Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Recommended Posts

There is an interesting new trend to have gardens in your yard as opposed to lots of useless landscaping. Companies are sprouting up that "help" you begin your own yard garden. That's going to be a profitable market soon enough with the "radiation" they're approving for our veggies now. You want your carrots irradiate?! For goodness sake! When will it end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one disputes the fact that MSG is a neurotoxin or that it "excites your neurons to death".

When I did a PubMed search on "monosodium glutamate neuro*" I only found one study, from 1976, that looked at the neurotoxicity of msg (in rats) and they found that it did nothing to nerve cells unless the rats were severely dehydrated.

Another search using "neurotoxin msg" brings up studies showing that if you dose neonatal rats with msg you can/do cause nerve damage, but I didn't read any of the papers to find out how the dose compared with the average/extremes of the European or American diets.

Which suggests to me that you should avoid msg when you are pregnant or a young child, but after that there's no peer-reviewed papers that I saw that support removing msg from all diets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
..... the "radiation" they're approving for our veggies now. You want your carrots irradiate?! For goodness sake! When will it end?

HF,

I'd like my carrots safe & free of e-coli. What do you think irradiation does? I'm not advocating it, but I haven't seen anything that suggest it's bad.

best reagrds, lm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HF,

I'd like my carrots safe & free of e-coli. What do you think irradiation does? I'm not advocating it, but I haven't seen anything that suggest it's bad.

best reagrds, lm

http://www.organicconsumers.org/irradlink.cfm

Hi, LM

I'm glad you asked that! It's another of my healthy missions. Food irradiation is being touted as the savior of all things EColi, etc. However, safer farming practices and adherence to rules already established will keep us healthy. I recently watched a spokesperson for food irradiation on Today. Her demeanor couldn't have been any more condescending towards those who do NOT want irradiation. I don't want to be repetitive, so I'm not going to go into what's in the link above. Just remember, the govt, the fda and big agri business is not seriously concerned about the food consumers. They simply want to mass produce as much "food" as they can from over used soil, keep it "fresh" as long as possible to guarantee a sale, and avoid lawsuits from people droping dead of anything linked to the food. Just walk away from the irraditated food, back slowly away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rachel, HF, all,

Responding to a post such as this is tricky as one almost feels like they are advocating the use of the product being discussed if they question some of the opinions expressed.

I've only been dx for three months and in no way am an expert. Do I completely trust the FDA or industry sponsored studies? Of course not. Do I trust a doctor selling his books on a website? No way. He's personally making money converting paranoids.

Even though I've been eating MSG probably all my life (I even threw away a jar of it just recently that I use to put on meat) and best I know never had a problem with it, the research I've done lately leads me to question it's safety for me now that I'm a celiac. However, glutamates and related chemicals are appearently not only produced naturally by the body, but are neccessary for various bodily functions. The real question seems to be, is excess consumption harmful, and how much is too much?

respectfully, lm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey HF,

Can I stray completely away from the topic of this post for a moment (how can you say no, it'll be too late)? Your avatar brings back memories of my long ago quasi-hippie days. 1969, I answered an ad for a '65 Voltswagon squareback (somewhat rare even then station wagon) from a German professor & his wife near the SMU campus here in Dallas. Friday afternoon, he opens his garage and there sits this car, German plates (those oval things with maybe three numbers), curtains all around the back, and cushions in the rear. Perfect condition. Oh yeah!

Give them the money, switch rear plates with my '64 Grand Prix (the one with the recently blown engine), slap an American flag peace sign sticker just like yours on the back window and I'm headed for the coast. Get stopped three times by the cops for no front license plate and given warning tickets (thank God that was decades before computers). Fall asleep on the beach listening to some Houston radio station playing all night Frank Zappa. Wake up next morning , hello tide, gee there wasn't any water here last night. Like I said, hippie days.

best regards, lm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey HF,

Can I stray completely away from the topic of this post for a moment (how can you say no, it'll be too late)? Your avatar brings back memories of my long ago quasi-hippie days. 1969, I answered an ad for a '65 Voltswagon squareback (somewhat rare even then station wagon) from a German professor & his wife near the SMU campus here in Dallas. Friday afternoon, he opens his garage and there sits this car, German plates (those oval things with maybe three numbers), curtains all around the back, and cushions in the rear. Perfect condition. Oh yeah!

Give them the money, switch rear plates with my '64 Grand Prix (the one with the recently blown engine), slap an American flag peace sign sticker just like yours on the back window and I'm headed for the coast. Get stopped three times by the cops for no front license plate and given warning tickets (thank God that was decades before computers). Fall asleep on the beach listening to some Houston radio station playing all night Frank Zappa. Wake up next morning , hello tide, gee there wasn't any water here last night. Like I said, hippie days.

best regards, lm

Glad I could bring back the memories! I'm very much influenced by the free thinking/spirit of the hippie generation. I spent far too long trying to conform. Now, I embrace my new found freedom to be who I am, think what I want, say what's on my mind (even if it's stupid or wrong or right or whatever! Who cares!?) and explore my real interests. I recently tried knitting. I sucked at it. But now I know that knitting is not for me. Today I purchased three boxes of tiles to mosaic my old patio table. I think I may enjoy that. We'll see. The only people who seem to mind my new found independence are those who are still trying to conform. I'm going to Dallas this spring because I want to, darnit. I'll be driving a minivan with three children in it... a bit different than your ride, but the spirit is the same. I don't want ass marks on my sofa to be all I leave behind. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are absolutely no references. How do you know anything he said is true?

Fair point, but how do you know its not true?

More to the point really IMHO is what if it might be true and what about the "public" studies saying its not true?

For 50 yrs we had studies saying conclusively that tobacco smoking was not conclusively linked to lung cancer! (yes I realise that's a double negative) and a non sequitur because that's deliberate :D

Towards the end of the 50 yrs or so this continued, even when it was "public knowledge"... and only a fool believed otherwise but the tobacco companies continued stating no conclusive evidence...

In many way's you (Jestgar) are probably luckier than I.... in terms of whom you have worked for... one thing stands out on the interview being that it is very easy to manufacture a study to prove a negative or inconclusive result... I've said this a few times for instance on the testing of McDonalds fries... Climate change is another example... and I'm as guilty as anyone for providing evidence against it... I was just a cog in an engine doing my job... but do I believe my own research? Not one bit because the research was specifically tailored to cast doubt.

I've said before that fruit is mainly treated with all sorts of preservatives and kept for a year or more... and many people here still don't want to believe it. I found out accidentally, my ex worked for a food testing lab and sometimes had to pick the stuff up from the warehouses.. I've posted links here to some of the companies making the technology... and of particualr interest here is that strains of candida are routinely used on many kinds of fruit before being sealed in with a chitin based sealant.

Personally I have nothing against chitin, but then I'm not Jewish (the primary commercial source are shrimp ).... but doesn't it strike you as odd that noone really knows about this? (Nothing wrong with chitin in mammalian diets, balein whales eat tons of the stuff daily and seem to live long lives on it)

Perhaps the strangest part of this is how this stuff is hidden from us.... it reminds me of Douglas Adams ..

An SEP field is a generated energy field which affects perception. Entities within the field will be perceived by an outside observer as "Somebody Else's Problem", and will therefore be effectively invisible unless the observer is specifically looking for the entity. This effect is greatly heightened if the entity within the field is already unexpected or out of place. The primary example of this was given in the third book Life, the Universe and Everything, when a spaceship built to look like an upside down bistro utilizes a SEP field to land unobserved in the middle of Lord's Cricket Ground. Another example occurs when the aforementioned ship's field is extended so that the characters fail to notice the fact that they cannot breathe or the fact that the asteroid that they are standing on does not have enough gravitational force to hold them down, and thus are able to breathe and stay grounded. It should be noted that a SEP field won't render an object invisible if it is expected to be there, and an SEP-cloaked object may be noticed out of the corner of the eye.

The SEP field requires much less energy than a normal invisibility field (a single torch battery can run it for over a hundred years) due to the natural propensity of people to see things as Somebody Else's Problem.

Fiction or fact?

Studies show this to be fact....

This was reported on clearly by Daniel J Simons and Christopher F Chabris of Harvard University in their study "Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events" (Harvard University, 1999). This study discusses subjects who were told to carefully watch a televised basketball game and count the number of passes made or other similar tasks. Most of the subjects failed to notice when the scene changed in various ways, such as the ball being thrown off court (with the players continuing to mimic passes), or exchanging all the male players for women. In the most dramatic example, nearly half the viewers failed to notice a woman carrying an umbrella and a man in a gorilla suit walking across the screen in the middle of the video.

These huge warehouses are in our midst... they are not hidden away underground bunkers but boring, non discript yet huge buildings. We walk/drive past and never give them a second thought....

So these studies are ridiculously easy to hide.... noone has to prove the product is safe, just cast doubt that the product must be safe... and come up with inconclusive results.

We "presume" that these products were thoroughly tested without considering the manufactuerers designed the testing.

We are all so busy with our lives that like the people counting passes we don't even notice a man in a gorilla suit walking across the pitch. Most UK celaics presume 200ppm must be SAFE... Why... ?? Well we wouldn't have set the limit at 200ppm gluten unless it was? No because this is the figure the food industry settled on as acceptable. Indeed considerable evidence exists that 200ppm is NOT SAFE...

The strangest part is that those whom are involved in testing/legislating are in many cases just as ready to beleive as we are....

I have worked with research scientists on "cooked" studies. We all know we were making it up... and the tests were invalid but yet a year later someone will cite the same study they worked on as if its actually fact???

Whatever your personal politics, watch some Penn and Teller ... at least they are up front about conning you in front of your own eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair point, but how do you know its not true?

That is the type of logic that has people organizing to ban dihydrogen monoxide (http://www.dhmo.org/).

I don't want to hear conspiracy theories and circumstantial evidence, I want facts. The post above about marmite is a classic example. He mentions that peas are labeled as containing "peas" but marmite doesn't list MSG. That sort of logic is scary. MSG occurs naturally in lots of products. Labeling laws only require things added to be listed. The peas don't list all of their chemical structure. Also, there appear to be different brands of marmite so this might not be universal but the one site I read said marmite contains a compound analogous to MSG, not that it contained MSG.

Most things that we consume would be bad for us in excessive quantities. Would it be bad if you ate pure MSG all day? Of course. No one on this thread has cited any peer-reviewed study that shows MSG is harmful in dietary quantities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was doing whatever research I could on MSG I learned that the Govt. funded studies were manipulated. Some people were given MSG and otheres were given a "placebo".

When many of the people who were given the placebo complained of headache or other symptoms....the study apparantly "proved" that MSG couldnt be blamed for these symptoms.

Guess what they used in the placebo?? Aspartame.

Yup....another neurotoxin which causes the same symptoms that MSG does.

They do what they have to to get the results they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most research is funded either by an industry that is interested or by the government. In this thread we've "established" we can't trust either of those. All that leaves is the research funded by advocacy groups who certainly have no stake in the outcome. B)

Research is done by humans. Mistakes are made. Studies are poorly designed. I think incompetence is a much more likely explanation than intentional manipulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would it be bad if you ate pure MSG all day? Of course.

Most people eating a standard American diet are eating MSG all day long.....I think that was the point that HF was trying to make in her earlier post.

To me it doesnt matter whether or not its in its "purest" form. MSG is MSG...its still a neurotoxin. Neurotoxins have an accumulative affect on the body.....this means that all of the neurotoxins have an affect over time....not just MSG.

However, with MSG being such a HUGE (nearly unavoidable) part of the American diet....the consumers who would like to avoid it...simply dont have that option when it is deliberatly processed into *other* (seemingly safe) ingredients....in order to avoid labeling.

My Dr.'s have told me this about MSG/Aspartame and unfortunately I know from first hand experience. I did reach my threshold as far tolerating neurotoxins. For 31 years I ate whatever I wanted with no symptoms whatsoever. All of a sudden these substances are giving me massive reactions. :blink:

Granted.....it wasnt MSG that *caused* this. In my case its most likely mercury and/or Lyme Disease...I dont have all the answers at this time. The point is....these things *do* have an accumulative affect and once your body gets overtaxed you will start to feel the effects....as your body can no longer handle the toxin in small amounts...or in *any* amount.

I realize that what I've read about MSG is true because I FEEL it. I now get to feel its affects on my body and my brain even when its consumed in the smallest amounts.

I've currently begun mercury detoxification and am working with Dr.'s who say that I will recover and be able to eat most foods again. After going through something like this and having felt the direct impact that Aspartame and MSG have on my body....I'm quite certain that I will do all I can to avoid these substances.

I would hate to go through all of this only to end up with Alzheimers....simply because I could eat the stuff without *feeling* anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is the type of logic that has people organizing to ban dihydrogen monoxide (http://www.dhmo.org/).

I don't want to hear conspiracy theories and circumstantial evidence, I want facts. The post above about marmite is a classic example. He mentions that peas are labeled as containing "peas" but marmite doesn't list MSG. That sort of logic is scary. MSG occurs naturally in lots of products. Labeling laws only require things added to be listed. The peas don't list all of their chemical structure. Also, there appear to be different brands of marmite so this might not be universal but the one site I read said marmite contains a compound analogous to MSG, not that it contained MSG.

Most things that we consume would be bad for us in excessive quantities. Would it be bad if you ate pure MSG all day? Of course. No one on this thread has cited any peer-reviewed study that shows MSG is harmful in dietary quantities.

No its completely different!

Dihydrogen monoxide is essential and normal part of our diet and makes up 90% of our body... MSG is neither.

Added MSG is relatively new, it has only been added since food processing has become popular which also coincides with legislation in most countires...

A better comparison is thaldidomide ... had it not been for one person (Kelsey who was new to the job and less indured than her longer standing compatriates) it would also have been passe in the USA... asit was it still managed to be prescribed ion a trial basis. One might also wonder if had it been discovered by an American company if that could have also aided its approval.

If you think that one is too extreme there are lots more examples... perhaps tobacco is the most obvious and appliucible since most of the food prcoessing companies are owned by the tobacco companies. Indeed in the most part the big ones like kraft and nabisco just get passed from one tobacco company to another ....

The tobacco companies had plenty of research showing links to cancer, they just didn't publish it.. why would they?

This is normal company activity... its not like the tobacco companies are doing anything other types of companies don't do... their duty is to maximase profit for shareholders and stay within the law by whatever means necassary, including lobbying and hiding studies unless subpoened to release them.

As an example Ford released the Pinto with a known fatal defect... this is proven in court... they simply did the math and looked at the price they might have to pay in compensation vs how much a redesign would cost. It was simply cheaper to accept it would kill some peope and they would pay compensation.

Years later they did the same with the Explorer, made the same calculation and decided to release it anyway with at least two different fatal defects...

So there is a hige difference in bringing a new product to market and simply claiming water is a dangerous chemical... indeed one wonders who funds the dhmo.org ?? However the real point is why can't I find hundreds of studies made showing MSG to be safe? All I find is half done studies saying its inconclusive? Where are all the documented studies with data showing it to be safe?

I could go on and on... asbestos was totally safe... DDT was so safe the manufactuers had their children eat in pure... on TV!

Doubts about DDT's environmental effects grew out of direct personal observations, usually involving a marked reduction in bird life, later supplemented by scientific investigation. The first recorded group effort against the chemical involved several citizens, including one or more scientists, in Nassau County, NY. Their unsuccessful struggle to have DDT regulated was reported in the New York Times in 1957, and thereby came to the attention of the popular naturalist-author, Rachel Carson. New Yorker editor William Shawn urged her to write a piece on the subject, which developed into her famous 1962 bestseller. Despite the uproar surrounding Silent Spring, DDT remained in use.

They do what they have to to get the results they want.
Is exactly the point... why use aspartime ? because they can then have the same effects and claim to have tested and found no significant differences... why not use chalk as a placebo?

because the placebo is specifically chosen to duplicate the adverse effects they expect to find.

Conflicting Studies

* DDT is classified as "moderately toxic" by the US National Toxicological Program and "moderately hazardous" by WHO.[34] It is not considered to be highly toxic, and in fact it has been applied directly to clothes or used in soap.[35] Indeed, DDT has on rare occasions been administered orally as a treatment for barbiturate poisoning.[36]

* The EPA, in 1987, classified DDT as class B2, a probable human carcinogen based on "Observation of tumors (generally of the liver) in seven studies in various mouse strains and three studies in rats. DDT is structurally similar to other probable carcinogens, such as DDD and DDE." Regarding the Human Carcinogenicity Data, they stated...". The existing epidemiological data are inadequate. Autopsy studies relating tissue levels of DDT to cancer incidence have yielded conflicting results. Three studies reported that tissue levels of DDT and DDE were higher in cancer victims than in those dying of other diseases (Casarett et al., 1968; Dacre and Jennings, 1970; Wasserman et al., 1976). In other studies no such relationship was seen (Maier-Bode, 1960; Robinson et al., 1965; Hoffman et al., 1967). Studies of occupationally exposed workers and volunteers have been of insufficient duration to be useful in assessment of the carcinogenicity of DDT to humans.".[37]

* A recent study conducted by the University of California, Berkeley suggests children who have been exposed to DDT while in the womb have a greater chance to experience development problems.[38]

* Direct studies have not found a link between DDT and breast cancer in humans.[39][40]

* Some evidence suggests a link between DDT and breast cancer in humans. For example, diminishing rates of breast cancer in Israel have paralleled a precipitous decline in environmental contamination with DDT and benzene hexachloride.[41][42][43][44][45]

* Dr. Mary Wolf published a 1993 article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute indicating a statistically significant correlation between DDT metabolites in the blood and the risks of developing breast cancer in the general population. Others have disputed this research.

* In one 1969 study, 24 cynomolgus monkeys and rhesus monkeys fed 20 mg/kg of DDT for 130 months were compared to a control group of 17 monkeys. The study demonstrated "clear evidence of hepatic and CNS toxicity following long-term DDT administration." Although the exposed group developed two malignancies and three benign tumors, compared to zero in the control group, statistically this is still "inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates".[46]

* A study of 692 women, half of them control subjects, over a period of twenty years established no correlation between serum DDE and breast cancer. DDE is a metabolite of DDT, and correlates with DDT exposure.[47]

* A study examined 35 workers exposed to 600 times the average DDT exposure levels over a period of 9 to 19 years. No elevated cancer risk was observed.[48]

* In another study, humans voluntarily ingested 35 mg of DDT daily for about two years, and were then tracked for several years afterward. Although there was "suggestive evidence of adverse liver effects", no other adverse effects were observed.[49]

* A review article[50] in The Lancet concludes:

Although DDT is generally not toxic to human beings and was banned mainly for ecological reasons, subsequent research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning, abrogating the benefit of reducing infant mortality from malaria. ... DDT might be useful in controlling malaria, but the evidence of its adverse effects on human health needs appropriate research on whether it achieves a favourable balance of risk versus benefit.

The real question is ... in the light of inconclusive evidence should we continue to use it until we find it definately does or does not have significant health risks? Because its use as an anti-malarial control this is even more debatable.. since it has useful health benefits as well... MSG has no documented health benefit.

Likewise should we discontinue use of thalidomide on leprosy victims? (leanred that from House) but also it has a use as an anti malarial... where is the cover up? Why is it on the banned list since the worst effects are limited to pregnant women? Surely its safe to give it to a 5 yr old boy with leprosy or malaria?

This is my real problem.... many medications are withheld... some can have no bad effects really since they are last ditch attempt on people with terminal illness... where is the logic? Ooh don't give them heroine they might get addicted .... do you think they care when they have a week to live and heronine is far more effective than morphine?

Similarly many asthma medication is banneed by the FDA.... Why? because the anti tobacco lobby group have a huge slush fund to make sure any new drug taken through an inhaler is banned before it ever gets out.

Asthma-inhaler ban backed

By ANDREW BRIDGES

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My Dr.'s have told me this about MSG/Aspartame and unfortunately I know from first hand experience.

Rachel & HF,

Since I've joined this forum, you and others have started me thinking about some of these issues. I used to put aspertame in my coffee, now I don't. Simply put, I did some research and was convinced it just wasn't worth eating it with my celiac condition. Sure miss it though as I have to add too much sugar to equal it.

So I thank you and everyone else here for having these discussions. Please forgive me if I get a little testy sometimes as I'm naturally pretty skeptical about what may appear to be wild claims. Sometimes I need a little time to digest an idea, do a lot more research, and sleep on it some more to even really consider it.

best regards, lm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GPF - in the first section of your reply you changed the context to added MSG.

You can believe anything you want, just don't expect it to go unchallenged when you through it out on the internet.

Rachel - can you point me to any study that shows that MSG has a cummulative effect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GPF - in the first section of your reply you changed the context to added MSG.

Because prior to the 60's there as no other widespread natural source of MSG... widely and regualrly eaten outside of the far east and because the quantity of MSG in kelp is low compared with the amount when it is added to food.

You can believe anything you want, just don't expect it to go unchallenged when you through it out on the internet.

Tim, the real point is I don't have to believe its ALL true, I just need to beleive there is a good chance its mostly true.

Is it a neurotoxin? I don't think any of the evidence I have seen disputes this...

Does it cause everything claimed? Frankly it doesn't need to... ! Virtually every toxin and hazardous material that is researched ends up having toxicity way below initial "safe thesholds" ... Working in and out of labs most of my life I have watched as the product advisory sheets for what were previously considered non-low-hazerdous chemicals are updated with new studies. Its virtually unknown for them to go the other way... I can't actually recount most of the most serious stuff because I or the people I worked with have signed confidentiality agreements, sorry if that sounds like a cop-out but its true.

Not everything bad about DDT is as bad as its sometimes made out to be BUT I don't intend to start eating it...

Rachel - can you point me to any study that shows that MSG has a cummulative effect?

The problem wiuth that is mutli-fold...

Firstly a large amount of that kind of data unfortunately involves someone dying and a post-mortem. This is linked to the second part which is who is going to pay for it....? The way the FDA works is companies must pay for their own testing ... OK, I see why but it allows a whole load of manipulation. This is how the tobacco companies managed to get away with saying no hard evidence existed for so long... unfortunately you often need people to start dying before public money (the coroners office) becomes involved.

Just answer this question, do YOU trust the tobacco companies ? Bear in mind they are proven in court to have hidden and destroyed evidence...

If you don't then these are the same companies own Kraft, Nabisco etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want to hear conspiracy theories and circumstantial evidence, I want facts. The post above about marmite is a classic example. He mentions that peas are labeled as containing "peas" but marmite doesn't list MSG.

The point is that even when the content is obvious, such as my example of the peas, they are listed. I have a jar of peanut butter saying "Ingredients: Peanuts, and salt.". I already know it has peanuts, yet it is declared. When MSG is excluded from the list of ingredients for a jar of Marmite, it misrepresents the contents. Isn't it even more important to declare ingredients which are not an obvious part of the product?

MSG occurs naturally in lots of products. Labeling laws only require things added to be listed.

Precisely. So why list "peas" on a package of peas, when it occurred naturally? I have a container of raisins which states that there may be occasional stem pieces. That occurs naturally too. They don't add stems to the raisins, yet they are declared even when not added, and likely aren't even there. The reason this is proper is because the consumer isn't EXPECTING the raisins to have any stems. Furthermore, Marmite is not a natural substance. It is man-made, but does the consumer even know what Marmite is? In some ways this is similar to the omission of ingredients for the white stuff in Oreo cookies. The package doesn't list the ingredients for it. So the consumer is not duly informed as to what the white stuff is, just like they aren't informed about what Marmite is.

Also, there appear to be different brands of marmite so this might not be universal but the one site I read said marmite contains a compound analogous to MSG, not that it contained MSG.

Yeah, that substance is called Free Glutamic Acid. So why do you suppose they didn't just come right out and say it? The FDA considers Free Glutamic Acid as MSG (and thus must be listed) when the level is over a specific concentration. So even the authority which refuses to ban MSG recognizes the consumer's right to know when a potentially harmful (or perhaps objectionable) substance is present. This is also the loophole through which the processed food industry jumps. They don't add MSG explicitly, but add something which just happens to contain Free Glutamic Acid or MSG, or will later produce the substance once blended into the recipe.

Now suppose you buy bread labeled as gluten-free, but the bakery used ingredients that caused a chemical reaction which resulted in a substance analogous to gluten? Is it not your right to know that the bread contains such a substance? Even more to the point; if the bread contains xanthan gum from microbes which were fed on wheat, should the bread be labeled gluten-free? After all, the labeling LAWS only require the company to list the things they add, and they aren't adding wheat. If they use a flour mix from a third company, should they be allowed to omit the flours in that mix? After all, they aren't adding those individual flours, but just the mix.

If a product contains soy sauce, a gluten intolerant person would need to know what's in the soy sauce before using it. This is justified even though the company didn't add the individual ingredients. Why? Because that sauce may contain gluten. Likewise, an MSG intolerant person needs to know if that sauce contains MSG, even if NON of the companies involved explicitly added MSG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used to put aspertame in my coffee, now I don't. Simply put, I did some research and was convinced it just wasn't worth eating it with my celiac condition. Sure miss it though as I have to add too much sugar to equal it.

Have you tried Stevia? It's a natural sweetener derived from an herb. Actually sweeter than sugar, no carbs, no calories, no side effects, etc. No glycemic load either. Interesting how it was submitted to the FDA for approval about the same time as aspartame, and was rejected! So the public gets the artificial one with side effects <_<:o

It's used in a number of other countries, and Japan now has Stevia in nearly 50% of the sweetened foods on the market. They've also done numerous scientific studies to prove its safety. The FDA on the other hand sites a single botched and twisted study to deny its entry on the market.

Fortunately, it can be sold in the USA as a dietary supplement. So look for Stevia in the supplements section of health stores. I started using it once I found out about it, and I find it amazing. While I don't have a sweet tooth, I do like some added sweetness in some recipes. I can't tolerate sugar, so this is really the answer I needed! Do a Google search and read up on it before selecting a brand. There are different purities/qualities and such, so you should know what's available before deciding. Some are so sweet that approximately a teaspoon or two can replace an entire cup of sugar!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to address all of the very interesting points people have brought up.

My original intention was not to argue for msg, but to argue against blindly accepting someone's opinion when that person offers no independent documentation to support his opinion. Also against presenting opinion as fact.

Is a little msg bad for you? Probably not. Is eating any innocuous substance in excess bad for you? Probably so. Even drinking water can kill you if you get to much.

If you're concerned about what's added to your food without you knowing it then join a csa where you can go and talk directly with the farmers. Hook up with an independent meat raiser who will show you around their cattle farm and tell you exactly what they feed their animals. Buy your cheese from a local dairy where it's the owner making the cheese.

And with regard to labeling the obvious - Did you here the uproar about (Kraft?) guacamole that contained no avocados? I'm ok with telling me what I should already know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rice guy - the peas didn't naturally occur in the package, they were added. That's why they were on the ingredient.

The fact that a company follows the letter of the regulation, not the level you would like doesn't automatically mean there is a conspiracy.

GPF - Sorry but your guilt by association doesn't work. You are posting on the internet - some stuff on the internet is stupid - applying the logic you used would lead to the conclusion that you are stupid.

In general -

What anyone believes is right for them is fine with me. The only issue I had was stating what you believe to be true as scientific fact.

As to whether MSG is a neurotoxin that is techically true but very misleading. The FDA site cited above states that in dietary quantities there is no evidence that it kills neurons. In large quantities it apparently does kill neurons. Therefore, in the scope of this discussion - MSG in food - it is a very poor neurontoxin and at least one website actually talks about its characteristics both before and after a threshold is reached and how it has a dramatically different impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rice guy - the peas didn't naturally occur in the package, they were added. That's why they were on the ingredient.

The fact that a company follows the letter of the regulation, not the level you would like doesn't automatically mean there is a conspiracy.

GPF - Sorry but your guilt by association doesn't work. You are posting on the internet - some stuff on the internet is stupid - applying the logic you used would lead to the conclusion that you are stupid.

In general -

What anyone believes is right for them is fine with me. The only issue I had was stating what you believe to be true as scientific fact.

That is presumably because your not a scientist...

Science consists of hypothesis, theories and fact.

Gravity is a theory... for instance not a fact, the effects of gravity we measure are fact but the mechanism is a theory, at least for now.

The source of the information being either from the internet or other is irrelevant, there are plenty of texts books which are full of errors, indeed any science text book below undergrad level is basically errors and very few text books exist above that level and when they do they are usualy collections of papers, not text books ...

The point I am making and you seem to be missing is quite simple,

As to whether MSG is a neurotoxin that is techically true but very misleading. The FDA site cited above states that in dietary quantities there is no evidence that it kills neurons. In large quantities it apparently does kill neurons. Therefore, in the scope of this discussion - MSG in food - it is a very poor neurontoxin and at least one website actually talks about its characteristics both before and after a threshold is reached and how it has a dramatically different impact.

1) The fact is its a neurotoxin...

2) The theory is that in dietary quantities there is no evidence that it kills neurons.

However a theory is not a fact, it is by its nature a theory to be exhaustively tested for either a null or positive hypothesis,

What I haven't seen and you haven't linked to is a proper documented scientific study that proves the theory incorrect.

This is the point at which medicine deviates from science. A good scientist will take lots of people and attempt to either kill them or prove it doesn't.. true science has no morals, it is simply in a different field.

People try and apply morals but they don't work.. should we throw away data gathered by doctors who were scientists because their morals were bad? If we did this we would have no penicillin... and a lot of data gathered by the Nazi's in WWII would be unusable to save lives today. Goebels and Mengelez were very bad MD's but good scientists.

Medicine on the other hand is not science, it attemps to have morals and to cure people not kill them... whereas for science the person dying or not is immaterial (I'm not saying that is what happens, that is why we have laws)

If a theory exists that has some validity, such as the neurotoxins in MSG perhaps being harmful in dietry quantities then medicine should say that until proven otherwise that substance should NOT be considered safe. AS I mentioned earlier almost every toxin I have worked with has had the safe limits constantly decresaed as new studies indicate that lower amounts can cause problems and even death.

This is the difference between medicine and science.

When a substance potentially cuases harm and the extent of that harm is unknow sscience says its not fact... but medicine should say its a valid thoery that isn't tested.

applying the logic you used would lead to the conclusion that you are stupid.
Which is just another way of saying I'm stupid. However I'm sure you will find plenty of peopple who agree. Personally I find bothering to try and explain this to you is a better metric of the fact I'm stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is a little msg bad for you? Probably not.

Well, then a little gluten shouldn't be a problem either.

How about a little cigarrette?

How about a little crack?

I suppose if you think a little neurotoxin is ok, you're willing to make exceptions for a little bit of all sorts of stuff. I'm saying a little neurotoxin is too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, then a little gluten shouldn't be a problem either.

How about a little cigarrette?

How about a little crack?

I suppose if you think a little neurotoxin is ok, you're willing to make exceptions for a little bit of all sorts of stuff. I'm saying a little neurotoxin is too much.

Actually a little gluten isn't a problem for someone that has no sensitivities. Nor is tobacco a problem (for most people) if it's kept at low levels, although bathing your lungs in a concentrated chemical of any kind isn't high on the list of clever things to do.

And cocaine, the chemical in crack (I think, my knowledge of street drugs is a little lacking) is used in medicine all the time, in low levels.

So if you ingest NO neurotoxins you drink NO alcohol, NO coffee, NO shellfish, NO fish (mercury), you do not drive or even live near a city (CO), you don't use a fireplace. Nor do you eat tomatoes, aged cheese, mushrooms or seaweed wrapped sushi (naturally occurring glutamates) Also eggs, chicken, duck, beef, pork and cured ham, mackerel, peas, maize or corn, onions, spinach, tomatoes, cabbage, Chinese cabbage, broccoli, green asparagus, mushrooms and grape juice

Do you see how ridiculous this becomes when you make blanket statements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...