![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This source in the lead states "MSG in tomatoes, Parmesan, potatoes, mushrooms, and many other foods." But there is very small amount of sodium in potatoes and tomatoes, so it is unlikely has significant amount of MSG. Also, "many other foods" is very vague statement Cathry ( talk) 06:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The molecular structure shown in the chembox is wrong. In crystalline monosodium glutamate monohydrate (the form used as flavoring, Aji-no-Moto) and in near-neutral solutions, the glutamate anion is a zwitterion: both carboxyl groups have lost their protons and are negatively charged, while the amino group has an extra proton and a positive charge. The sodium cation is not bound to the glutamate, but alternates with it in the crystal lattice, and is detached from it in solution. [1] -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 01:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
References
I gather that the discussion of the "Chinese Reataurant Syndrome" and other health-related subtopics was moved to this article from
Glutamate flavoring, with the excuse that readers looking for these sub-topics would be likely to come to this article first. But that is inadequate, because almost all of the discussion on those sub-topics applies to glutamate flavorings in general, including natural glutamate sources. Indeed, part of that discussion had to be left there, resulting in duplication and separation of stuff that should be discussed together.
Rather than moving the material back to
Glutamate flavoring, I propose to create a separate article about "Health effects of glutamate" (or some such title), which would be clearly linked to from both articles (and from articles on
glutamic acid and other glutamate salts, like
disodium glutamate and
calcium glutamate. The links could even be in the "hat notes" at the top of the pages. What do you think? --
Jorge Stolfi (
talk)
01:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Health effects are fine here IMO. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
This heading "MSG-associated Health Issues" was already summarized by the heading above called "safety"
The prior wording was more concise so restored it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monosodium glutamate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The only claimed difference I was able to find between glutamate supplements and MSG, besides the sodium atom, is the claim that supplemental glutamate is L-glutamate, whereas MSG is mixed D- and L-, which I believe would be called DL-glutamate. The article also claims impurities in MSG such as pyroglutamic acid. Assuming that were true, what would be the health consequences of consuming D-glutamate? I find nothing about it in Wikipedia nor elsewhere. Of note, Wikipedia has articles on three enzymes that act on D-glutamate, such as D-glutamate oxidase; which in turn have references to a "D-glutamate" Wikipedia article that has not been written. I found this chart for D-glutamate metabolism, if it helps. --( talk) 21:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The article by Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) was misquoted. Differences were found but they suggested more research. I used their words so that no one could claim was I being biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that could accurately be summarized as as something likeFrom the fact that the results of the human studies are not consistent and it is assumed that most studies using beverages as a vehicle are not properly blinded, we suggest that a causal relationship between MSG and headache has not been proven. In addition, statistically significant differences in the incidence of headache were not observed when MSG was administered with food, except in one case of the female group where the blind integrity was questionable. It would seem premature to conclude that the MSG present in food causes headache.
"but double-blind tests have found no significant evidence of this", or perhaps even
"but there is no good evidence to support this."
"the blind integrity was questionable") found no significant effect. That's accurately described as there being no good evidence to support MSG causing headaches. -- tronvillain ( talk) 21:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
"the blind integrity was questionable") found no significant effect. That's accurately described as there being no good evidence to support MSG causing headaches - you apparently want to bring up the studies that had a significant effect but not mention that they weren't blinded properly. I think it's pretty clearly who's trying to be misleading here, SPA. --17:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
"...we suggest that a causal relationship between MSG and headache has not been proven."Reporting a headache after consuming MSG when not properly blinded is not good evidence of MSG causing headaches, especially when the effect doesn't appear when blinded... which is why the review has the conclusion it does. When a quality source does a review of properly blinded studies (MSG in pill form or with food) and finds a significant effect, then we'll be able to say that there's good evidence of the effect. And sign your comments - just add four tildes (~) at the end. -- tronvillain ( talk) 14:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
No. Nothing in that quote supports the assertion that "MSG does cause headaches--the research explicitly states that it does."
You're attempting to draw conclusions and make connections that are not supported by the source, like "So it does among women (who tend to be smaller in body weight)."
When the only groups to have a significant effect weren't properly blinded and groups properly blinded don't find a significant effect (as I have pointed out multiple times), that is generously summarized as having no good evidence for the effect. The lack of good evidence for the effect does not mean there is no connection, it simply means that the available evidence doesn't support one. If quality evidence becomes available that does, the statement can be revised to reflect that. --
tronvillain (
talk)
17:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
See... everything above. I quoted from the conclusion above, which says that the studies which found a significant effect were unlikely to have been blinded. The ones that were properly blinded (the ones with food, except one in which
--
tronvillain (
talk)
14:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
"the blind integrity was questionable"
) found no significant effect. That's accurately described as there being no good evidence to support MSG causing headaches.
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
I am needing administrative help. We are having a debate about citing a particular study. I have explained my logic but the two editors who are monitoring this page keep undoing my changes without proper debate. The problem is that their changes are not accurate to the article and continues to refer to tangential information about foods that do not contain added MSG (e.g., cheese). Could you please look into this matter? The accurate version should read, "Few studies have found a link between MSG and headaches, and those that did were typically not double-blind." It is not correct to say that there is NO evidence or link between MSG and headaches--there was even one double-blind study showing a link. I am just trying to accurately cite the article.
-- FFN001 ( talk) 18:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I have changed the safety second to reflect the actual writing of the review article. Please don't change it back to "there is no evidence" because that is not factually true. It is highly misleading. The review study is sponsored by MSG and food manufacturers--it is already prone to be industry friendly as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 ( talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I quoted from the conclusion above, which says that the studies which found a significant effect were unlikely to have been blinded. The ones that were properly blinded (the ones with food, except one in which "the blind integrity was questionable") found no significant effect. That's accurately described as there being no good evidence to support MSG causing headaches.-- tronvillain ( talk) 14:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Again, the conclusion of the study is accurately summarize as there being no good evidence to support MSG causing headaches. And sucrose is sucrose, whether added or natural.-- tronvillain ( talk) 23:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)"In addition, statistically significant differences in the incidence of headache were not observed when MSG was administered with food, except in one case of the female group where the blind integrity was questionable."
Thanks for trying a new edit rather than still reverting to the old one. From the edit summary: Don't change back without a discussion.
This is not how Wikipedia works though, see
WP:BRD and
WP:ONUS suggesting that the one who makes the edit should reach
WP:CONSENSUS before reinstating it when reverted. Thanks, —
Paleo
Neonate –
01:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
the reference section is so... odd, with the sorting into government, industry, and "other"... and "other" contains industry and government refs. any objection to making this more normal (just one section?)
also the refs in the health section are mostly very old, and contain primary sources and even popular media. That whole section needs an update. I will work on that but have some other stuff on my plate... Jytdog ( talk) 04:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monosodium glutamate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, I am back from my week off. Wikipedia requires consensus and I am asking for a rewrite of the safety research to make it more neutral and unbiased. Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) acknowledge industry ties—they are biased and we cannot use their study as our only source. Furthermore, they do not actually refute the evidence provided by Shimada (2013) and others that MSG causes headaches without food. For example, they raise a concern about the small sample size used by Shimada (2013) but a small sample size only increases type 2 errors (failing to find a true positive result) and does not lead to type 1 errors (falsely finding a positive result). A small sample size only makes it harder to find significance but, “if it’s significant, it’s significant. A small sample size makes the hurdle higher, but if you’ve cleared it, you’re there” (Norman 2010, p. 4). That means there is double-blind evidence that MSG causes headaches. That aside, there are other studies not discussed by Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) that also have found a link (e.g., Shimada et al. 2016) and it is not appropriate for Wikipedia editors to make judgements on these studies. Thus, you cannot say there is no “good” evidence. There is evidence and that is a fact. Many health researchers have moved beyond the question of whether MSG causes negative health effects and are now looking at mechanisms of how (e.g., Sato et al. 2016). However, Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) are correct that some research has not found a link, such as Rosenblum (1971)—though it should be noted that they actually did find effects in their survey study. Certainly, most government reviews have not felt MSG was harmful. It is perfectly unbiased to point that out. In addition to headaches and obesity (which you already discuss), researchers are also looking at how it negatively impacts reproductive systems and fetal development (Foran et al. 2017; Mondal 2017; Onakewhor 2017) so I have added that. I have also dropped extraneous references to natural foods with glutamate because that is irrelevant to discussions of a food additive and could mislead readers. Frankly, it reads like old-school propaganda and needs to be dropped. I have kept as much of your original text and tone as possible. Here is my example rewrite,
“A popular belief is that MSG can cause headaches and other feelings of discomfort. A 1995 report from the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) for the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded that MSG is safe when "eaten at customary levels." The academic evidence regarding the link between headaches and MSG is mixed. There is some evidence that relatively large doses of MSG taken without food can lead to headaches (Geha 2000; Shimada 2013). However, most double-blind studies taken with food have failed to find a link (Obayashi and Nagamura 2016). Under normal conditions, humans can metabolize relatively large quantities of glutamate, which is naturally produced in the gut in the course of protein hydrolysis. The median lethal dose (LD50) is between 15 and 18 g/kg body weight in rats and mice, respectively, five times greater than the LD50 of salt (3 g/kg in rats). Typical consumption of MSG as a food additive combined with the natural level of glutamic acid in foods are not toxicological concerns in humans.[Gov. 4]
Studies exploring MSG's role in obesity have yielded mixed results.[16][17]. Although several studies have investigated anecdotal links between MSG and asthma, current evidence does not support a causal association.[18] Some rat studies have found that MSG may impact the reproductive system (Onakewhor 2017) and fetal development (Foran et al. 2017; Mondal 2017) but these results have not been replicated in humans yet. Since glutamates are important neurotransmitters in the human brain, playing a key role in learning and memory, ongoing neurological studies indicate a need for further research.[19]”
Feel free to alter my writing if you want but keep it as unbiased/true to actual research findings as possible. Let’s not have this article featured in the next edition of Merchants of Doubt please! If I don't hear from anyone by tomorrow, I will assume you agree with me and make the changes.
My references: Foran, Lindsey, Kaitlyn Blackburn, and Randy J. Kulesza. "Auditory hindbrain atrophy and anomalous calcium binding protein expression after neonatal exposure to monosodium glutamate." Neuroscience 344 (2017): 406-417.
Mondal, Mukti, Kaushik Sarkar, Partha Pratim Nath, and Goutam Paul. "Monosodium glutamate suppresses the female reproductive function by impairing the functions of ovary and uterus in rat." Environmental Toxicology (2017).
Norman, Geoff. "Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics." Advances in health sciences education 15, no. 5 (2010): 625-632.
Onakewhor, Joseph UE, Israel AO Oforofuo, and Sarrjit P. Singh. "Chronic Administration of Monosodium Glutamate Induces Oligozoospermia and Glycoen Accumulation in Wistar Rat Testes." African Journal of Reproductive Health 2, no. 2 (2017).
Sato, H., E. E. Castrillon, B. E. Cairns, K. H. Bendixen, K. Wang, T. Nakagawa, K. Wajima, and P. Svensson. "Intramuscular pH modulates glutamate‐evoked masseter muscle pain magnitude in humans." European Journal of Pain 20, no. 1 (2016): 106-115.
Shimada, A., E. E. Castrillon, L. Baad‐Hansen, Bijar Ghafouri, Björn Gerdle, Karin Wåhlén, M. Ernberg, B. E. Cairns, and P. Svensson. "Increased pain and muscle glutamate concentration after single ingestion of monosodium glutamate by myofascial temporomandibular disorders patients." European Journal of Pain 20, no. 9 (2016): 1502-1512. FFN001 ( talk) 14:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
This looks perfectly fine IMO "double-blind tests have found no good evidence to support this." Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I would like to highlight that the industry ties mentioned above, provided that it is an accurate assessment, are not reflected in the article. I believe that it should be mentioned, as the respective research seems to be an important source of the article and neutralising or legitimising tendencies might turn out serious in the long term. lmaxmai ( talk) 17:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
That section is so ham-fisted and pointless. It relies on a majority of leftist outlets and really is indicative of the 'uninformed are racist/stupid' trope. Just axe it.
174.27.76.244 ( talk) 09:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
For WP:PARITY concerns, I tried to find a source critical of the Dawn or Pakistan's view of MSG but my quick attempt failed. Interestingly, conspiracy theories about iodized salt ( [2]) and MSG appear to be promoted in Pakistan. An earlier example in the Dawn: [3]. — Paleo Neonate – 01:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
References
Shouldn't it be mentioned that monosodium glutamate is also known as 'vetsin', and why? Jan Vlug ( talk) 18:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The section on labelling in the US claims that as a "natural flavor", glutamic acid does not have to be declared. However, the reference [47] is regulations for labelling animal food, not human food. Any real source? JCBradfield ( talk) 06:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted an edit today based on the edit comment, which is based on something allegedly said by a migraine expert. I would like to read the full quote, and background surrounding it. Migraines are only a small subset of headaches, and should not be generalised to cover this topic. I could be persuaded to change my mind, with adequate sourcing. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
It seems the MSG apologists have taken full control of this page, and any mention of MSG causing migraines or headaches or whatever, is instantly deleted. Most neurologists and migraine specialists acknowledge that MSG is a potent migraine trigger for many people. Should their voices be ignored? Also MILLIONS of migraine sufferers report MSG as a potent migraine trigger. Should their voices be ignored? Also this page is loaded with overstatements, saying that the view that MSG causes migraine is a "misconception" and a "popular belief" but there is in fact no evidence that MSG is not a migraine trigger. The failure of scientific studies to find conclusive empirical proof that MSG causes migraine does not give us reason to use words like "misconception" and "popular belief." Scientific studies frequently fail to empirically prove things that we know are true. This site is essentially drowning out the voices of experts because what the experts say goes against what people (MSG apologists) want to believe is the case. There is ZERO evidence that MSG does not cause migraines, and there is plenty of evidence that MSG does indeed cause migraines. Many misguided people think that if science doesn't prove it's true then it's false, these people really should go to school and take a course on Logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedmosby83 ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The following content has been added (twice now) by Cold Season:
The perpetuation of the negative image of MSG through the so-called Chinese Restaurant Syndrome has been attributed to xenophobic or racist attitudes, [1] [2] [3] with people specifically targeting Asian cuisine whereas the widespread usage of MSG in western consumer goods (e.g. in processed food) doesn't generate the same stigma. [3]
References
I don't think the sourcing is good here, and the "has been attributed" construction is weasel wording. Why is this significant? Alexbrn ( talk) 17:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Tell you what - I've reverted the content because on balance I think this is better in than out, though could do with some sprucing up. Sorry for the hiatus. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Balance out the discussion or delete this. 67.187.30.225 ( talk) 04:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I've heard that there is a site which shares MSG's E number. Apparently, the site contains furry porn. I've never bothered to check, just in case, but I'm wondering if this article should talk about it. 2600:1007:B01F:7B85:483D:EA01:BDA0:DFA0 ( talk) 00:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
This text
"Multiple studies and published medical journals have shown the effects of MSG as an excitotoxin."
Primary source from 2003 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12619899
Source from 1999. Not pubmed indexed
Review from 2001. But does it even mention MSG?
Primary source from 2000
A published 1994 study on excitoxins in foods determined that MSG is an excitotoxin that could overstimulate NMDA receptors in the brain, which has the potential to destroy and degenerate neurons at an alarming rate. The study also claims that consumers whose brains are not fully matured and the elderly are especially sensitive and vunerable to MSG, as MSG could potentially cause brain damage. [5]
Review from 1994. We seriously need newer stuff. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
References
My revision goes as follows, if you believe anything should be removed or added, feel free to make your own version.
Studies and published medical journals have studied the effects of MSG as an excitotoxin. [1] [2] [3] A published 1994 study on excitoxins in foods determined that MSG is an excitotoxin that could overstimulate NMDA receptors in the brain, which has the potential to destroy and degenerate neurons at a "rapid rate". The study also claims that consumers whose brains are not fully matured and the elderly are especially sensitive and vunerable to MSG, as MSG could potentially cause brain damage in excess. [4] However, in a 2018 study it was concluded that MSG, if taken at the acceptable daily intake (ADI) is not a developmental neurotoxin. [5] However any glutamate in excess has the risk of "hyperexcitability in post-synaptic neurons to the point of excitotoxicity and cell death (cytotoxicity)." [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJV479 ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
My new revision goes as follows, if you believe anything should be removed or added, feel free to say so.
Glutamic acid, a component of MSG, in excess has the risk of overstimulation in postsynaptic neurons to the point of excitotoxicity and cell death. [7] A 2018 study it was concluded that MSG, if taken at the acceptable daily intake (ADI) is not a developmental neurotoxin. [8] A seperate study concluded that "Monosodium Glutamate in the Diet Does Not Raise Brain Glutamate Concentrations or Disrupt Brain Functions." The study also also adresses the effects of excess by saying MSG "does not produce appreciable increases in glutamate concentrations in blood, except when given experimentally in amounts vastly in excess of normal intake levels; and the blood-brain barrier effectively restricts the passage of glutamate from the blood into the brain, such that brain glutamate levels only rise when blood glutamate concentrations are raised experimentally via non-physiologic means." [9] So from this it can be concluded that MSG only becomes neurotoxic at increasingly high concentrations, which under normal circumstances, is not a risk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJV479 ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
MJV479 is continuing to edit war off-topic content about Glutamic acid into the article, and to pile in unreliable non- WP:MEDRS sources. This is starting to get disruptive. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
References
"Glutamic acid is found naturally in tomatoes, grapes, cheese, mushrooms and other foods. [1] [2]"
User:Wisefroggy First ref says "MSG occurs naturally in many foods, such as tomatoes and cheeses." Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Today it is written in the reactions section 'that the myth is false'. What does that really mean? That the context of the myth is false (which I believe is the intended message) or the myth is false (meaning the context of the myth is true). 198.2.80.218 ( talk) 19:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The term "MSG symptom complex" should be added per the sources such as FDA, Britannica, Merriam-Webster, MayoClinic, MedlinePlus.
Secondly, the fact that the term Chinese restaurant syndrome is pejorative (alternatively racist, xenophobic, and offensive or similar terms have also been used) is consistent with the sources, including the FDA panel (who state that they "considered the term "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome" to be pejorative and not reflective of the extent or nature of the symptoms") and Merriam-Webster. The word "pejorative" should be added. -- Cold Season ( talk) 18:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Do they really add sodium like stated in the article? Sodium is very reactive, so this information might be wrong. It would make more sense that sodium hydroxide is added, especially since it's for neutralizing it. -- 188.22.148.58 ( talk) 21:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Unlike tomatoes, cheese is a processed product with varying recipes. How is cheese natural on the same level with tomatoes? Furthermore, it isn't described how the ingredients turn into MSG. -- 2001:16B8:31C5:FE00:D8C5:234:BA02:86BC ( talk) 03:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This source in the lead states "MSG in tomatoes, Parmesan, potatoes, mushrooms, and many other foods." But there is very small amount of sodium in potatoes and tomatoes, so it is unlikely has significant amount of MSG. Also, "many other foods" is very vague statement Cathry ( talk) 06:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The molecular structure shown in the chembox is wrong. In crystalline monosodium glutamate monohydrate (the form used as flavoring, Aji-no-Moto) and in near-neutral solutions, the glutamate anion is a zwitterion: both carboxyl groups have lost their protons and are negatively charged, while the amino group has an extra proton and a positive charge. The sodium cation is not bound to the glutamate, but alternates with it in the crystal lattice, and is detached from it in solution. [1] -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 01:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
References
I gather that the discussion of the "Chinese Reataurant Syndrome" and other health-related subtopics was moved to this article from
Glutamate flavoring, with the excuse that readers looking for these sub-topics would be likely to come to this article first. But that is inadequate, because almost all of the discussion on those sub-topics applies to glutamate flavorings in general, including natural glutamate sources. Indeed, part of that discussion had to be left there, resulting in duplication and separation of stuff that should be discussed together.
Rather than moving the material back to
Glutamate flavoring, I propose to create a separate article about "Health effects of glutamate" (or some such title), which would be clearly linked to from both articles (and from articles on
glutamic acid and other glutamate salts, like
disodium glutamate and
calcium glutamate. The links could even be in the "hat notes" at the top of the pages. What do you think? --
Jorge Stolfi (
talk)
01:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Health effects are fine here IMO. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
This heading "MSG-associated Health Issues" was already summarized by the heading above called "safety"
The prior wording was more concise so restored it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monosodium glutamate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The only claimed difference I was able to find between glutamate supplements and MSG, besides the sodium atom, is the claim that supplemental glutamate is L-glutamate, whereas MSG is mixed D- and L-, which I believe would be called DL-glutamate. The article also claims impurities in MSG such as pyroglutamic acid. Assuming that were true, what would be the health consequences of consuming D-glutamate? I find nothing about it in Wikipedia nor elsewhere. Of note, Wikipedia has articles on three enzymes that act on D-glutamate, such as D-glutamate oxidase; which in turn have references to a "D-glutamate" Wikipedia article that has not been written. I found this chart for D-glutamate metabolism, if it helps. --( talk) 21:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The article by Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) was misquoted. Differences were found but they suggested more research. I used their words so that no one could claim was I being biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that could accurately be summarized as as something likeFrom the fact that the results of the human studies are not consistent and it is assumed that most studies using beverages as a vehicle are not properly blinded, we suggest that a causal relationship between MSG and headache has not been proven. In addition, statistically significant differences in the incidence of headache were not observed when MSG was administered with food, except in one case of the female group where the blind integrity was questionable. It would seem premature to conclude that the MSG present in food causes headache.
"but double-blind tests have found no significant evidence of this", or perhaps even
"but there is no good evidence to support this."
"the blind integrity was questionable") found no significant effect. That's accurately described as there being no good evidence to support MSG causing headaches. -- tronvillain ( talk) 21:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
"the blind integrity was questionable") found no significant effect. That's accurately described as there being no good evidence to support MSG causing headaches - you apparently want to bring up the studies that had a significant effect but not mention that they weren't blinded properly. I think it's pretty clearly who's trying to be misleading here, SPA. --17:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
"...we suggest that a causal relationship between MSG and headache has not been proven."Reporting a headache after consuming MSG when not properly blinded is not good evidence of MSG causing headaches, especially when the effect doesn't appear when blinded... which is why the review has the conclusion it does. When a quality source does a review of properly blinded studies (MSG in pill form or with food) and finds a significant effect, then we'll be able to say that there's good evidence of the effect. And sign your comments - just add four tildes (~) at the end. -- tronvillain ( talk) 14:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
No. Nothing in that quote supports the assertion that "MSG does cause headaches--the research explicitly states that it does."
You're attempting to draw conclusions and make connections that are not supported by the source, like "So it does among women (who tend to be smaller in body weight)."
When the only groups to have a significant effect weren't properly blinded and groups properly blinded don't find a significant effect (as I have pointed out multiple times), that is generously summarized as having no good evidence for the effect. The lack of good evidence for the effect does not mean there is no connection, it simply means that the available evidence doesn't support one. If quality evidence becomes available that does, the statement can be revised to reflect that. --
tronvillain (
talk)
17:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
See... everything above. I quoted from the conclusion above, which says that the studies which found a significant effect were unlikely to have been blinded. The ones that were properly blinded (the ones with food, except one in which
--
tronvillain (
talk)
14:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
"the blind integrity was questionable"
) found no significant effect. That's accurately described as there being no good evidence to support MSG causing headaches.
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
I am needing administrative help. We are having a debate about citing a particular study. I have explained my logic but the two editors who are monitoring this page keep undoing my changes without proper debate. The problem is that their changes are not accurate to the article and continues to refer to tangential information about foods that do not contain added MSG (e.g., cheese). Could you please look into this matter? The accurate version should read, "Few studies have found a link between MSG and headaches, and those that did were typically not double-blind." It is not correct to say that there is NO evidence or link between MSG and headaches--there was even one double-blind study showing a link. I am just trying to accurately cite the article.
-- FFN001 ( talk) 18:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I have changed the safety second to reflect the actual writing of the review article. Please don't change it back to "there is no evidence" because that is not factually true. It is highly misleading. The review study is sponsored by MSG and food manufacturers--it is already prone to be industry friendly as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 ( talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I quoted from the conclusion above, which says that the studies which found a significant effect were unlikely to have been blinded. The ones that were properly blinded (the ones with food, except one in which "the blind integrity was questionable") found no significant effect. That's accurately described as there being no good evidence to support MSG causing headaches.-- tronvillain ( talk) 14:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Again, the conclusion of the study is accurately summarize as there being no good evidence to support MSG causing headaches. And sucrose is sucrose, whether added or natural.-- tronvillain ( talk) 23:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)"In addition, statistically significant differences in the incidence of headache were not observed when MSG was administered with food, except in one case of the female group where the blind integrity was questionable."
Thanks for trying a new edit rather than still reverting to the old one. From the edit summary: Don't change back without a discussion.
This is not how Wikipedia works though, see
WP:BRD and
WP:ONUS suggesting that the one who makes the edit should reach
WP:CONSENSUS before reinstating it when reverted. Thanks, —
Paleo
Neonate –
01:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
the reference section is so... odd, with the sorting into government, industry, and "other"... and "other" contains industry and government refs. any objection to making this more normal (just one section?)
also the refs in the health section are mostly very old, and contain primary sources and even popular media. That whole section needs an update. I will work on that but have some other stuff on my plate... Jytdog ( talk) 04:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monosodium glutamate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, I am back from my week off. Wikipedia requires consensus and I am asking for a rewrite of the safety research to make it more neutral and unbiased. Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) acknowledge industry ties—they are biased and we cannot use their study as our only source. Furthermore, they do not actually refute the evidence provided by Shimada (2013) and others that MSG causes headaches without food. For example, they raise a concern about the small sample size used by Shimada (2013) but a small sample size only increases type 2 errors (failing to find a true positive result) and does not lead to type 1 errors (falsely finding a positive result). A small sample size only makes it harder to find significance but, “if it’s significant, it’s significant. A small sample size makes the hurdle higher, but if you’ve cleared it, you’re there” (Norman 2010, p. 4). That means there is double-blind evidence that MSG causes headaches. That aside, there are other studies not discussed by Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) that also have found a link (e.g., Shimada et al. 2016) and it is not appropriate for Wikipedia editors to make judgements on these studies. Thus, you cannot say there is no “good” evidence. There is evidence and that is a fact. Many health researchers have moved beyond the question of whether MSG causes negative health effects and are now looking at mechanisms of how (e.g., Sato et al. 2016). However, Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) are correct that some research has not found a link, such as Rosenblum (1971)—though it should be noted that they actually did find effects in their survey study. Certainly, most government reviews have not felt MSG was harmful. It is perfectly unbiased to point that out. In addition to headaches and obesity (which you already discuss), researchers are also looking at how it negatively impacts reproductive systems and fetal development (Foran et al. 2017; Mondal 2017; Onakewhor 2017) so I have added that. I have also dropped extraneous references to natural foods with glutamate because that is irrelevant to discussions of a food additive and could mislead readers. Frankly, it reads like old-school propaganda and needs to be dropped. I have kept as much of your original text and tone as possible. Here is my example rewrite,
“A popular belief is that MSG can cause headaches and other feelings of discomfort. A 1995 report from the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) for the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded that MSG is safe when "eaten at customary levels." The academic evidence regarding the link between headaches and MSG is mixed. There is some evidence that relatively large doses of MSG taken without food can lead to headaches (Geha 2000; Shimada 2013). However, most double-blind studies taken with food have failed to find a link (Obayashi and Nagamura 2016). Under normal conditions, humans can metabolize relatively large quantities of glutamate, which is naturally produced in the gut in the course of protein hydrolysis. The median lethal dose (LD50) is between 15 and 18 g/kg body weight in rats and mice, respectively, five times greater than the LD50 of salt (3 g/kg in rats). Typical consumption of MSG as a food additive combined with the natural level of glutamic acid in foods are not toxicological concerns in humans.[Gov. 4]
Studies exploring MSG's role in obesity have yielded mixed results.[16][17]. Although several studies have investigated anecdotal links between MSG and asthma, current evidence does not support a causal association.[18] Some rat studies have found that MSG may impact the reproductive system (Onakewhor 2017) and fetal development (Foran et al. 2017; Mondal 2017) but these results have not been replicated in humans yet. Since glutamates are important neurotransmitters in the human brain, playing a key role in learning and memory, ongoing neurological studies indicate a need for further research.[19]”
Feel free to alter my writing if you want but keep it as unbiased/true to actual research findings as possible. Let’s not have this article featured in the next edition of Merchants of Doubt please! If I don't hear from anyone by tomorrow, I will assume you agree with me and make the changes.
My references: Foran, Lindsey, Kaitlyn Blackburn, and Randy J. Kulesza. "Auditory hindbrain atrophy and anomalous calcium binding protein expression after neonatal exposure to monosodium glutamate." Neuroscience 344 (2017): 406-417.
Mondal, Mukti, Kaushik Sarkar, Partha Pratim Nath, and Goutam Paul. "Monosodium glutamate suppresses the female reproductive function by impairing the functions of ovary and uterus in rat." Environmental Toxicology (2017).
Norman, Geoff. "Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics." Advances in health sciences education 15, no. 5 (2010): 625-632.
Onakewhor, Joseph UE, Israel AO Oforofuo, and Sarrjit P. Singh. "Chronic Administration of Monosodium Glutamate Induces Oligozoospermia and Glycoen Accumulation in Wistar Rat Testes." African Journal of Reproductive Health 2, no. 2 (2017).
Sato, H., E. E. Castrillon, B. E. Cairns, K. H. Bendixen, K. Wang, T. Nakagawa, K. Wajima, and P. Svensson. "Intramuscular pH modulates glutamate‐evoked masseter muscle pain magnitude in humans." European Journal of Pain 20, no. 1 (2016): 106-115.
Shimada, A., E. E. Castrillon, L. Baad‐Hansen, Bijar Ghafouri, Björn Gerdle, Karin Wåhlén, M. Ernberg, B. E. Cairns, and P. Svensson. "Increased pain and muscle glutamate concentration after single ingestion of monosodium glutamate by myofascial temporomandibular disorders patients." European Journal of Pain 20, no. 9 (2016): 1502-1512. FFN001 ( talk) 14:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
This looks perfectly fine IMO "double-blind tests have found no good evidence to support this." Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I would like to highlight that the industry ties mentioned above, provided that it is an accurate assessment, are not reflected in the article. I believe that it should be mentioned, as the respective research seems to be an important source of the article and neutralising or legitimising tendencies might turn out serious in the long term. lmaxmai ( talk) 17:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
That section is so ham-fisted and pointless. It relies on a majority of leftist outlets and really is indicative of the 'uninformed are racist/stupid' trope. Just axe it.
174.27.76.244 ( talk) 09:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
For WP:PARITY concerns, I tried to find a source critical of the Dawn or Pakistan's view of MSG but my quick attempt failed. Interestingly, conspiracy theories about iodized salt ( [2]) and MSG appear to be promoted in Pakistan. An earlier example in the Dawn: [3]. — Paleo Neonate – 01:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
References
Shouldn't it be mentioned that monosodium glutamate is also known as 'vetsin', and why? Jan Vlug ( talk) 18:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The section on labelling in the US claims that as a "natural flavor", glutamic acid does not have to be declared. However, the reference [47] is regulations for labelling animal food, not human food. Any real source? JCBradfield ( talk) 06:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted an edit today based on the edit comment, which is based on something allegedly said by a migraine expert. I would like to read the full quote, and background surrounding it. Migraines are only a small subset of headaches, and should not be generalised to cover this topic. I could be persuaded to change my mind, with adequate sourcing. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
It seems the MSG apologists have taken full control of this page, and any mention of MSG causing migraines or headaches or whatever, is instantly deleted. Most neurologists and migraine specialists acknowledge that MSG is a potent migraine trigger for many people. Should their voices be ignored? Also MILLIONS of migraine sufferers report MSG as a potent migraine trigger. Should their voices be ignored? Also this page is loaded with overstatements, saying that the view that MSG causes migraine is a "misconception" and a "popular belief" but there is in fact no evidence that MSG is not a migraine trigger. The failure of scientific studies to find conclusive empirical proof that MSG causes migraine does not give us reason to use words like "misconception" and "popular belief." Scientific studies frequently fail to empirically prove things that we know are true. This site is essentially drowning out the voices of experts because what the experts say goes against what people (MSG apologists) want to believe is the case. There is ZERO evidence that MSG does not cause migraines, and there is plenty of evidence that MSG does indeed cause migraines. Many misguided people think that if science doesn't prove it's true then it's false, these people really should go to school and take a course on Logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedmosby83 ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The following content has been added (twice now) by Cold Season:
The perpetuation of the negative image of MSG through the so-called Chinese Restaurant Syndrome has been attributed to xenophobic or racist attitudes, [1] [2] [3] with people specifically targeting Asian cuisine whereas the widespread usage of MSG in western consumer goods (e.g. in processed food) doesn't generate the same stigma. [3]
References
I don't think the sourcing is good here, and the "has been attributed" construction is weasel wording. Why is this significant? Alexbrn ( talk) 17:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Tell you what - I've reverted the content because on balance I think this is better in than out, though could do with some sprucing up. Sorry for the hiatus. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Balance out the discussion or delete this. 67.187.30.225 ( talk) 04:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I've heard that there is a site which shares MSG's E number. Apparently, the site contains furry porn. I've never bothered to check, just in case, but I'm wondering if this article should talk about it. 2600:1007:B01F:7B85:483D:EA01:BDA0:DFA0 ( talk) 00:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
This text
"Multiple studies and published medical journals have shown the effects of MSG as an excitotoxin."
Primary source from 2003 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12619899
Source from 1999. Not pubmed indexed
Review from 2001. But does it even mention MSG?
Primary source from 2000
A published 1994 study on excitoxins in foods determined that MSG is an excitotoxin that could overstimulate NMDA receptors in the brain, which has the potential to destroy and degenerate neurons at an alarming rate. The study also claims that consumers whose brains are not fully matured and the elderly are especially sensitive and vunerable to MSG, as MSG could potentially cause brain damage. [5]
Review from 1994. We seriously need newer stuff. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
References
My revision goes as follows, if you believe anything should be removed or added, feel free to make your own version.
Studies and published medical journals have studied the effects of MSG as an excitotoxin. [1] [2] [3] A published 1994 study on excitoxins in foods determined that MSG is an excitotoxin that could overstimulate NMDA receptors in the brain, which has the potential to destroy and degenerate neurons at a "rapid rate". The study also claims that consumers whose brains are not fully matured and the elderly are especially sensitive and vunerable to MSG, as MSG could potentially cause brain damage in excess. [4] However, in a 2018 study it was concluded that MSG, if taken at the acceptable daily intake (ADI) is not a developmental neurotoxin. [5] However any glutamate in excess has the risk of "hyperexcitability in post-synaptic neurons to the point of excitotoxicity and cell death (cytotoxicity)." [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJV479 ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
My new revision goes as follows, if you believe anything should be removed or added, feel free to say so.
Glutamic acid, a component of MSG, in excess has the risk of overstimulation in postsynaptic neurons to the point of excitotoxicity and cell death. [7] A 2018 study it was concluded that MSG, if taken at the acceptable daily intake (ADI) is not a developmental neurotoxin. [8] A seperate study concluded that "Monosodium Glutamate in the Diet Does Not Raise Brain Glutamate Concentrations or Disrupt Brain Functions." The study also also adresses the effects of excess by saying MSG "does not produce appreciable increases in glutamate concentrations in blood, except when given experimentally in amounts vastly in excess of normal intake levels; and the blood-brain barrier effectively restricts the passage of glutamate from the blood into the brain, such that brain glutamate levels only rise when blood glutamate concentrations are raised experimentally via non-physiologic means." [9] So from this it can be concluded that MSG only becomes neurotoxic at increasingly high concentrations, which under normal circumstances, is not a risk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJV479 ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
MJV479 is continuing to edit war off-topic content about Glutamic acid into the article, and to pile in unreliable non- WP:MEDRS sources. This is starting to get disruptive. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
References
"Glutamic acid is found naturally in tomatoes, grapes, cheese, mushrooms and other foods. [1] [2]"
User:Wisefroggy First ref says "MSG occurs naturally in many foods, such as tomatoes and cheeses." Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Today it is written in the reactions section 'that the myth is false'. What does that really mean? That the context of the myth is false (which I believe is the intended message) or the myth is false (meaning the context of the myth is true). 198.2.80.218 ( talk) 19:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The term "MSG symptom complex" should be added per the sources such as FDA, Britannica, Merriam-Webster, MayoClinic, MedlinePlus.
Secondly, the fact that the term Chinese restaurant syndrome is pejorative (alternatively racist, xenophobic, and offensive or similar terms have also been used) is consistent with the sources, including the FDA panel (who state that they "considered the term "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome" to be pejorative and not reflective of the extent or nature of the symptoms") and Merriam-Webster. The word "pejorative" should be added. -- Cold Season ( talk) 18:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Do they really add sodium like stated in the article? Sodium is very reactive, so this information might be wrong. It would make more sense that sodium hydroxide is added, especially since it's for neutralizing it. -- 188.22.148.58 ( talk) 21:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Unlike tomatoes, cheese is a processed product with varying recipes. How is cheese natural on the same level with tomatoes? Furthermore, it isn't described how the ingredients turn into MSG. -- 2001:16B8:31C5:FE00:D8C5:234:BA02:86BC ( talk) 03:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)