chicken has 46mg of sodium per 71g portion (you can go ahead and work out the percentage there -- it's microscopic).

Is this making sense to you yet? Or are you still hung up on making the erroneous comparison to table salt?

 

[ehcks]

You're assuming that MSG molecules are the only molecules in the product. This is a flawed premise.

It was totally the right word.

Compare the sodium content of MSG to the sodium content of other common sources of free glutamates. Here, I'll even help you:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814602005010 says mushrooms have between 100 and 400 ppm of sodium. MSG has 120,000 ppm sodium.

Parmesan cheese has 1.5% sodium as compared to MSG's 12%.

Chicken has 46mg of sodium per 71g portion (you can go ahead and work out the percentage there -- it's microscopic).

Is this making sense to you yet? Or are you still hung up on making the erroneous comparison to table salt?

You can't compare MSG, a flavor additive, with actual ingredients like mushrooms or cheese. You have to compare it to other flavor additives like salt.

 

[Dinwar]

So in other words, there are no real standards other than who screams the loudest.

I agree with your assessment--I just wanted to have the criteria clearly stated, as it hadn't been yet.

 

[tesscaline]

You can't compare MSG, a flavor additive, with actual ingredients like mushrooms or cheese. You have to compare it to other flavor additives like salt.

This is blatantly incorrect. You are ignoring what flavor is being added. MSG adds the flavor of glutamates. You need to compare it to other items that add the same flavor. Salt does not add that same flavor. Mushrooms, cheese, meats, tomatoes all add the "umami" flavor of glutamate.

 

[pgwenthold]

Hmmmmmm.

C₅H₈NNaO₄

5 * (12.011) + 8 * (1.0079) + 1 * (14.0067) + 1 * (22.99) + 4 * (15.9994)

60.055 + 8.0632 + 14.0067 + 22.99 + 63.998 = 169.113, agreeing with the value on monosodium glutamate^WP of 169.111 g/mol.

How do you get 187.13? Disodium glutamate is Na₂C₅H₇NO₄, and weighs 191.09 g/mol, but that's DSG, not MSG.

Perhaps wiki is wrong, but I want to know why it is.

MSG crystallizes as the monohydrate

 

[MuDPhuD]

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

While the digestive tract is not "producing" glutamate per se, the result of digesting any protein taken by mouth will be the eventual liberation of the free amino acids of which the consumed protein is composed. Thus, almost any protein meal will release glutamate as one of it's breakdown products to be absorbed by the small intestine. The amount of glutamate will depend upon the protein composition. You can look this information up in the USDA food database, where the amino acid content of many common foods are listed.
The alcohol release discussed earlier is actually produced by microbial fermentation of the intestinal contents.
While a meal will certainly increase the glutamate concentration in the hepatic portal venous system, the liver will trap some, and muscle and other protein synthesizing cells will act as amino acid sinks, quickly absorbing circulating amino acids. It's very unlikely that dietary glutamate would acutely raise CSF glutamate levels, although I haven't looked for studies. The brain is very particular about it's fluids and quite good at keeping levels within tight limits.

 

[MuDPhuD]

Good question.

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

I think they just left out "not" in the title, as in "does not" reproduce symptoms.

And I almost forgot to mention:
Glutamate is the most common excitatory neurotransmitter in the brain. Being used at probably 90% of excitatory synapses, and 50% of all synapses. It is ubiquitous in the human brain. Over-excitation by glutamate is blamed in a variety of neuronal death scenarios, and blocking the glutamate receptor can reduce neuronal death in a variety of situations, but glutamate is a molecule with a very important role to play in normal neurophysiology.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd say its biggest danger is the sodium content, and since it has less per volume (and certainly less for the amount it takes to enhance flavor) than table salt, it's preferable.

And I really really really like the taste of it!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Or are you still hung up on making the erroneous comparison to table salt?

I disagree that it's an erroneous comparison. When I use MSG, I use it exactly the way I would use salt. In fact, I often use it instead of salt (on popcorn, on the surfaces of other foods).

It's also packaged and sold just like a seasoning (like salt).

It would make sense to compare it to the foods you mention if it were sold or even eaten in comparable quantities, but it's not. I've never eaten a mushroom-sized cake of MSG in my life.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is blatantly incorrect. You are ignoring what flavor is being added. MSG adds the flavor of glutamates. You need to compare it to other items that add the same flavor. Salt does not add that same flavor.

Ground pepper, cilantro, oregano, etc. also don't add the same flavor as salt, but they are all comparable as being seasonings rather than primary proteins or foodstuffs.

Your argument doesn't make sense based either on how it's used or on the quantity of sodium one might ingest.

 

[tesscaline]

I disagree that it's an erroneous comparison. When I use MSG, I use it exactly the way I would use salt. In fact, I often use it instead of salt (on popcorn, on the surfaces of other foods).

It's also packaged and sold just like a seasoning (like salt).

It would make sense to compare it to the foods you mention if it were sold or even eaten in comparable quantities, but it's not. I've never eaten a mushroom-sized cake of MSG in my life.

Nor would you. But you know that. Argumentum Absurdum is beneath you.

Ground pepper, cilantro, oregano, etc. also don't add the same flavor as salt, but they are all comparable as being seasonings rather than primary proteins or foodstuffs.

Your argument doesn't make sense based either on how it's used or on the quantity of sodium one might ingest.

And how much sodium do THOSE things have?

But it seems you don't actually understand what MSG is, or what it's primary use in food preparation is.

I refer you to posts already made:

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.

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?

To summarize: MSG primarily adds glutamate to foods in order to enhance the savory, meaty flavors of those foods. As such, one should compare it to other sources of glutamate.

Just because some very few people use MSG as a table salt substitute because it happens to have a very high sodium content, does not mean that comparing it to salt is the appropriate comparison to make.

 

[Lard2010]

To summarize: MSG primarily adds glutamate to foods in order to enhance the savory, meaty flavors of those foods. As such, one should compare it to other sources of glutamate.

One does not generally add fractions of a gram of tomato, mushroom etc. to a dish.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nor would you. But you know that. Argumentum Absurdum [sic] is beneath you.

Swing and a miss.

I rebutted your argument that it's erroneous to compare sodium levels of MSG to that of table salt.

I don't think you even understand what argumentum ad absurdum or more accurately reductio ad absurdum means. (It's a valid kind of argument whereby a premise is shown to lead to an absurd conclusion to demonstrate that the premise is false.)

But it seems you don't actually understand what MSG is, or what it's [sic] primary use in food preparation is.

Don't assume I'm the ignorant one here.

To summarize: MSG primarily adds glutamate to foods in order to enhance the savory, meaty flavors of those foods. As such, one should compare it to other sources of glutamate.

See my first post on this thread. The dangers of glutamate are vastly exaggerated. For many of us, the primary concern is the sodium content. As such, it's not a big source. For comparing sodium content, it makes sense to compare MSG to table salt.

Just because some very few people use MSG as a table salt substitute because it happens to have a very high sodium content, does not mean that comparing it to salt is the appropriate comparison to make.

Why not? Again, MSG is packaged and sold as a seasoning (not simply a "salt substitute"). It makes sense to compare its sodium content to other seasonings if you're concerned about sodium intake.

It doesn't make sense to compare MSG's sodium content to that of a mushroom since you don't consume mushroom-sized volumes of MSG.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

One does not generally add fractions of a gram of tomato, mushroom etc. to a dish.

This.

But it's a point I'd already made that tesscaline has already ignored.

 

[Dinwar]

Does it really MATTER how much sodium is in MSG? The plain fact of the matter is that companies have removed MSG, and one of the reasons they gave for doing so was to reduce sodium (note that I said ONE OF the reasons). The exact amount of sodium MSG contributes is not important in the debate--the perception is what matters.