Talk:Monosodium glutamate/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A note regarding the molecular formula listed for MSG

The molecular formula listed on the MSG page is incorrect. The correct molecular formula is C5 H9 N O4 . Na, but I couldn't edit it properly and don't have time at the moment to figure out what I'm doing wrong. If someone with more experience editing Wikipedia sees this, please correct the molecular formula. Brakoholic (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, C₅H₈NO₄Na is correct, C₅H₉NO₄ would be glutamic acid. Cacycle (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure where the discrepancy is, but there is a lot of substance information here that doesn't match up with the CAS database entry.Brakoholic (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

CAS has a funny way of depicting salts. The molecular formula and chemical structure image in this article are correct even though they don't match what is displayed on the CAS Common Chemistry page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Urban myths

Although this might not be suitable for the article itself, there's a common myth in China that drinking a mixture of lemonade softdrink (such as Sprite) with MSG has a similar effect to Viagra. I'm sure there's many more... if only there could be a credible source on it. Myths like these are common in China, somewhat like a MSG culture due to the heavy use of it in food. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. If you can find any reliable sources, please post them. If it had sufficient WP:Weight it certainly could be included. After all, the majority of the health effects in the article at the moment are urban myths. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User ChemNerd, please provide reason to revert the edition of....

• http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Monosodium_glutamate&diff=343296337&oldid=343296075

--222.67.211.208 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The chemical as a food additive....Acceptable daily intake....

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=monosodium+glutamate+%22acceptable+daily+intake%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=monosodium+glutamate+%22acceptable+daily+intakes%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.67.211.208 (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Link to improve the article's disputed neutrality

The link, which has been removed twice by some editors, was referring to an interview with Dr. Russel Blaylock.

Dr. Blaylock is a board certified neurosurgeon, author and lecturer. He attended the LSU School of Medicine in New Orleans and completed his general surgical internship and neurosurgical residency at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina. During his residency he ran the neurology program for one year and did a fellowship in neurosurgery after his residency. For the past 25 years he has practiced neurosurgery in addition to having a nutritional practice. He recently retired from both practices to devote full time to nutritional studies and research.

During his residency training he worked with the eminent neurosurgeon, Dr. Ludwig Kempe. Together they developed the transcallosal removal of intraventricular tumors, which is still used today. Dr. Blaylock presented their cases utilizing this technique to the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. They also developed the ventriculolymphatic shunt in the treatment of hydrocephalus. In addition, they conducted neuroanatomical studies together with the aim of developing improved approaches in vascular intracranial surgery.

There is a link to an article about an expert view on the issue from Mayo Clinic nutrionist Katherine Zeratsky. Wikipedia is a neutral source. That is why also one conflicting expert view should be presented, which is the one of Dr. Russel Blaylock. This could also address the problem of the article's neutrality that has already been mentioned a lot on this discussion page. If there is no agreement, maybe we should try to reach a consensus whether this source is appropriate or not at WP:RSN.—JCAla (talk) 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, that link is not a reliable source for medical information - see WP:MEDRS. And second, it seems to be completely misrepresenting the science. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Although you are wrong in what you write ... I suggest the following link then. see here This shows an excerpt of a book written again by Dr. Russell Blaylock and which has been reviewed and approved for release by Dr. Huntoon, a board-certified neurologist with a Ph.D. in physiology (neurophysiology), practices in Jamestown, New York, and is a member of the AAPS (Association of American Physicians and Surgeons) Board of Directors. Works of scientists such as these cannot be compared to people who believe the earth is flat, as you like to suggest by linking to WP:UNDUE. If you do not agree on this source, we should take it to WP:RSN, because then, obviously, agenda-pushing seems to be involved.—JCAla (talk) 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am quite sure I am correct, nonetheless, you should also see WP:MEDRS which the item you presented fails. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The MSG article is not primarily about medicine but about nutrition, since MSG's prime purpose is that of being used as a food additive and as a flavour enhancer. Nevertheless, WP:MEDRS states: "Ideal sources for these aspects include ... position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies." This is a position statement by Dr. Russell Blaylock. So, can we agree to include that one link to create a more balanced approach of Wikipedia to the issue. Subsequently the people can decide for themselves whose position they want to believe. —JCAla (talk) 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Russell Blaylock is, at best, a fringe scientist in this regard. Besides, you're not talking about adding his viewpoint into an article about the various health controversies and contrasting it with conflicting views and the weight of evidence against it, but just about adding it as a link or collection of links with no warning about how controversial his views are. The support of a member of the AAPS is not the same as the support of the AAPS itself. Sakkura (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I would definitely not call the AAPS a reputable expert body. They support creationism, deny the HIV-AIDS link and call the FDA unconstitutional. Sakkura (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• If you choose to call Dr. Russell Blaylock, a scientist with a decade of research and collaboration with other scientists in that area, "at best, a fringe scientist", this is your choice.
• (For the record I removed the statement about the AAPS being a reputable expert body, since I agree now that it is, indeed, disputed. The AAPS does not support all the things you mentioned nor are they the main issues dealt with by the AAPS, but it allowed dissenting scientists to publish their articles in their magazine. If that is wise or even dangerous or not is another disussion. This is not about the AAPS.)
• There are enough scientists who never had anything to do with the AAPS who point out possible risks associated to MSG. See i.e. John Olney who was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences.

John Olney, M.D. originally from Marathon Iowa, is the John P. Feighner Professor of Psychiatry, Neuropathology and Neuropsychopharmacology at Washington University and an extraordinary researcher in the fields of psychiatry, neuropathology and neuropsychopharmacology. Dr. Olney was the first to show that seizure induced brain damage can be prevented by blocking glutamate receptors, and he proposed the first model to provide a credible explanation for the pattern of neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease. He has contributed a series of critical discoveries that continue to advance our understanding of brain function and brain development. source also see here

• I can also add expert opinions about health risks to the article and contrast them with other opinions as Sakkura suggested. Indeed, that is a good idea of yours, Sakkura.

• "[W]henI first reported that glutamate can kill neurons by exciting them to death, this finding was not only rejected, it was ridiculed by established authority. It required about 15 years before the pendulum began swinging in the other direction. ... it is my belief ... it probably is an occult contributor to neurodevelopmental disabilities in human populations throughout the civilized world." - John Olney

• "Overstimulation by glutamate may result in neuronal damage and has been implicated in neurodegenerative disorders"- American Academy of Family Physicians

• "...the same company [Ajinomoto] that produces a food additive linked to neurological damage and obesity [monosodium glutamate] is also involved in producing a drug [Memantine] that can block the effects of that additive after we consume it."- St. Petersburg Times (Lynn Stratton, September 25, 2005)

—JCAla (talk) 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The neurotoxicity of MSG is already discussed in an NPOV and balanced way in the Excitotoxicity section of the Glutamic acid article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That is really no argument since the FDA study is also discussed in the Glutamic acid article. The health concern section of the MSG article thus should present a short summary of the main article regarding the health effects of glutamic acid - not only one of two sides discussed in the main article.—JCAla (talk) 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right - the health section in this article should be a short summary of the main article. However your edits are in no way a fair summary. You are blatantly disregarding WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are disregarding WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV by having in the past erased each and every single bit that viewed the health effects of MSG negatively. But that point of view should be presented in the summary as well. What is you suggestion the summary should look like? —JCAla (talk) 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The summary before was fine - please just revert your edits. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems you're the one disregarding those policies, since you've been very aggressive about bending this article towards one POV. I urge you to revert your latest changes and work towards a fair representation of the subject. I think the one at Glutamic_acid_(flavor)#Research_into_health_effects is a good example. The opinion of John Olney and others is represented there, but the scientific consensus is given greater weight (as it should). Sakkura (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the summary proposed by me is fine and balanced. If you want to remove the interview with Dr. Russell Blaylock in the summary - fine. But do not remove the two findings by John Olney and the American Academy of Family Physicians. Especially the statement by the American Academy of Family Physicians reflects scientific consensus. With the current version we have two sources saying the health effects are in some cases possible but only minor (except for asthma) and we have two sources stating the health effects could possibly be severe. That is balanced and fair.—JCAla (talk) 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is that there are no health effects from MSG. Olney's opinion is minor, and therefore you are severely violating WP:WEIGHT by giving his opinion equal weight in your summary.

Also, the American Academy of Family Physicians is talking about glutamate in the brain, which is very different from glutamate eaten as MSG. Glutamate is a neurotransmitter in the brain, but if you eat a whole load of glutamate it will not fry your brain because of the blood-brain barrier (practically all food you eat contains glutamate, so it would be very inconvenient if your bring got overloaded in glutamate every time you ate!) Just because a source talks about 'glutamate' doesn't mean you can include it in this article. You are synthesizing two completely different things to come up with an invalid conclusion, all based on your misunderstanding of the science. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That is untrue. The scientific consensus is that health effects of MSG remain a subject of controversy. You remarks about the blood-brain barrier are also misleading. Certain regions of the brain, known as the circumventricular organs, lack a blood-brain barrier. In some cases the blood-brain barrier can be damaged from, among other things, repeated ingestion of MSG or also high fever and aging. In worse cases such as seizures or stroke the brain-blood barrier can be damaged even more. Especially pregnant women and their unborns may be at risk since the placental barrier is permeable for MSG. Also, naturally occuring glutamate is not the same as glutamate resulting from processing.

If you want to reduce everything to the FDA study one may have to add politics and certain information about the alleged corruption involved with some of the FDA's studies - how studies were initially over 350 pages longer when presented to industry officials than when they were finally released to the public. Also, how the 350 pages not released communicate a whole other picture of the possible effects of MSG. So, let's just leave it at presenting the controversy.—JCAla (talk) 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between naturally occurring glutamate and glutamate resulting from processing? And we are not reducing everything to an FDA study - there are multiple studies by a variety of authors. Also bear in mind that "MSG" never actually enters the blood stream so the placental barrier be 'permable for MSG'. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please JCALa provide a WP:MEDRS source that says that MSG is unsafe. A secondary study please, and a recent one if you could. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect this is POV pushing inspired by the wedge strategy. "Teach the controversy", even though an overwhelming majority of scientists find these claims unjustified or in some cases patently ridiculous - eg. the notion that there is a difference between glutamate from naturally occurring and processed glutamate. Besides, the glutamic acid (flavor) article already does include the controversial claims. Sakkura (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

EUFIC

Just because there is a conflict of interest in the funding does not make a source "unreliable". We include many drug studies funded by the drug companies themselves (and this is generally noted in the text). The EUFIC website does seem to represent the scientific consensus. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. It should also be noted that EUFIC receives funding from the EU, so it isn't just funded by the industry. Sakkura (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"Just because there is a conflict of interest in the funding does not make a source "unreliable"." -- "Sciencewatcher"

You are starting to be very funny were it not for the seriousness of the issue.—JCAla (talk) 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Look at fibromyalgia ("in controlled trials funded by Eli Lily") and HFCS ("Several studies funded by Tate & Lyle" and "supported in part with funding from Pepsico"). This is all pretty normal on wikipedia, and in fact most drugs are approved based on clinical trials ONLY from the manufacturer (which can lead to bias). However in the case of MSG there is a large body of independent evidence showing that it is safe, so the reliability of the evidence is pretty excellent. --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

edits by 174.126.200.228

These edits have been reverted on a number of occasions. There is, so far, no consensus to add the material that 174.126.200.228 has added. The IP has been asked to discuss on the talk page but is instead using edit summaries to argue his/her point. I thought I would open up the discussion here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The IP has yet again added the material without discussing it here, I see no consensus to add what he or she is adding. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The possible link between MSG and obesity seems notable to me and should be mentioned in the article, but it also seems to me that there is a lack of scientific consensus for or against the hypothetical link. From what I can tell, a link has been demonstrated in certain animal species, but in humans the findings are conflicting. Here is a recent study finding no association between MSG and obesity in adult humans, after adjusting for other factors. Sakkura (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If the ip looks at the main health effects section he'll see there is evidence either way (with it not being conclusive either way). If the ip wants to include it he must do it in an WP:NPOV way, i.e. including both sides. What the heck is so difficult about summarising the info we already have?! Jeez... --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck, I think it's important that I point this out before I make my next edit: You still have not used this discussion to voice a valid objection to my edit other than "it should not be included in the article because it has been reverted before by others." Please read WP:NOT#DEM carefully before you make your argument. "Because many people agree with my opinion" is not an acceptable argument to use when deciding on what to remove from wikipedia. I have expanded my edit to include the source which Sakkura has brought up, however, that should not be taken to mean that NPOV can be used as an excuse to keep information off of wikipedia, as did the original revertor's objection operate (Sciencewatcher). This edit summary of mine best explains the situation "Read the original edit, then read the undo's summary and compare it to perfect solution fallacy. Then review Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete" In your future edits, please try to keep this in mind and before you revert, instead consider adding more information to the article while summarizing your reasoning so others can see it and respond to it. Sciencewatcher, your tone getting emotional will not help matters.174.126.200.228 (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not continue adding you change until there is consensus, otherwise it will be reverted. As long as your edit continues to violate WP:NPOV, it is very unlikey that consensus will be reached. No amount of Wikilawyering will help you. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks better now, at least it is WP:NPOV. I think it just needs trimmed down to a sentence or two, as it is too long at the moment given the length of the paragraph above. --sciencewatcher (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would still rather see stuff that is from secondary sources, but at least it is NPOV now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a secondary source would be preferable, if one exists. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If one does not, might we have a problem of undue weight here? Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've had difficulty finding secondary sources for other aspects of the MSG article (e.g. the retinal degeneration), although perhaps I just didn't look hard enough. In cases like this it's okay to use primary sources as long as it's done properly. As for weight, as I said above I think we need to shorten the paragraph - it's much too long at the moment considering what is in the previous paragraph. I think we should maybe just have a single sentence. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There are three main peices of information I thought deserved attention which I included in the paragraph. The first piece (S1) notes the phenomanon of MSG triggering obesity in lab rats. This is relavent because rats have much shorter life cycles than humans, and baby rats can be tested on (where as baby humans can not be tested on in this way in most nations). The development of an organism can be broken down into stages, and msg may have a different impact on the organism at each of these stages. MSG exposure throughout infancy and into early "rat childhood" may have a different effect than MSG exposure to adults (I came across something that refered to neurological damage to young rats treated with msg which we might be relevant for a later edit). The second piece (S3) of information is the relaying of the UNC study which found a link between MSG and obesity which I believe is patently relevant. The third piece of information made a contrary finding for the sake of NPOV. I use a linking sentence (S2) as a literary convention which was somewhat dense with info (year, secondary source, and link). I think what I've listed just now is a reasonable amount of information to trust with this article. But I also (perhaps superfluously) used a sentence to explain that correlation does not equal causation and I also used another linking sentence there after, both of which add little for the paragraph or even the article as a whole. I've made those changes now if no one thinks that disruptive to the paragraph.174.126.200.228 (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is there is too much info - it is a WP:WEIGHT violation. Why should obesity take up the same amount of space in the summary as the entire health effects section in the prev paragraph? We should just have a sentence about it. If you want to add extra info add it to the main health effects section, not here - this is just meant to be a short summary. (Unless you want to expand the health effects summary here, in which case that is a different matter). --sciencewatcher (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The current amount of content in the paragraph seems to be a fraction of what you're comparing it to. Maybe I don't follow what section you're comparing this paragraph to? Also note that rats are a model for human obesity research.174.126.200.228 (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There are 7 lines for the entire health effects, and you want to add a similar amount for obesity alone! That is clearly a weight violation. Also putting in the info about rats is clearly going over the top for this short summary. The main health concerns section is here - that is where you should be adding the detail. --sciencewatcher (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Once more, I agree with SW. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree. Also, rats can be used as a model for humans, but humans are a better model organism for, you know, humans. Therefore, studies on humans are more important to mention in this very brief summary. Sakkura (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems pointless to talk about rat studies when we aren't actually discussing any rat studies at all. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

First, to call the linked article a "main health effects section," is not entirely fair for two reasons, the first being that it is a section devoted exclusively to "obesity effects". If you look at the section above it, neurotoxicity is discussed, which is clearly a section regarding health. Regardless of that point, we need to proceed very carefully with this redirect usage so we don't turn this section into a WP:POVFORK (where certain content is banned from an article doing an injustice to the substance and POV of an article). The content in this article should only be compared to content within itself (and of course "the real world") regarding weight; The link you posted should really be thought of as a separate article. Wikipedia articles are generally designed to "stand on their own." Reaching a genuine size WP:LIMIT is a valid exception to this WP:POVFORK policy, but does not apply to this situation. The article's content should not be constrained to such a degree that relevant information would be restricted from it, rather it should be allowed to grow independently and naturally a la wiki. Second, elaborate on how putting in info about rats is clearly over the top because I don't see where you're coming from. You may have a very valid point, but that point is unclear: Are you referring to the size limit that it's "over the top" of? Are you questioning the practice of inducing obesity in rats? Are you suggesting that rats are a poor model for human obesity research? Have I missed your argument completely? In a well organized post, Sakkura argued that because humans are a better model organism for humans, we should only include information regarding experiments conducted on humans in this section (partly under the premise that the article's contents must be kept to a minimum as well), but as I've pointed out earlier in this discussion, human experimentation is a fairly uncommon practice, I mentioned that it is especially uncommon to find testing on human children whom are unable to be conscientious test subjects. But there are other reasons why human testing is more rare including that human testing is often prohibitively expensive and in some cases just plain too unethical to ever be done. A chief example of this is the Lethal Dose of MSG. Conducting human experiments designed to determine the lethal Dose of a substance is considered a crime by international law. I think we can agree that studies and experiments done on rats are relevant to this article, even though said article primarily concerns the effects on humans. Under that line of reasoning I maintain that excluding experiments done on rats from this article (and similar articles in general) would significantly hinder the amount of relevant and significant information we can share in this article. Sciencewatcher, is your argument the same as Sakkura's? If not, please explain your view so that it can be discussed.174.126.200.228 (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The main article has a section called Research into health effects, under which neurotoxicity and obesity are subsections. So your first objection seems absurd. As for articles standing on their own, that is true except for the cases where content is split into subarticles, or similar arrangements as in this case. Then you have a summary in one article and the fuller picture in the other. Having the same detailed explanation two places would be redundant. The procedure is described here. As for the rat studies, such information is useful but generally not something you can draw conclusions about humans from. Also, the studies on rats introduce MSG in different ways and doses which you'd never subject humans to, so it should come as no surprise that it may result in issues you will never see under normal conditions in humans. As for the lethal dose, that again isn't that relevant since people don't consume anywhere near lethal doses of MSG. Research is looking at dose-dependent effects at much smaller doses, particularly chronic ones. Sakkura (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct. I think the ip editor needs to actually read the article - I think he completely missed the bit that says "Main article: Health effects research into Glutamic acid"! --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"The main article has a section called Research into health effects, under which neurotoxicity and obesity are subsections. So your first objection seems absurd" "--Sakkura"

In my first objection, I was referring to SW's linked section as a bad thing to call a "main health concerns section." In my first sentence, when I said 'article,' I should have said 'section'. I didn't mean to refer to the whole article as being a bad thing to call the main health effects section, just the subsection that SW linked in response to my inquiry about what he was comparing my work to. This point is too trivial to pursue if it isn't already apparent.

"As for articles standing on their own, that is true except for the cases where content is split into sub articles, or similar arrangements as in this case." "--Sakkura"

The fork you propose we rely on is not appropriate for this case. First, the split doesn't split off to an entire article, it splits off to a subsection of another article. A common split/ spinnoff would be where a large article like Skiing contained two subsections, "down hill" and "cross Country," and these subsections Forked to articles titled "Down Hill Skiing" and "Cross Country skiing." This article instead has a subsection which splits off to a SUBsection of a completely separate article. Because this section is somewhat mis-named "MSG (the chemical compound/ not the flavour)", if anything, the logical remediation to the "redundancy issue" would be to remove all of the references to MSG as a food item from this article and instead link those concerned with the flavoring to the "MSG as a flavour" page which would prevent people from getting all tossed and turned about with which article they should read if they want information about MSG as an ingredient. A spin off isn't necessary or even applicable when you look at the structure of the two pages. I'm not suggesting that someone needs to go through all the work of re-writing this article, I'm only pointing out that the fork you are proposing we rely on is uncalled for, even in the name of redundancy reduction. We should move away from this article fork and look turn to greater alternatives.

The fork is especially unacceptable in that this page we're on is the MSG front to google. All googlers who type in MSG in as a search term get this page, and alternatively a disambiguous page (not even the flavor page). If we house content on MSG as an ingredient in a skeletal form here, we are doing a disservice to those who would like to become informed about the properties of the ingredient (presumably, the majority of hits coming to this page). If we stock the article with a healthier supply of information, we can avoid committing such a disservice, and as I've mentioned, removing all information regarding the flavour in the name of redundancy reduction would be equally acceptable in terms of the POV forking issue.

"Then you have a summary in one article and the fuller picture in the other." "--Sakkura"

It seems like an easy solution, but when you take a step back and consider "which article is the spin off?" you are left scratching your head. Since this article is smaller, it lends it self to being considered the spinoff, but instead of containing more information, it in fact contains less information and links to a larger, more detailed article. If we consider the larger article as the spin off, then we should see a link leading to it on this page (as we do), but this page would need to have a much broader body of content than just the meager information on MSG as an ingredient it currently contains and the chemical properties (i.e. the content of the spinoff). Using a fork here in this way just doesn't make sense. When you analyze the nature of the spin off, redundancy is a much more acceptable solution. And quite ironically, as that the chemical compound is used in obesity tests as a tool to induce obesity rather than a flavour, the information is more relevant here than in the other article (just a side thought to consider as you're interpreting the logical structure of the two articles).

"As for the rat studies, such information is useful but generally not something you can draw conclusions about humans from" "--Sakkura"

I'm not saying that the study gives us a conclusion on the effect of MSG in humans, i'm saying that animal studies help to guide us in determining what's safe and what's not and that's why the information should not be blocked from the article. I didn't make any conclusion about the rat study I merely presented the information that msg is used to trigger obesity in lab rats as that this is yet another one of the many understudied, yet observable properties of MSG on living organisms.

"Also, the studies on rats introduce MSG in different ways and doses which you'd never subject humans to, so it should come as no surprise that it may result in issues you will never see under normal conditions in humans." "--Sakkura"

It would be very surprising if everyone who ingested normal amounts of MSG became obese. However, you're looking at this a from a shallow perspective. In your phrasing, "it should be equally unsurprising for msg to cause obesity in especially allergic/susceptible individuals who consume smaller amounts of MSG as newborns than the obesity ensuring quantities of MSG that lab rats are given." Does that make the study's applicability more clear? It's begining to seem as though you're operating under the impression that everything you read in a wiki article must be evidenced directly in humans or it should be removed. I don't believe this policy of thought should be allowed to heckle or otherwise rusticate coherent aspects of MSG (as a chemical or flavour).

"As for the lethal dose, that again isn't that relevant since people don't consume anywhere near lethal doses of MSG." "--Sakkura"

"Because people rarely consume the lethal dose" does not make the figure irrelevant. Lethal dose is presently reported in this article (it's abbreviated as LD, and was determined by rat testing). It's not a piece of information that the article will readily part with because LD is almost ubiquitous in wiki articles about chemical compounds (eg caffeine, Ascorbic acid, Sodium_chloride). If you want to argue it's relevence, please start a new discussion section so responses to get overly lengthy here.174.126.200.228 (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that the current situation regarding the health concerns being in the flavor article isn't ideal, but others disagree and they have good reasons (see previous discussion on this topic). Certainly you can start a new discussion on this if you wish, but until there is agreement we should stay with the current layout. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"...others disagree and they have good reasons..." "--sciencewatcher"

Stating that 'others disagree for good reasons' doesn't contribute very much to this discussion.

"until there is agreement [regarding the layout] we should stay with the current layout." "--sciencewatcher"

You've only stated how you feel towards relying on the fork which is a good start. But you haven't explained why you feel the proposed fork should be relied upon in this case. Specifically, how is POV forking a better meantime solution than having similar information in two separate articles?174.126.200.228 (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "fork". The main info about health concerns is in the glutamic acid (flavor article): the reason being that the health concerns are about free glutamate and not specifically MSG. The MSG article just has a very short summary of that info. It is actually you who seem to want to create a POV fork by duplicating the info in the MSG article and giving excessive weight to obesity.

Please stop edit warring and discuss any major changes to the article here. If you think that the health concerns should be moved into the MSG article, or that there should be duplicated infomartion in both articles, state your case here. Until then, please stop adding duplicate, WP:WEIGHT violation info about obesity into the article without consensus. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"It's not a "fork". " "--Sciencewatcher"

It's a fork: It links to content in another wiki article.

"It is actually you who seem to want to create a POV fork by duplicating the info in the MSG article and giving excessive weight to obesity." "--Sciencewatcher"

That wouldn't be a fork in any sense. Read what forks are by following this link, WP:POVFORK.

"Please stop edit warring and discuss any major changes to the article here." "--Sciencewatcher"

Your edit lacks consesus (the removal of the paragraph's first sentence). You are technically the one who should stop 'edit warring' until the changes you're proposing reach consesus here. So far you have failed to make a legitimate argument for your proposal, which you will need to provide before consensus can be achieved. I do urge you to stop as that you're effacing the history of the article in your actions.

"If you think that the health concerns should be moved into the MSG article, or that there should be duplicated infomartion in both articles, state your case here." "--Sciencewatcher"

My case has been stated. Look up above where I say "The fork you propose we rely on is not appropriate for this case. First..." I'm reminded of your complaint against me about not actually reading things.174.126.200.228 (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a consensus to me, with just one editor (you) revert warring against it. Sakkura (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONS isn't simply the matter of outnumbering the people you disagree with. Here's an illustration of what consensus is: Http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Consensus_Flowchart.svg

Consensus is discussion driven unless an admin tells us otherwise, so please discuss your viewpoint here.174.126.200.228 (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

When one editor, one, (by my count) has an opinion, and all of the others (I may be wrong, but that is what I see) have the opposite, I think we have consensus. This is pretty close to a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

But you haven't provided any reasoning for why you're rejecting my viewpoint. That needs to be done at some point for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to apply (because you haven't said anything for me to not hear).174.126.200.228 (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Health concerns section's low standard

Why is this section even here? This is a sodium salt of an amino acid. It is very soluble, as almost all sodium salts are. Why should the health effects of sodium and glutamic acid, both naturally occuring in the body, be concerning at all? The studies cited in this section are presented in a very poor way. The 1995 (that's 15 years old) study concluded it is safe - anecdotal reports are uninteresting and effects that cannot be replicated are even less interesting. The controlled studies find no significant effects, yet someone found it necessary to add correlational studies (I can only assume they are correlational, the author obviously didn't think this was an important detail). These correlational studies do not belong here, they can say nothing about the effects of MSG that the controlled studies can not, and all they accomplish is to smear the full picture of scientific evidence with irrelevant, extremely confounded facts. There are infinite other ways to explain the reported effects of these correlational studies. The Standard 1.2.4 of the Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code doesn't even belong in this section. I propose deleting this section. Sorry for my bad english (I'm Norwegian) and IP-commenting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.237.124 (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I just removed this bit, as we now discuss it above and there is now another study that shows the exact opposite.

The reason we have a health concerns section is because many people (falsely) believe that MSG is dangerous. I'm not sure about Norway, but certainly in the UK, Canada and USA it is a significant concern for (I believe) the majority of the population, so we should include information about it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"Why is this section even here?"

It's here because the article is a complete mess that looks at aspects of the salt in terms of MSG the ingredient as well as the harmless salt you're describing. Look way at the top where it says "It is used as a food additive and is commonly marketed as a flavour enhancer." The article poses to be about more than just the naturally occuring salt, but also the food industries flavour enhancer of choice (highly concentrated L-glutamate) which interacts differently than the D-glutamate salt.

"Why should the health effects of sodium and glutamic acid, both naturally occuring in the body, be concerning at all?"

The food industry manufactures MSG using GMOs in a process of fermentation. When they seep out the ingredient, it's in an unnatural concentration of D-glutamate and L-glutamate, and the salts are not bound (together with a protein), as well as impurieies resulting from the manufacturing process. Manufactured MSG evidently causes neurological disorders and obesity in lab rats. When you look at the salt as a commercial food additive, you need to include stuff like health concerns, especially considering the policy of certain countries on things like GMO regulation. Thorough safty tests are often forgone to expediate the release of new products to consumers.

"The studies cited in this section are presented in a very poor way."

Almost everything needs to be rewritten, it's truely hiddeous. I encourage you to do what you can to bring this article up to standard, but that will require editing the article from a holistic approach and probably entail time consumptive rewriting, not the small scale deletion that SW seems to be suggesting.~~

"The 1995 (that's 15 years old) study concluded it is safe - anecdotal reports are uninteresting and effects that cannot be replicated are even less interesting."

I'm not exactly sure why you've gone out of your way, specifying the exact age of the study relative to now, unless you were just trying to get practice with English, but the age of studies is in some cases an important consideration. However just because a study is old or new doesn't mean it should be ignored or better recieved. If I remember correctly, the U.S. is flouridating water in America based on studies as old as 40 years. Some do criticise the datedness of the research being inadequit, but their age is for the most part deemed irrelevant to the argument. Perhaps selectively using studies based on age is a cultural tendency in Norway?

"...anecdotal reports..."

It's a study. Measurements were taken. Anecdotal means something specific in English, it's not just a pejorative adjective used very often to describe insubstantial reports: "based on second-hand accounts or stories, rather than first-hand knowledge". It's an understandable mistake to make given that you're from Norway and don't hear the word used very often. In fact, for reasons specified, I'm a little inclined to believe that even english speaking persons watching this very article aren't entirely aware of the word's exact meaning.

"...effects cannot be replicated..."

This study can be replicated. You just need to take another random sample of the population and make measurements following the same procedure while controlling for the same variables otherwise controlled for. There are similar studies finding possible correlations.

"The controlled studies find no significant effects, yet someone found it necessary to add correlational studies"

I think you're under a misconception of what a controlled study is and what a correlation is. All studies can be considered 'correlational studies' because they observe a sample and search for the presence or absence of a correlation between two or more values. Please research what a 'study' is in technical terms if you're unfamiliar.

"all they accomplish is to smear the full picture of scientific evidence"

The idea of scientific research is to collect a broad sample of information in order to paint the full picture of what's being studies. It would be counter to this concept to selectively ignore studies that do not conform to a preconception.

"I just removed this bit, as we now discuss it above..." "--Sciencewatcher"

We should probably hear a little discussion on the matter before we make hasty deletions of large amounts of information. Two hours doesn't seem like enough time to give for the deletion of an entire headered item.

"removed section, as we now discuss this previously" "--Sciencewatcher's edit summary"

I thought I'd quote this too for anyone else to appreciate it the way I did. Four hours later, that same friday, the undo button for two of SW's edits would be jammed by someone who wanted to add the words "Tasting Powder" to the article.174.126.200.228 (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I gave my reasons in the edit summary. What are your objections? I don't see any above. Oh, and as others have said, this is not about 'votes'. It's about giving reasoned arguments for what should or shouldn't be included in the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Everything I've said above sternly point out the failings all of the reasoning behind why the deletion was made; the deletion is groundless. Please do not edit war, your edit clearly lacks consensus. As for this "not being about votes", an admin contacted me a day ago and said that because I was so greatly outnumbered, I was in the wrong. I anticipate the same will happen again regarding this edit; it's become a matter of votes, not discussion. You don't need to refute the argument I made above, you simply need to outnumber me with more supporters here and contact an admin again.174.126.200.228 (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to show everyone it has to be added, and this page indicates pretty clearly that you have not done this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

But that's exactly it! The "burden of proof" isn't on me at all, it's on SW. It's SW's edit which clearly lacks consensus (in that I have written a counterpoint to the reasoning for his edit and reverted his edit). Because his edit lacks consensus he must stop edit warring and seek a compromise or support his edit using logic (which he can't do, it's untenable).174.126.200.228 (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

But you have never actually given any reasons apart from 'Two hours doesn't seem like enough time to give for the deletion of an entire headered item'. Well there is no time you need to give before deleting something. Perhaps if you're deleting an entire page or a section with lots of paragraphs, but this is a single sentence for crying out loud! If you have a reason for keeping the sentence, please tell us. Nobody else seems to have a problem with the deletion. I have already given my reasons for deleting it, but here they are again: it is duplication (we already discuss it above), it is POV (it doesn't discuss any negative studies), and it is a WEIGHT violation (giving too much weight to obesity). Also it seems a bit out of place - the USA and Australia sections are about food safety, but the Asia section is just a research study about obesity (which is nothing to do with Asia) - other obesity studies aren't from Asia. It makes more sense to simply discuss it in Health concerns (above USA) as we are doing now anyway. --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is relying on a fork a justifiable reason to block information on obesity?

Does using a logically failing fork justify the minimization of information regarding obesity in this MSG article, which poses to cover the topic of MSG's use by the food industry?174.126.200.228 (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I italicized logically failing because that is not a very descriptive way of describing the problem; the full description requires some elaboration. I mentioned this in another discussion and it desperately needs diverse perspective:

I would argue that the fork used here is not appropriate. First, the split doesn't split off to an entire article, it splits off to a subsection of another article. A common split/ spinnoff would be where a large article like Skiing contained two subsections, "down hill" and "cross Country," and these subsections Forked to articles titled "Down Hill Skiing" and "Cross Country skiing." This article instead has a subsection which splits off to a SUBsection of a completely separate article. Because this section is somewhat mis-named "MSG (the chemical compound/ not the flavour)", if anything, the logical remediation to any "redundancy issues" (as a reason to prevent obesity information from appearing in this page) would be to remove all of the references to MSG as a food item from this article and instead link those concerned with the flavoring to the "MSG as a flavour" page which would prevent people from getting all tossed and turned about with which article they should read if they want information about MSG as an ingredient. A spin off isn't necessary or even applicable when you look at the structure of the two pages. I'm not suggesting that someone needs to go through all the work of re-writing this article, I'm only pointing out that the fork that's been proposed we rely on is uncalled for, even in the name of redundancy reduction. We should move away from this article fork and look to greater alternatives (such as redundancy for instance).

The fork is especially unacceptable in that this page we're on is the MSG front to google. All googlers who type in MSG as a search term get this page, and alternatively a disambiguous page (not even the flavor page). If we house content on MSG as an ingredient in a skeletal form here as it is done now, we are doing a disservice to those who would like to become informed about the properties of the ingredient (presumably, the majority of hits coming to this page). If we stock the article with a healthier supply of information, we can avoid committing such a disservice, and as I've mentioned, removing all information regarding the flavour in the name of redundancy reduction would be equally acceptable in terms of the POV forking issue.

Section in scrutiny: Monosodium_glutamate#Health_concerns174.126.200.228 (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is exactly as the headnote says: informations about this exact chemical entity "Monosodium glutamate" goes on this page. Anything related to general health effects of glutamic acid and its many salts (which monosodium glutamate is only one among many others) goes on the glutamic acid (flavor) page. This has been discussed extensively on the talk pages of the articles in question, including this page (just read above on this page!). The reason is clearly and obviously not a POV fork. The reason is to keep all pharmacological and medicinal aspects of the active entity glutamic acid together in one place instead of of spreading and repeating the same information on several articles. All relevant health related aspects are caused by glutamic acid, independent of the form you ingest it (be it glutamic acid, monosodium glutamate, disodium glutamate, monopotassium glutamate, calcium diglutamate, monoammonium glutamate, or magnesium diglutamate, just to name a few widely used glutamic acid salts. Cacycle (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a POV fork issue, as noted above, it is about keeping things on this page about MSG and not being redundant. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it isn't a POV fork since that requires the fork to be intended to push a certain POV. Sakkura (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"informations about this exact chemical entity "Monosodium glutamate" goes on this page." "--Cacylce"

Obesity studies on the exact chemical entity "Monosodium glutamate" are being systematically expunged. This is bad news for the article.

"This has been discussed extensively on the talk pages of the articles in question, including this page (just read above on ::::this page!)." "--Cacyle"

Please, let's try and go about this calmly, even though I am calling for a broader discussion base to review the matter.

"The reason is clearly and obviously not a POV fork." "--Cacycle"

I don't question the underlying reason. The underlying effect is what is in question, and whether to cause that effect is justifiable. The reason is clearly and obviously moot.

"The [fork] is to keep all pharmacological and medicinal aspects of the active entity glutamic acid together in one place ::::instead of of spreading and repeating the same information on several articles. " "--Cacycle"

You've exchanged the word 'reason' with the word 'fork' which is disconcerting given the implication that this may mean you find your point of view so uncomfortable that you need to employ tortuous euphemisms to support your opinion, but I was able to use paraphrasing to help clarify your sentence. The fork fails to keep all pharmacological and medicinal aspects of MSG out of the article as evidenced by the presence of said aspects here in the article (eg. "It is used as a food additive and is commonly marketed as a flavour enhancer... It was once made predominantly from wheat gluten, but is now made mostly from bacterial fermentation; it is acceptable for coeliacs following a gluten-free diet... Manufactured MSG contains over 99.6% of the naturally predominant L-glutamate form... Health concerns...").

How can we justify the presence of this material here instead of having it assigned to where you're claiming it's already been relegated to in it's entirety?

"All relevant health related aspects are caused by glutamic acid, independent of the form you ingest it [list of links omitted]" "--Cacycle"

All MSG manufactured by the food industry is a glutamic acid, therefore the health concerns related to glutamic acid must be indicated on this page in a forthright manor. At present, I would characterize the way the health concerns are presented as mendacious.

"This is not a POV fork issue...[reiteration]" "--Dbrodbeck"

"I agree, it isn't a POV fork since that requires the fork to be intended to push a certain POV." "--Sakkura"

Your votes have been registered (I assume SW hasn't logged in yet?), but Sakkura, what you've said isn't entirely true: The determination of POV forks is not based on intention, it's based on the effect they produce. And in this case, the POV fork suppresses information on obesity (and apparently neurotoxicity), undermining the article's NPOV.174.126.200.228 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about votes. Besides, it's not only not intended as POV forking, it isn't POV forking in practice because the two articles present the same overall views with roughly equal weight given to the criticism and defense of glutamate and its sources (MSG included). There is no case of one side of the story being suppressed in one article compared to the other. In fact, your edits are the ones that would result in a POV fork, since your edits would give undue weight to one POV. Sakkura (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not the equality of views that is problematic, it's the shallow depth of info that results in a grossly under-informed reader leaving the page with too little information about the health concerns related to MSG. Dbrodbeck's comment (although I like him) didn't bring anything new to the discussion. It did nothing more than serve as a vote. Your comment functioned similarly, but instead of reiterating something that's already been said, you said something new which was logically fallacious. If my counterpoints are never addressed by the opposition, it is likely that this discussion will act as an obscene electoral college instead of as an actual discussion, and I've come to grips with that, it's just an edit after all. If the influx of fresh voters/ debaters I've brought with this RfC isn't enough to swing this election in a favorable direction, then I'm fine with walking away, having done everything I possibly could to uphold the honest representation of information on wikipedia.174.126.200.228 (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to take a step back. You have already been warned once against edit warring and are not far from being blocked. It is clear that consensus is not with you. Your "favorable direction" and "honest representation" are nothing more than your own particular POV (please see WP:PUSH). VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just demonstrated why my point was not incorrect, you're just repeating yourself without addressing the issue. You gripe about your counterpoints not being addressed, yet you do the exact same thing against the rest of us, only you often do it with huge walls of text and poorly/unusually formatted quotes which makes it unnecessarily tedious to respond in depth. Sakkura (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Block

I have just blocked 174.126.200.228 for 31 hours, for edit-warring in this article after being warned that it is necessary to gain consensus for changes that are disputed. Looie496 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

IUPAC name

Shouldn't the IUPAC name simply be "monosodium glutamate?" The IUPAC name for glutamatic acid is simply "glutamic acid." There is no need to refer to amino acids by anything other than their common name. Eebster the Great (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked "glutamatic acid", and Wikipedia has no article about it. Is that just a misspelling?) Nikevich (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The IUPAC name as given is correct. IUPAC also provides for semisystematic names; this is the status for acetic acid, glutamic acid, ethyl alcohol and other compounds whose common names are significantly well-known. See for example the IUPAC rules for systematic vs semi-systematic names here. Brythain (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Press rather than scientific sources

The sentence beginning "There have been concerns that MSG may be associated with..." lists various purported ill-effects of MSG, but all the sources cited are pieces of journalistic writing which themselves talk in somewhat vague terms about unspecified "concerns" (i.e. they don't make explicit reference to the scientific literature). This is really not good enough for a contentious topic like this. The popular press is full of sloppy health claims and they should not be called on to back up Wikipedia articles, especially when there are published studies that could be used instead. No doubt some people will think I am a stooge of the food additives industry but if they knew what I eat they'd see that I'm really quite the opposite! My concern, however, is for accuracy, and as someone who works in an (unrelated) scientific field the blending of journalistic and academic sources jumped out at me immediately, especially as the scientific evidence appears to favour one view and some uninformed journalists think the opposite. I maintained for many years a vague belief that MSG was probably best avoided on health grounds, and then saw something on TV recently where a crude single-blind test apparently debunked the claims of people who said they had "Chinese restaurant syndrome" (they weren't faking it, it was just psychosomatic). I'd like to urge people who know more about all this than me to stick to the scientific literature unless there is reason to believe it's dodgy (e.g. someone in a reliable source claims that scientists involved in studies that find MSG to be safe are in the pay of processed food companies). Beorhtwulf (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If large numbers of people believe something baseless about MSG, the article isn't comprehensive unless it includes the information that large numbers of people believe it -- as well as the fact that it is baseless. Attempts to censor all mention of human irrationality out of Wikipedia are counterproductive. Our job is to be informative to readers, and readers (like you!) who form the impression that MSG is harmful and come to the article for more information will be very puzzled and suspicious if they don't see even a mention of this widespread belief. Looie496 (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we pretend that no one has ever raised concerns about MSG. Indeed it would be odd to look up MSG in Wikipedia and find no mention of the concerns that have been raised over the years. My problem with the way it's worded is that, to crudely summarise, we have something like:

No evidence has been found that MSG is particularly harmful (source: numerous studies in the scientific literature). On the other hand, MSG has been linked to migraines, allergies, obesity and hyperactivity (source: some newspaper articles making vague suggestions).

Have a look at how I've just changed the sentence order and see what you think. It is not unreasonable for someone who experiences a bad reaction to food to wonder if that unfamiliar chemical-sounding stuff in it might be responsible. It is also not unreasonable for medical researchers to start with the hypothesis that MSG causes ill-effects, because of the anecdotal evidence, and use that as a basis for examining the question experimentally. However, if those experiments consistently find that concerns are misplaced and the substance in question cannot be shown to do anything significant to people's health, it is no good for Wikipedia to present an "on the one hand, on the other hand" summary. As such, I've moved the "concerns" sentence to earlier in the paragraph to show that people's anecdotal reports are what prompt you to look into the matter, and then oh look here are the results and they come up negative. I hope this is clear and not misleading to the reader. I have no intention of removing all mention of concerns people have about MSG from the article, but I want these views to be placed in their proper context. This means being clear about what's anecdote and what's scientific findings. It means being wary of using newspaper articles to "give the other side of the story", since they are based on anecdotal reports and contradict the results of rigorous investigation. Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You are exactly dead-on here, actually. WP:GEVAL factors heavily here. The findings published in a scientific journal should carry more weight than an editorial in USA Today. --King Öomie 15:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

GMOs

Are there any sources on the usage of GMOs in the production process?--Max Dax (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope it does. Then it would be doubly safe, since neither MSG nor GMO's have any effect on the body. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

According to this page, most MSG nowadays is produced by a bacterial fermentation process that uses specially mutated bacterial variants -- so the answer is yes, it is produced using GMOs, although probably not modified using genetic engineering techniques. But since we're dealing with a simple purified chemical here, how it is produced is really pretty much irrelevant. Looie496 (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

And since GMO's have no adverse effects, it's doubly irrelevant. I cannot believe that there's still discussion about a simple salt of glutamic acid is still being discussed. It's an amino acid. Period. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"And since GMO's have no adverse effects, it's doubly irrelevant. I cannot believe that there's still discussion about a simple salt of glutamic acid is still being discussed. It's an amino acid. Period" Classic example of why Wikipedia will never be taken seriously. Anyone who speaks in absolutes is NOT to be considered. I have no doubt that you believe you are correct, however; but save the real science for the people smart enough to say "I don't know". 76.94.205.82 (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)PhucUTran

I don't suppose you have a reference that meets WP:MEDRS do you? Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

And of course, the WP:MEDRS already said it doesn't do anything. The anonymous IP should take a biochemistry class, so that he would understand that glutamic acid is a simple amino acid, and you cannot possibly consume too much of it. Well, I guess you could eat a brick of it, and will probably come down with a sodium overload, but the glutamate is going to do nothing. People just love inventing stuff without any sound science. Oh anonymous IP.....real science answers questions. Duh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

According to this paper, which I believe is a pretty good source, the LD50 of glutamate taken orally in rats and mice is ~15,000 – 18,000 mg/kg body weight. In other words, a normal human would probably have to eat at least a pound or so of pure glutamate to be at significant risk. Looie496 (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

And, really, your body would stop you from doing so. Again real science. Nevertheless, glutamic acid is glutamic acid. There isn't different ones for Chinese restaurants than are incorporated into my body's proteins. And unless that Chinese restaurant is adding a pound of MSG to my Kung Pao chicken, it has no chemical effect. In fact, I'll bet the NaCl in the soy sauce causes more issues. I'd love to see anyone eat 1lb of any salt crystal. You just couldn't without drinking several liters of water.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

How can you identify that food contains any MSG? or how chemically been tested?

09:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Is there any way you can identify that food you are consuming contains any MSG? or is there any chemical way that one can find indication of MGS in your food?

Any sort of meat will contain some glutamate, and the glutamate from MSG is no different from it; the only difference is that there is more. My understanding is that in the food industry, glutamate concentrations are measured using HPLC, which is not something you can do at home. There is also at least one patent application for a simpler glutamate sensor, but I don't know if any usable product exists. Looie496 (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Flagged as "too technical"?

I noted the recent banner saying that the article may be too technical for [most?] readers to understand. Surely, its technical level is far easier and simpler than, say, the Wikipedia article about electrophiles, which I just read. That article has no banner.

In my humble and significantly self-educated opinion, the article (originally by a Japanese author almost totally fluent in English?) is not that hard to understand, provided that the reader has a decent, if not really-extensive education. I think the banner is more a symptom of widespread ignorance of basic chemistry and perhaps physiology/biology.

In that respect, the banner is really expressing an understandable reaction from poorly-educated people. I do realize that regarding style, some modest text could be added (sorry, my energy's low) to ease the way into the subject matter. I should also say that I didn't read a lot of the article, only the first part, but enough to gain a sense of the author's style. Indeed, this article's style is perhaps its more-significant weakness.

It's important to note, as well, that many people likely to read this article probably know only slightly more about chemistry (and science) than, say, a student of Medieval Romance-language literature (not to denigrate such study). In that respect, it's not practical to explain elementary chemistry within the article.

I could be persuaded to write some "bridge" text to help a lay person into the core of the article (to help show what to do with the rest of the article), but, at age 75, (again), my energy is limited.

Moreover, the pool of literate writers is limited, in an age where tattoos are misspelled, and the explorer Columbus' first name is cut in stone, no less, (a quincentennial monument, 1992, in Waltham, Mass., on the Common, SW corner) as "CHRISTOFER". (Sorry, off-topic...)

Nevertheless, in all of this, I could be quite wrong!

Regards, Nikevich (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC) (Tildes are "dead-key" characters!)

No matter who you are, you are almost guaranteed to be less educated about a subject than someone else. "Poorly-educated people" should be "less-educated people", to be clear and less seemingly arrogant. I mean no offense by my use of the word "arrogant".

On another note, this is the internet. Any technical term one fails to understand can be researched. However, Wikipedia is known for its ease of information. Warnings are part of that ease. 76.106.245.213 (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

MSG and link to cancer

I was interested in finding out if there is a link between MSG and cancer. The summary of the article said "Even though it has been scientifically proven that monosodium glutamate causes cancer and a variety of serious medical conditions..." but there is no further mention of cancer anywhere in the article and very little was mentioned in the previous discussion in the archive.

Then I looked elsewhere and within seconds I found a few websites dedicated to the message that MSG is evil, as well as the American Institute for Cancer Research website which said "Most – if not all – of the purported links between MSG and cancer or other health scares are based on anecdotal evidence." (http://preventcancer.aicr.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13279).

It seems to me that the summary of the wikipedia article suggests a very clear link between MSG and cancer, when there isn't (or a controversial one at best.) Should the summary be changed? Ld99 (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Just ignore...that was just something added recently by a troll that I have reverted. You should always check the recent additions to wikipedia articles because they can have absolute crap in them if someone has recently vandalised the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, MSG is the sodium salt of an essential amino acid, a building block of every protein in your body. If eating MSG caused cancer, we're all pretty much screwed. The problem with all junk science is they dismiss basic science. Glutamic acid cannot do anything to you. The salt of glutamic acid, or MSG, cannot do anything to you, unless you eat a lot. Then, you'll become dehydrated from all the excess sodium. But nothing else. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Customer dehydration (and strong feeling of thirst) as a result of an excessive MSG in dishes is what I believe happens with many Chinese restaurants. Yurivict (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Usage section should include the cultural sources of usage

For example, Asian cuisines (Chinese, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, ??) tend to add MSG to their food, Latin American cuisines also tend to put MSG, American, East European, European cuisines don't as far as I know. Can this list be expanded, corrected? I suggest this information should be in Usage section. Yurivict (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

More on health effects

There are only 3 Neurotoxic agents 1.)Beta amyloid 2.)**Glutamate** 3.)Oxygen radicals http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Neurotoxicity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.82.161 (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I just dropped by this article and found the lack of material on health concerns disappointing. It looks like this issues has been discussed in great length here already -- and I admit not having read through the whole discussion, but I just thought I should offer a neutral point of view, from a casual Wikipedia user. I realize that there is a lot of controversy surrounding MSGs -- and yes, other pages on Wikipedia offer more on health risks of MSGs, but from a simple, logical perspective: If I want to read about the health effects of MSGs, I call up Wikipedia, type in 'MSG' and expect to see a comprehensive section on health concerns, which doesn't exist here. Even if many of the health effects commonly associated with MSGs are false, I think they should at least be mentioned here. The current article is, quite frankly, very disappointing in this respect and makes me wonder about the credibility of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.15.93.8 (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been following this article for 6 months and anything negative about MSG has been rapidly removed by the same people who are corporate schills paid by the food lobby to watch the article and revert edits which cast light on the obesity epidemic and side-effects caused by MSG. I don't need a double-blind, placebo controlled study to know that when I prepare my own food I lose 15 kilograms of fat, even though I eat more food volume. I don't need a study to know that whenever I eat products with MSG I get tachycardia(racing heart beat), obesity(despite obsessive exercise), and tingling in my legs, back, and arms. I had to learn this all the hard way. What's particularly troublesome is when I travel and am forced to eat MSG at every meal and snack. I get more severe symptoms like nausea and diarrhea and then feel ill for a day or two in addition to becoming unsatiably hungry for 2-3 days. The food industry is well aware of this but they want to keep it secret because it allows them to literally grow their customer base by making people obese and hungry all the time. Whytehorse1413 (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA and WP:MEDRS and WP:AGF rather than going on diatribes against people. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I read them thanks. Several studies are under way and several have been completed. This isn't a diatribe. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00829218, http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01009658, http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00862017, http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01109537, http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01009658, http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT00109174, http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00980408, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12522521&dopt=Abstract, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12384093&dopt=Abstract, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12047489&dopt=Abstract, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10792367&dopt=Abstract, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9215242&dopt=Abstract, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18497735 - This article is completely inaccurate about the negative health effects of MSG, it's misleading, and uses weasel words to downplay the scientifically proven negative health effects of MSG. Whytehorse1413 (talk) 04:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing clinical trials are not good sources. Single primary studies are not really either, as compared to secondary sources (review articles.). Please give some examples of weasel words in the article and it can be discussed here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to request that you excuse yourself from further editing of this article along with sciencewatcher because you are unable to accept scientific evidence from double-blind, placebo controlled, primary and secondary studies that prove MSG causes obesity and side-effects. You continually drone on about a 1960's payola study from the FDA which claims it is safe, yet modern research shows the opposite. The only reason there are ongoing studies is because MSG has been found to be unsafe and they are further investigating. Do you honestly believe researchers would conduct a study if they did not believe there was a reason to? Why are they studying the effects of MSG on the intestinal tract? Why not the urinary tract? You think it's just arbitrary? No, they are studying it because the FDA was wrong and there is an obesity epidemic as well as people with MSG side-effects.

You should read WP:MEDRS. I see no reason to stop editing the article. Following policy is a good thing, not a bad thing. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding WP:MEDRS, the important thing to note is that we mainly rely on high quality reviews. Single studies can be misleading for a number of reasons (which I would be happy to discuss). --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words are using "Health Concerns" rather than "Side effects", "anecdotal reports , some people may have an MSG intolerance" instead of "many people report an intolerance to MSG", basically the whole health concerns section is disproportionately light-hearted about the negative health effects of MSG and casts it in a positive light and nothing to be concerned about. It reads like it was written by a MSG manufacturer employeeWhytehorse1413 (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The obesity thing is covered in the main article - if you want you can summarise it here. But you need to do it in an WP:NPOV way Some studies show a link with obesity, others don't. As for the other issues: the weight of evidence shows that there are no health effects from MSG, and it is implausible that there could be any health effects anyway (MSG is basically sodium and glutamate, which is in pretty much all the food you eat anyway). --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I already did that 6 months ago in an NPOV way with citations. All my changes were immediately undone and people tried to get me banned. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that elevated MSG intake, a known excitotoxin, causes all kinds of problems. Excitotoxicity is the pathological process by which nerve cells are damaged and killed by glutamate and similar substances. This occurs when receptors for the excitatory neurotransmitter glutamate (glutamate receptors) such as the NMDA receptor and AMPA receptor are overactivated. Excitotoxins like NMDA and kainic acid which bind to these receptors, as well as pathologically high levels of glutamate, can cause excitotoxicity by allowing high levels of calcium ions[2] (Ca2+) to enter the cell. Ca2+ influx into cells activates a number of enzymes, including phospholipases, endonucleases, and proteases such as calpain. These enzymes go on to damage cell structures such as components of the cytoskeleton, membrane, and DNA. Excitotoxicity may be involved in spinal cord injury, stroke, traumatic brain injury and neurodegenerative diseases of the central nervous system (CNS) such as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Parkinson's disease, alcoholism or alcohol withdrawal and Huntington's disease.[3][4] Other common conditions that cause excessive glutamate concentrations around neurons are hypoglycemia[5] and status epilepticus.[6]Whytehorse1413 (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

But excitotoxicity is well covered in the glutamic acid article - there are 3 long paragraphs. I notice it isn't mentioned in the summary here in the MSG article, so you could add a sentence if you want. I think maybe the problem was you were trying to duplicate that info here - that's really just an editorial issue rather than trying to prevent the info from being added. All the health effects are in the glutamic acid article and there is just a short summary here. --sciencewatcher (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you click through the "Main article: Glutamic acid (flavor)#Research into health effects" link? If you go to that page there is quite a comprehensive discussion of all the research into all of the various health concerns. --sciencewatcher (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a good case to be made that this content should be re-merged with glutamic acid (flavor), but there's a section link from this article to precisely that section, as sciencewatcher says. Cool Hand Luke 17:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I also think a merge would make sense. This was brought up by me in the past and people were against it because MSG and glutamic acid are different things. This is true, but if you look at the glutamic acid (flavour) article it takes about MSG in almost every paragraph so in its current state it doesn't make sense to keep two articles when they're both talking about MSG. Or perhaps the main health effects section should be moved to the MSG article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I never understood why User:Cacycle made that page; MSG vs. glutamate (flavor) basically turns on whether it's in solution, and that's not a sensible way to distinguish the topics. I don't understand exactly where the dividing lines between MSG, Glutamic acid (flavor), and Unami are supposed to be. MSG and Unami seems like a much more intuitive division. Health and chemistry would go on this side, and more culinary material would go in unami. If no one objects, I'll post notice on the three talk pages to divide them this way. Cool Hand Luke 19:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, that would be "umami" -- "unami" is something different. I think, though, that the organization should not assume that readers understand, or have ever even encountered, that term. Looie496 (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Umami is a taste, not a chemical compound. It is ellicited by several unrelated classes of chemical substances, see flavour enhancer. We have the flavor enhancer/health concern section on glutamic acid (flavor) because we do not want to have identical copies of these sections in articles such as glutamic acid, monosodium glutamate, disodium glutamate, monopotassium glutamate, calcium diglutamate, monoammonium glutamate, or magnesium diglutamate, just to name a few. The taste effect is caused by glutamic acid/glutamate, not by the counterions in the salts. Also, the health concerns are about glutamate, independent of its salt form. Hope that helped, Cacycle (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a passing familiarity with the subject, thanks.

This is the most common name for it, and most of the references in the glutamic acid (flavor) article are about MSG anyway. Just put the material here and have all of the other cations link to this article—as they already do. Readers apparently find the present structure confusing. Cool Hand Luke 22:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Before you put merge notices up can we please first discuss any plan here. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

About half of the current content on glutamic acid (flavor) is about glutamic acid, not about MSG. That is because all important properties (beside good solubility) reside in the glutamic acid parts of the several salts and mixtures that are used as flavor enhancers. Critics of MSG do not criticize the sodium in MSG, their concern is the glutamate/glutamic acid. The only logical article to merge the current content with would therefore be glutamic acid, not monosodium glutamate. However, this article is already quite long and so is the current glutamic acid (flavor) article.

Merging would ultimately spread parts of the article over several other articles and the topic would lose its context (as if we do not already have problems with that on the current article...). The current glutamic acid (flavor) was actually created by merging spread content from several other articles into one to overcome the hodgepodge at that time.

I am all for making articles easy to understand and to navigate, but the approach to sacrifice that article because one single person was not able to follow the clearly and prominently posted links is the wrong way. Cacycle (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, glutamic acid would not be the logical place to put it. Literally none of the content in glutamic acid (flavor) came from glutamic acid. This and other salts are used as a flavoring, and this is the most common term for it. The content should go here; this would follow the pattern set by other chemical and general-purpose encyclopedias, which put content for the flavoring under monosodium glutamate. Yeah, I get that not all commercially-available free glutamate is MSG, but none of it is glutamic acid, and MSG is by far the most common term for such flavoring. So common, in fact, that many of the salts you list simply say that they're an alternative to MSG.

We're not talking about one person either; this article gets almost ten times the traffic of glutamic acid (flavor). Unless all of these people were looking for the molecular mass of MSG, I think the food and health information is being needlessly separated.

Anyhow, since you strongly oppose merger, I'll just drop it. Should save our strength for the conspiracy theorists. Cool Hand Luke 16:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. My sole concern is to keep the content of the current glutamic acid (flavor) together in one place and, if possible, in one article due to its size and focus. Maybe we could rename monosodium glutamate to monosodium glutamate (chemical) and make monosodium glutamate a redirect to the flavour article to make it easier to find. Cacycle (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, but I think the current setup is more typical. I just added a line to the MSG disambiguation page, so that anyone looking there can go directly to Glutamic acid (flavor) if that's what they're looking for; that should put more readers in the right place. Cool Hand Luke 14:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you would avoid a lot of "conspiracy theorist" complaints if you do include all the health info here on the MSG page. Half of the changes labeled as "conspiracy theories" seem to be people trying to add health information from the other page to this page. It seems odd and maybe a little bit suspicious the information isn't on on this page because it does receive so much more traffic. As someone labeled a "conspiracy theorist" myself, that is why I was suspicious. Maybe that is fueling a lot other people too. Hence, merging the articles might save time and effort.FFN001 (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just a question of duplication - we can't have all the same info on two pages. Now the question of moving the MSG info from the glutamic acid page into the MSG page is a different question. I happen to agree with you that it should be moved, but others disagree. It has been discussed here before. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. The current set up is satisfactory but I think merging them would be better. Too bad we can't have a vote. How many people do oppose them being merged? I see Cacycle opposing the merger, who else have I missed?FFN001 (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I ever go to a talk page is if there's something obviously wrong with the main piece. It's a few years down the line from the above comments and still this article has no value for the average reader. Most folks coming here are looking for info about the health effects of MSG. I am ready to buy that the stuff is not dangerous - in fact, I came here because I am about to put some in my soup (via Knorr Aromat). But I remember when I was young it was linked to cancer, and still many menus proudly say "no MSG", so I thought I'd double check that it was confirmed safe. The word "cancer" doesn't even show up! I am seriously not supposed to remember that they were ever mentioned together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.32.85 (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Menus hardly trump WP:MEDRS sources. You need sources, not opinions. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Read my comment again, more carefully. It does not say that menus trump sources. No need to make your point with triumphant condescension. The gist of my complaint is that if you want to find out what all the fuss is about, this wikipedia article is no help; it mostly pretends there is no fuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.32.85 (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean it in any nasty way, I am sorry you took it that way. The fuss is a WP:FRINGE view is all. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

False statement re statistical association

Before I edited the "Health Concerns" section just now, it stated that no statistical association between MSG consumption and negative effects has ever been demonstrated in a double blind placebo controlled study. That statement was objectively false, as a quick google search proved. As this is a controversial topic and some editors of this article have complained of improper deletions, I will also include a link to the relevant study here for good measure: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9215242

See also http://www.truthinlabeling.org/Ebert.AndersonLetter.pdf for proof of the use of aspartame in placebos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waoc (talk • contribs) 00:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

per WP:MEDRS we need secondary, not primary sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

How does a review that fails to include a study with a contrary finding invalidate that study? Your preference is to state that no statistical association has been found under the proper conditions, yet there is a study that has found it under the proper conditions. If you want to "trump" it, show us a secondary source that discredits that specific study. Also your "14 years old" attack is worthless. Science hasn't changed that much in 14 years like going from a flat earth to round earth paradigm.

Furthermore, the letter from the International Gluatamate Technical Committee admitting to the use of aspartame in placebos is significant and not trumped by any sources claiming that aspartame has never been used in placebos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waoc (talk • contribs) 01:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. You might surprised how much science changes in a short time span, that is neither here nor there. It was not an attack, it is a rather old study Oh and truthinlabelling is not a RS.Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:MEDRS, "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors or by other reliable secondary sources."

So, how about "Most studies find no association, but occasionally an association has been found" or something like that? If you read the abstract of the study I cited you will see it's crystal clear what the authors found, I'm not adding my own interpretation.

And yes science can have great changes in 14 years but where is the WP guideline stating a 14 year shelf life for everything published in medline?

As for the letter proving use of aspartame in placebos, it's from the International Gluatamate Technical Committee, not the Truth In Labeling Campaign. If the IGTC has published the letter on its own website, if it has a website, great! If not, the letter itself is not invalidated by the fact that it's published on a website run by skeptics. (Apparently the IGTC has no website, and the International Glutamate Information Service does not provide any information about the use or non-use of aspartame in placebos on its website.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waoc (talk • contribs) 01:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Waoc here, although not necessarily with all of Waoc's arguments. The statement that "no statistical association between MSG consumption and negative effects has ever been demonstrated in a double blind placebo controlled study" is false, and we should not be making it. Whether those studies are valid and compelling is a question that we must leave to secondary sources, but there is no justification for saying nobody says X when we can easily see for ourselves that somebody says X. There is one thing that primary sources are certainly usable for according to Wikipedia policy: documenting that fact that the source does make a certain assertion. Primary sources can't document the fact that an assertion is true, but they can document the fact that the assertion has been made. Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think we need, though, to be concerned about weight before we get a wording down for sure. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Waoc that the current wording is not clear, but don't agree with his version. The majority of evidence points to no health effects. In the health effects article we go into more details, so we should really be summarising that. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The wording is not unclear. It's false. "No statistical association has been demonstrated under controlled conditions, even in studies with people convinced that they are sensitive to it." If something has rarely been observed but definitely has been observed by reputable, accredited sources, you can't say it's never happened.

Many people have an explanation for why there are studies that fail to demonstrate a statistical association between MSG consumption and negative health effects, namely the use of aspartame in placebos (causing similar effects because they're both excitotoxins) (and conflicts of interest in funding). No-one has an explanation for why Yang et al's placebo controlled double blind study does demonstrate a statistical association, other than MSG being toxic.

This is a critical issue for the topic of "Health Concerns" that needs to be addressed both here and in the main article. If no-one can come up with a "politically correct" wording that isn't objectively false, I will need to try again myself. Waoc (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We have one paper from long ago that finds an effect. The conflicts of interest in funding thing, is that mentioned in a peer reviewed secondary source? Again, my concern is weight. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that being from 1997 makes a study irrelevant. What kind of reliable source has ever suggested that? And does a letter from the organization funding many (most?) of the studies, mentioning an overlooked (and now censored from WP) potentially important fact about how the studies are conducted, need to be published in a peer reviewed journal to be considered reliable? If it were a forgery, I'm sure it would have been exposed (ahem) long ago.Zip-x (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Waoc, you clearly don't seem to understand the basic chemistry here. MSG is no different from other forms of glutamate after you have eaten it, and glutamate is present in most of the food you eat. The reason for the reaction to MSG in the Yang study is almost certainly the sodium...eat too much of any sodium compound and you will either have very bad side-effects, or die. In the Yang experiment there was no sodium in the placebo - it was just "200 ml of a strongly citrustasting beverage, which disguised its taste and contained sucrose as a sweetening agent." Clearly not a very good study, eh? Also note that we shouldn't really be picking apart studies on wikipedia (I have had my knuckles rapped for this many times). I'm simply doing it this time to show you WHY we always rely on well-cited reviews on wikipedia. The reviews do the analysis and decide which studies to include based on their quality. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and it seems to be original research. If the study was published in a peer reviewed journal, then don't you need a peer reviewed article to back up your claim that the study was flawed? Even if the study is flawed, it still exists, along with countless other flawed studies of various things. To delete the mention of it instead of citing a reliable source that specifically refutes that study, especially when other individual studies are discussed in detail, is what I think most people would call censorship.Zip-x (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Structure of monosodium glutamate.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Structure of monosodium glutamate.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

potential resource

The Essence of Taste by Christina Agapakis Scientific American December 31, 2011 99.181.147.68 (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's just a blog entry that parrots industry propaganda, cites Wikipedia, and adds nothing new. But thanks anyway. Zip-x (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: new article about MSG controversy

The controversy about whether MSG consumption is harmful to human health has been going on for decades, and despite the apparent consensus the current version of this article suggests, it isn't going to go away any time soon. (If the science were really that settled, I doubt the archives of this talk page would be so vast.) I vote for the MSG controversy getting its own article, like a number of other scientific controversies.Zip-x (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The glutamic acid (flavor) article discusses the controversy pretty extensively. Looie496 (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed that one. I still think a controversy that has entire books written about it should have its own article.Zip-x (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think such an article could be useful, as long as it is written in a neutral way and not used to push a point of view that is not supported by evidence (which has been a particular problem with this topic). Looie496 (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Aftereffects based on cooking temperature

I've heard claims by Chinese chefs that MSG only causes ill effects in people if it is added during food preparation when the temperature is too high, and that waiting to add it at lower temperatures does not result in any ill effects for consumers. I haven't heard what that critical temperature is, nor have I heard any reasons for this alleged effect. Perhaps MSG breaks down or reacts with other food substances at high enough temperatures, producing mildly toxic byproducts? At any rate, the controversy continues (I am one of those who suffers mild headaches and stomach queasiness after eating food containing MSG). — Loadmaster (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You will need a reference. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes; I am asking if anyone else has heard or read of this elsewhere. — Loadmaster (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds bogus. Given that MSG is just glutamate and sodium, it is implausible that this could happen. Basically it is no different from any other food substance that you might be using (tomatoes, cheese, etc. have sodium and glutamate). --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As our article actually states, when MSG is present in combination with sugars and very high temperatures it will undergo Maillard reactions. Those are not ordinarily considered harmful (they are what happen when you brown meat), but I suppose in high quantities some of the reaction products might be mildly toxic. Looie496 (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Ill Effects of MSG" section is of poor quality

Needs citations. Calling GABA "valium-like" is extremely misleading. Although I am generally skeptical of claims regarding MSG's unhealthiness, I agree with many on this page that the controversy surrounding MSG's potential health effects deserves a more complete discussion within the article than it presently receives. However, this section is clearly not up to the standards of Wikipedia. Given the contentious nature of the conversation I am refraining from deleting it, but would encourage the page maintainers to do so. Sbma44 (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you and it was originally that way. It was changed by Cacycle several years ago and I think the majority of us want the page to change back. However, Cacycle claims it is better this way because MSG is simply one form of free glutamate and, therefore, the full discussion on health effects should only be shown on the free glutamate page. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me personally but he does have a lot of respect and clout at wiki.FFN001 (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"This article glosses over ill effects of MSG and is biased heavily in favor of the producers of this terrible product." - my additions

Not only does the article deliberately avoid discussing any health concerns, but it tries to disprove these concerns without discussing them! For example, the "Safety" section goes on and on about how the "MSG symptom complex" is anectodal, supported only by testimonials, etc., but it does not even describe what the "MSG symptom complex" is. What is it? A proper debunking would acknowledge the opposing arguments before declaring them to be baseless. I personally have no knowledge of whether MSG is safe or not, but I can tell instantly that this article is rank with conflicts of interests. Why mention all of the stats about various bodies that have declared MSG to be safe unless there is some concern about it not being safe? If there is concern, whether baseless or not, then why not discuss it in the article? I know that concern over the safety of MSG has been a significant issue in its history, so it should be documented if only for the sake of documenting the history of misguided sheep. I came here because I heard rumors about health-issues related to MSG, and I wanted to find out if they were legitimate. I was sorely disappointed to find such blatant and obvious propaganda. I want to hear both sides. What happened to the other side?--Headlessplatter (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that could be added? You might also check out the glutamaic acid article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I found these sources with just a few minutes of Googling. I cannot speak for the credibility of these sources, but I think that it is abundantly clear that it is deliberately misleading to claim that there is no controversy on the subject, or to tell only one side of the story.

Normal neonatal mice suffered acute degenerative lesions in the inner retina when MSG was administered. Lucas, D.R., and Newhouse, J.P. (1957) The toxic effect of sodium L-glutamate on the inner layers of the retina. AMA Arch Ophthal 58: 193-201.

During a replication of this study at Washington University Medical School, St., Louis, Missouri, Dr. John W. Olney noted that, some of the mice had become grotesquely obese Olney, J.W. (1969). Brain lesions, obesity, and other disturbances in mice treated with monosodium glutamate. Science 164: 719-721.

MSG has been linked with obesity http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v16/n8/abs/oby2008274a.html

Possibly implicated in a number of the neurodegenerative diseases, including ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis and Huntington's diseases Taylor, S.L. (1993, April). Possible adverse reactions to hydrolyzed vegetable protein. Paper submitted to the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology review panel.

When MSG is formed using hydrochloric acid the final product includes carcinogens. Goldschmiedt, M., Redfern, J.S., and Feldman, M. (1990). Food coloring and monosodium glutamate: effects on the cephalic phase of gastric acid secretion and gastrin release in humans. Am J Clin Nutr 51: 794-797.

"...it is prudent to avoid the use of dietary supplements of L-glutamic acid by pregnant women, infants, and children ...and ...by women of childbearing age and individuals with affective disorders." Leibovitz, B. Safety of amino acids used as dietary supplements. Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 57, Issue 6, b -946, June 1, 1993

MSG is linked with hypothalamic lesions and leptin resistance, and leads to obesity in animal studies http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/health/nutrition/26nutr.html

Addiction, stroke, epilepsy, brain trauma, multiple sclerosis, neuropathic pain, AIDS dementia, schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, and degenerative disorders such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) are all are known to be affected by free glutamic acid. http://www.truthinlabeling.org/I.AreYouSensitive.html

MSG causes seizures and brain cell death: Blaylock, Russel L., MD, Excitoxins: The Taste that Kills, Health Press, Santa Fe, NM, 1994, page 19. Blaylock, Russel L., MD, "Food Additives and Brain Damage." Accountability in Research, NOHA, 6:259-310, 1999.

MSG exacerbates breathing problems in those with asthma: http://culinaryarts.about.com/od/seasoningflavoring/p/msg.htm

"In 1969, concerned with the bad reports regarding MSG, the glutamate industry formed a nonprofit organization to defend the safety of MSG, the International Glutamate Technical Committee. Later, in 1977, they increased their efforts with the development of a nonprofit subsidiary, The Glutamate Association, primarily operating as a public relations arm of the glutamate industry. In about 1990, the glutamate industry turned to the International Food Information Council (IFIC), another nonprofit industry-funded organization, to be their spokesman and to promote the safety of MSG along with the other products that they represent." http://www.worldwidehealthcenter.net/articles-445.html1

Food manufacturers regularly hide MSG in products by reporting alternate names in ingredient lists: http://www.truthinlabeling.org/hiddensources.html http://www.rense.com/general67/msg.htm http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-14-05/discussion.cgi.49.html http://www.healthy-eating-support.org/other-names-for-msg.html http://www.carbohydrateaddicts.com/msg.html http://www.livestrong.com/article/377482-other-names-for-msg-or-monosodium-glutamate/

--67.166.113.28 (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I, too would very much like to have the "other side" of the health issues in the article. I personally suffer from headaches if I eat too much MSG-rich food (though it may be the nature of the food, in other ways; I don't know), and came to this article to learn about what might be the cause. Also, it's worth noting that increasing glutamate has been found to successfully treat severe depression (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/31/146096540/i-wanted-to-live-new-depression-drugs-offer-hope-for-toughest-cases), and it has helped me with it, personally. Still, all psychiatric treatments seem to have "down sides," and so I wanted to see if the glutamate in MSG was neurologically active. I'd be very interested in having "vetted" facts on this, if such are available. Dmutters (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)