Jump to content
  • Sign Up
Celiac.com Sponsor:


Celiac.com Sponsor:

Archived

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

Recommended Posts

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.

I guess my point still has not gotten across as I intended. The example of the peas was to emphasize that even though the consumer knows the package contains peas, they are listed anyway. When something which is not listed is included, it begs the question WHY. I don't care if the MSG was already in one of the ingredients. The fact remains, that MSG is not a substance which the consumer expects to be there. If it's not intrinsic to the food we're purchasing, then it's not implied nor expected, thus should be listed.

I haven't used the word "conspiracy" in this discussion, but the implication of trickery is part of my assertions.

Suppose you order a drink at a restaurant or bar, and that drink is supposed to contain a particular alcohol at a designated concentration. You do not expect that drink to be watered down, do you? You don't expect to be tricked, even if less alcohol is deemed healthier. It is YOUR DECISION to consume it, and you expect it to contain certain things, no matter whether you are capable of detecting them. In the case of MSG however, the consumer is not informed of its presence, and indeed is most often misled by the list of ingredients to believe MSG is not included. This isn't all that different from the nutrition facts listing a nutrient at a certain level, when the company knows the product has a different amount. We are at the mercy of the company to provide accurate information.

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?

Perhaps it would be helpful to separate things which are a part of a normal healthy life style with those which are not. The fact that the concentration of just about any substance can be artificially increased to a toxic level isn't disputed here. One thing in question however, is why MSG is added to so many foods. There are no health benefits derived from it's inclusion at any level whatsoever. It's not a nutrient at all. It's a toxin, plain and simple. For what purpose do you suppose it is added to any food? Is that purpose in the best interest of the public? Is the public given fair notice of its presence? Surely you know the answers to these questions.

While glutamic acid is a natural occurring substance, our foods don't naturally contain the high concentrations at which it is being added. Furthermore, the substance is typically bound to something, not free to so quickly excite neurons. That over-excitation is what the maker of the product intended. If the neurons didn't get overexcited, we would not perceive such artificially intense flavor, and sales would suffer instead of our brain cells. Normal healthy food simply doesn't do what MSG does, period.

The point is, the public is being purposely misled. The food producers profit, and the public suffers for it. That's just not right, and it doesn't take too much brain power to realize it.

I'm reminded of the color scheme trick used by restaurants, where they make use of red and orange colors because it has been found to induce greater appetite. The customers therefore have a tendency to eat more than they normally would. That of course raises the profits of the place, again at the expense of the consumer. Thing is, that isn't toxic like MSG is, though I now ponder what impact might these two things have when used in combination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

The problem with this is that everyone has a different "threshold". This is due largely to genetics but many other factors weigh in on how well a persons body is going to handle these toxins.

I dont think small amounts of MSG would have a severe impact....however, when we are talking about processed foods....we are not talking about small amounts. We are talking about quite a bit of MSG. I dont think its far fetched to say that if you tallied up all of the MSG you've consumed in one day (eating a normal diet) it could easily reach a persons threshold and it very often does.

If we are talking about small children growing up eating processed food....its ALOT of MSG getting into these kids who are still developing. I dont think it can lead to anything good.

The amounts of MSG in our food have increased immensely since it was first introduced decades ago.

The biggest problem I have is the labeling. I think we have the right to know what is in our food. If I choose to eat healthy and pay high prices for organic veggies....why should I still be getting MSG in my fresh vegetables?? The stuff sprayed on the crops aint no small amount...we're talking 30% Glutamic Acid.

At this point the only way to avoid it is to grow your own. I dont think ANY chemical (especially one which is a known neurotoxin) should be THAT prevelant in our food supply.

It serves no purpose other than to "trick" your brain into thinking the food tastes great....it disrupts the part of your brain which tells you when you are full. In the end....you eat more than you would normally and you like the food and will buy it again.

It essentially allows the manufacturer to use low quality ingredients that still taste good thanks to the MSG....which is altering your brain. Without the MSG the food would not be as appealing.

The manufacturers NEED MSG to make money. Its cheap and it sells their products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Actually naturally occurring glutamates are not neurotoxins. MSG is something you get when you take what is natural and process it into something which is NOT natural. The body handles these two chemicals in a completely different way.

An example would be a leaf from a cocoa plant. People make drinks with these and there is no harm in it. However, when you take that same plant and process it into what is known as "cocaine" it is a whole other ballgame. I think most people can agree that this is a drug...an UNSAFE drug at that.

However....it didnt start out as a drug...and it is not harmful in its natural state.

The FDA claims that MSG is a "natural ingedient". This is misleading. Just because it comes from a source which is natural does not make MSG natural....its still a neurotoxin...no matter where it came from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 would you say that taking these medications several times a day....for life....would be safe?? :huh:

If you eat an American diet you are essentially doing this. Having "a little" MSG for breakfast, snacks, lunch and dinner....everyday...for life. Every meal...every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

....

1) The fact is its a neurotoxin...

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

If you are playing the strict semantics of science, your fact is really the theory. The fact is the observed effects of a substance containing MSG on neurons. The theory is that the effect is due to MSG being a neurotoxin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Msg... it is what it is, it does what it does. There is no disputing the facts. I believe there is a lot of damage being done through the food supply of the united states. There is great evidence to support the suggestion that the tide is turning against the chemical food suppliers. There is great disatisfaction with the way the fda is handling things. The organic food market is the fastest growing food supply segment for a reason. This next push to get irradiated vegetables and meats in is going to be met with resistence as is the cloned meat. Just disgusting. Msg is bad for you.

Much of your debate for the effect of MSG, tim, is reminiscent of the tobacco company claiming their product was harmless. I'm positive, certain that msg will be shown to be the vile neurotoxin some already know it to be. Lawsuits will be initiated by alzheimers sufferers, obese people will file, the fda will undergo massive changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So would you say that taking these medications several times a day....for life....would be safe?? :huh:

If you eat an American diet you are essentially doing this. Having "a little" MSG for breakfast, snacks, lunch and dinner....everyday...for life. Every meal...every day.

I don't thionk that's the real point... the point is there is a threshold where different effects kick in ...

Smoking 2-3 cigarettes a day for many people would have little medical effect.(compared to living in a city). except of course nicotine is addictive.. so many/most people end up sooner or later taking increasing amounts... same goes for cocaine, except its even more addictive.

An example would be a leaf from a cocoa plant. People make drinks with these and there is no harm in it.
Not really they are still imbiding a small measured dose of the active parts of cocoa, Theobromine which is used as a vasodilator, diuretic, and myocardial stimulant..chocolate is definately not safe... humans metabolise it quite easily but even small amounts can kill a dog. However in the meantime we are metabolising it it is still doing heart damage, however the heart will usually repair... it is also addictive. Chocolate also kills many people each year through migranes, luckily its mainly men die from migranes although they are more common in women...(being that it seems most women seem to eat chocolate)

Most people control alcohol better but the aldehydes it breaks down into are a neurotoxin but our body expels them if we keep below a threshold.

The question for me with MSG is no real public data exists to determine this threshhold... cumulative effects vs short term effects etc. The absense of this data is worrying because if it conclusively proved MSG was safe in dietry quantities it would be available, economics dictates it...

Secondly different people likely have different threshholds... different eating patterns etc. however I can't find a scrap of evidence to suggests its actually beneficial in any way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Secondly different people likely have different threshholds...

Yes....and this is what I posted earlier. Genetically we are all different. Some people are more capable of detoxing neurotoxins than others. Mycotoxins (toxins produced by mold) for example...these can cause serious health problems for those who are genetically susceptible to these toxins.

I assume this would apply to MSG as well....some people are going to be more suseptible to it than others. This doesnt mean that its safe for *anyone*....it just means that for some it can really impact their health and others may not reach the point that they develop disease.

The same with cigarettes. Some people will be able to smoke for decades without developing cancer. Someone else may develop cancer from second hand smoke. Either way.....we know that smoking is not good for us.

The point is that we really dont know how well our bodies can cope with these toxins until its too late.

Some can say that smoking in "low amounts" is not harmful. Nicotine is addictive....its not always possible for a person to smoke in "low quantities". If you could get away with that....I'm sure you wouldnt be a smoker at all. Why would you?? :unsure:

Generally, people smoke because they are addicted. I was a smoker for 14 years....I got addicted in my teenage years....it happened very quickly. One day I was a "casual" smoker and soon enough I was smoking a pack a day. MSG is also addictive.....this is one of the reasons they put it in the food. They want you to buy the product.....to be "addicted" to it.....to LOVE it.

I agree with HF.....at some point things will change......MSG will be "outed"....however, I dont think it will be anytime soon. <_<

People who smoke are risking their lives (as well as the lives of those around them).....likewise....people who consume MSG everyday are also taking a risk. Its a gamble. You may win....and you may lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, wait a minute. Did someone just say chocolate is bad for you? I hadn't heard that before. I thought the antioxidents were good for us. I'm eating a nearly raw diet as it is. I enjoy it, thankfully. You know, I simply have to decide not to look at all the junk food I cannot have. I'm greatful that I know what I know for the sake of my children. They enjoy our all natural meals. They think it's sad that other children eat fruit by the foot and trix cereal and gogurt. We went clothes shopping last week and it was a terrible shock to find that NONE of the pants, skirt, shorts fit any of my children. Has anyone here with children gone clothes shopping lately? All of the clothing was made for children shaped like ice cream cones. I gave in and ordered the summer season clothes they required from Land's end. That company still makes clothes for slim children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most people control alcohol better but the aldehydes it breaks down into are a neurotoxin but our body expels them if we keep below a threshold.

The question for me with MSG is no real public data exists to determine this threshhold... cumulative effects vs short term effects etc.

There is absolutely no way any study can determine a threshold. The threshold for you and I would not be the same. In no way can any public data accurately determine a "safe" threshold or cumulative effects vs. short term effects. This simply cannot be done.

Things that are toxic to the body and can potentially cause disease cannot be "quantified". You cannot determine how many cigarettes are "safe" or how many years one can smoke without causing harm. Its unrealistic.

Also, a 17 year old boy in my area just died from alcohol poisoning. He drank a bottle of Bacardi...paased out and never woke up. I'm sure many people can drink even more alcohol than this and not DIE. Who really knows what their "threshold" is??

Like I said earlier....you dont find out until its too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
..... I'm greatful that I know what I know for the sake of my children. They enjoy our all natural meals. They think it's sad that other children eat fruit by the foot and trix cereal and gogurt.....

OK HF, now you've gone too far. Badmouthing fruit by the foot. BTW, what is fruit by the foot?

best regards, lm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smoking 2-3 cigarettes a day for many people would have little medical effect.(compared to living in a city).

This is simply not true. You cannot say that we all have "thresholds" and then decide that for *most* people that threshold is anything more than 2-3 cigarettes. Its not logical....especially considering second hand smoke kills plenty of people every year. Obviously for these people their threshold was reached at zero cigarettes per day.

This can happen in the city, in the country or on the moon.....if a person is particularly susceptible to the toxins its gonna affect them at *any* level.

chocolate is definately not safe... humans metabolise it quite easily but even small amounts can kill a dog. However in the meantime we are metabolising it it is still doing heart damage, however the heart will usually repair... it is also addictive. Chocolate also kills many people each year through migranes, luckily its mainly men die from migranes although they are more common in women...(being that it seems most women seem to eat chocolate)

Chocolate is toxic for a bird....so is avocado. They can kill a bird......however, we are not birds and neither one of these is gonna kill us (unless we have anaphylactic allergy ). Chocolate is not a neurotoxin.....it doesnt kill your cells.

If chocolate is killing people with migraines its not necessarily the chocolate itself that is causing the migraine. Histamine is what triggers migraines. There are all sorts of foods which contain high amounts of histamine and can cause migraines in individuals who are sensitive to histamine or have high levels of histamine in the body.

Like many foods....chocolate has its pros and cons. MSG on the other hand has no known benefits.

A person doesnt die from chocolate killing their brain cells, or from chocolate damaging their nerves over time, or from chocolate having an accumulative affect on the body. If they die from chocolate its because of an allergic reaction...which can happen with any food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK HF, now you've gone too far. Badmouthing fruit by the foot. BTW, what is fruit by the foot?

best regards, lm

:lol::lol:

You dont know what Fruit By The Foot is?? :o

Its like fruit roll-ups....Fruit By The Foot is probably loaded with unhealthy stuff....except its FRUIT...so its healthy right?? :rolleyes:

This is something I would have thought a few years back. A healthy lunch would be Lunchables, flavored yogurt, a sandwhich on WHEAT bread, milk and definately Fruit By The Foot. That would've been extremely healthy in my eyes. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes....and this is what I posted earlier. Genetically we are all different. Some people are more capable of detoxing neurotoxins than others. Mycotoxins (toxins produced by mold) for example...these can cause serious health problems for those who are genetically susceptible to these toxins.

I assume this would apply to MSG as well....some people are going to be more suseptible to it than others. This doesnt mean that its safe for *anyone*....it just means that for some it can really impact their health and others may not reach the point that they develop disease.

Rachel, I pretty much agree... I'm just explaining the other viewpoint from Jestgar...

The same with cigarettes. Some people will be able to smoke for decades without developing cancer. Someone else may develop cancer from second hand smoke. Either way.....we know that smoking is not good for us.

Yes some people ... but the amount is really pretty minor and over stated... I'm not encouraging smoking, I'm just saying that the real evidence suggests most people don't... the question I guess is when is one life one too many? That's really a political question though...

The point is that we really dont know how well our bodies can cope with these toxins until its too late.

Again, I agree with you completely here! I also agree that since we don't know then the sensible thing is to avoid it!

Some can say that smoking in "low amounts" is not harmful. Nicotine is addictive....its not always possible for a person to smoke in "low quantities". If you could get away with that....I'm sure you wouldnt be a smoker at all. Why would you?? :unsure:

Again, I agree.... this is the point I'm trying to make... but seriously lots of native Americans had casual tobacco use etc. the problem really is that the tobacco companies have taken a low risk activity and manufactured it into a very high risk one.

If tobacco was smoked like native American useage (low amounts for ceremony and religious stuff) then the health risks would probably be minimal... indeed probably less than living in a city... however the tobacco companies took that natural product and removed just enough nicotine to prevent people vomiting if they smoke it all the time... its really like the manufacture of MSG from Kelp... or the Asian soups based on Kelp.... the idea is to make it something people become addicted to and then smoke all day... very similar to adding MSG to most processed foods...

Generally, people smoke because they are addicted. I was a smoker for 14 years....I got addicted in my teenage years....it happened very quickly. One day I was a "casual" smoker and soon enough I was smoking a pack a day. MSG is also addictive.....this is one of the reasons they put it in the food. They want you to buy the product.....to be "addicted" to it.....to LOVE it.

Again I entirely agree... its certainly mentally addictive because people get the taste and then food doesn't taste correct without it... but are we going to say the same for salt? This is the big question .... but we know what salt does and we don't know what MSG does!

I agree with HF.....at some point things will change......MSG will be "outed"....however, I dont think it will be anytime soon. <_<

Again I agree...

People who smoke are risking their lives (as well as the lives of those around them).....likewise....people who consume MSG everyday are also taking a risk. Its a gamble. You may win....and you may lose.

Like I say the passive smoking case is massively overstated, I'm not sayin g it doesn't happen but its simply PC and popular to dump on smokers... HOWEVER and this is the important part, its a completely political issue.

I can explain that from a European perspective best....

The aim of the UK govt is to ban smoking and make tobacco illegal BUT too many voters smoke... however many of the voters WANT to quit... BUT ... they are scared, don't think they can etc. When they put tax up on cigs many smokers think, ah it will help me cut down or quit... so it doesn't become a decisive issue ... they can still vote for "that" party whereas if they announced their true intentions peple would panick and actually vote for another party they completely disagree with except on smoking...

My personal problem with this isn't the aim of making tobacco illegal, its the way they do it...

This is simply not true. You cannot say that we all have "thresholds" and then decide that for *most* people that threshold is anything more than 2-3 cigarettes. Its not logical....especially considering second hand smoke kills plenty of people every year. Obviously for these people their threshold was reached at zero cigarettes per day.

Again this is probably not so clear cut as this.... many passive smoking deaths have passive smoke as a possible contributing factor... (I'm really not supporting smoking, I am just trying to explain how the figures are used because it relates to MSG)

Its become popular to dump on smokers, and one guy smoking on a bench in a park when you walk past is no risk... not compared to the city.. part of this is I think the govt's looking good after ignoring the evidence on smoking for years... and partly because the tobacco companies made them look stupid, make a mockery of the justice systems etc. BUT most of all the governements did little or no research themselves on the effects n smoking, they let the tobacco companies and charities do it and guess who had far more money?

IMHO this is what is happening with MSG now.... instead of governments actually using public money to research it they delegate to the very people who will hide any bad effects. I'm betting in the future that we find that the effects are quite bad for some people and moderately bad for most people at current consumptiopn levels.... AFAIK MSG can be extracted from Kelp just by cooking it... people have been eating refined MSG for centuries in East Asia and the health problems associated are not SO BAD they jump out... of course they are only consuming a fraction of what is added to food and the amount they would consume if they switched to a Standard American Diet. This is really the crux for me.... the fact its opn a list of "relatively harmless" means it can be added in stupid quantities...

Chocolate is toxic for a bird....so is avocado. They can kill a bird......however, we are not birds and neither one of these is gonna kill us (unless we have anaphylactic allergy ).

This is the same arguament being used for MSG studies indeed this is really the whole get out for the FDA.

In the US and Europe we do tests on ANIMALS.... we are not allowed to deliberately kill humans to determine LD50 levels...

HOWEVER: The FDA ONLY accepts tests on humans.....

This is EXACTLY the way tobacco got allowed through for so long... and its as I said earlier, you have to wait for people to die from their own choice of eating a specific thing or smoking...

The whole problem was illustrated by my thalidomide example.... this was spotted by one person in the FDA... a new person, it was her first case. After a while people become jaded... passing stuff becomes a game of wearing down the regulatory bodies...

I used to do smoke stack analysis for refinaries at one point... the inspectors work 9-5 mon-fri.... the refinaries know this...they regualte their production cycle during the day keeping inside the limits then at 5PM they switch it up... you can actually watch this asa you are driving away! The stack which is meant to filter out the toxins etc. suddenly lights up as they boost production.

But .. you know when you're new you turn around and go back.. by the time you resample (if they let you without an inspector present) they have turned it down... and even if its still above the legal limit they will just say they had a technical glitch and had to dump a tank. Your interest in actually taking a relevant sample soon diminishes as you find nothing happens... your company who also does analyses for the refinhin g company tells you to stop, the idea is just to collect the sample for a negative test... everyone knows this including the inspecters but they get similarly jaded.

If you look at the record of the FDA for pulling foods labelled as NOT containing MSG when they are found to you see the same principle... oops, a little slipped in, must be contamination.. but hey MSG is harmless so no need to recall. Meanwhile the costs prevent your average Joe from having it tested themselves.

The whole thing is just a game.... however if you over state the case (or the anti MSG lobby do) this is then "evidence" that anti MSG peopel are just nuts.... like many "conspiracy theories" the easiest way to make it go away is simply to label it as a conspiracy theory and attack the credibility and motivation of those camaigning against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Much of your debate for the effect of MSG, tim, is reminiscent of the tobacco company claiming their product was harmless. I'm positive, certain that msg will be shown to be the vile neurotoxin some already know it to be. Lawsuits will be initiated by alzheimers sufferers, obese people will file, the fda will undergo massive changes.

Wow. I read on the internet that I was advocating using MSG and it fooled me for a minute. I went back and re-read everything I posted.

I think that all that I said, and certainly all that I meant to say, was don't trust advocacy websites. The rest of my posts were trying to defend when my comments were taken out of context or discredited with what I saw as a imprecise analogy. For example I said "eat pure MSG all day" and someone responded with "we do eat MSG all day", leaving out the "pure" changed the point I was making. That slight restating of the point is a technique that our current adminstration (for the US board participants) has perfected.

Another example, I didn't advocate only researching 30 seconds but I pointed out that in 30 seconds I could find a website that contradicted what was being asserted. The example I cited was an FDA site (but we all know they lie about everything). There is also a food industry site that tells you MSG is harmless. Do I trust that one? NO.

Someone asked for a link to a peer reviewed study. None were provided.

The ironic part is that the strongest anti-MSG posters in this thread appear to have done research, made conclusions for themselves and when I suggest that other readers of the board do the same thing I'm compared to tobacco companies. I'm not sure if that was a step up from the "not scientific" jab. I guess I'll be Hitler by the end of the weekend. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We went clothes shopping last week and it was a terrible shock to find that NONE of the pants, skirt, shorts fit any of my children. Has anyone here with children gone clothes shopping lately? All of the clothing was made for children shaped like ice cream cones. I gave in and ordered the summer season clothes they required from Land's end. That company still makes clothes for slim children.

I noticed this some years ago myself. I had to find a store with a rack of "seconds" (stuff that came off the production line incorrectly) to find a few things that fit. They often turned out to be children's clothes. Though initially it was embarrassing to have to buy children's clothes for myself, especially when I would pick something off the rack and go try it on. But once in awhile I kinda appreciated the lower price (if it was marked down). Colors and styles - this became difficult at best to locate "sane" looking clothes. I don't want to look like the average kid on the street with those bizarre things they wear.

I actually began wondering if I could get away with wearing women's jeans without anyone noticing. Thing is, how to buy them (trying them first). Just browsing the isle would be conspicuous. Thankfully, one (but only one) maker of jeans still makes them to fit the non-obese. Finding a store that will carry them is another thing entirely. I actually had to special order the last set, and the sales people looked at me like I was nuts for buying every pair available. It was only 4 pairs though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow. I read on the internet that I was advocating using MSG and it fooled me for a minute. I went back and re-read everything I posted.

I think that all that I said, and certainly all that I meant to say, was don't trust advocacy websites. The rest of my posts were trying to defend when my comments were taken out of context or discredited with what I saw as a imprecise analogy. For example I said "eat pure MSG all day" and someone responded with "we do eat MSG all day", leaving out the "pure" changed the point I was making. That slight restating of the point is a technique that our current adminstration (for the US board participants) has perfected.

Another example, I didn't advocate only researching 30 seconds but I pointed out that in 30 seconds I could find a website that contradicted what was being asserted. The example I cited was an FDA site (but we all know they lie about everything). There is also a food industry site that tells you MSG is harmless. Do I trust that one? NO.

Someone asked for a link to a peer reviewed study. None were provided.

The ironic part is that the strongest anti-MSG posters in this thread appear to have done research, made conclusions for themselves and when I suggest that other readers of the board do the same thing I'm compared to tobacco companies. I'm not sure if that was a step up from the "not scientific" jab. I guess I'll be Hitler by the end of the weekend. :rolleyes:

Tim, the contention is that in the absense of clear peer reviewed papers to prove MSG is SAFE not UNSAFE.

Advocacy and anti-advocasy websites rarely provide accurate and peer reviewed papers but the example of DDT shows that in many cases the equivalent back then (The internet still being in the future) actually stimulated this...

Its not that the FDA are publishing deliberatly incorrect information as such, it is that they are not providing a peer reviewed study to show its safety....

Additionally the FDA is allowing the food manufactuers to NOT label MSG but to hide it in other formas such as hydrolised protein. The real problem IMHO is that the FDA lacks teeth... as do its equivalents in most Western Countries.

As was proven with tobacco it was left up to private class actions to finally get acceptance ...

The contention from myself is that if at least some of the stuff on advocacy sites is true then it deserves/merits a proper investigation and that we shouldn't have to wait for people to get have enough medical evidence to file a class action.

The problem is its not water nor salt, the effects of free glutamic acid are not well known... peer reviewed papers are scarce and particualrly its effects on humans... thankfully Hitler didn't win the war :D but iof he had you can be sure that smoking would have been banned a long time ago... Hitler was strongly anti smoking and Germany had policies in place back in the 40's that are very similar to the ones we are just getting around to today. (Of course he would proably only ban Aryans from smoking...) but also under HItler we would have been free (or encouraged) to do human testing...

Luckily we are not experimenting on people .... but this is what provides a get-out clause for the food industry...

Your answer is guitly by association doesn't work.... that is not really a logical extension... if the same people lied under oath once and are proven in court to have submitted false evidence, tampered with experiments and buried negative research and AVOID PRISON... then the logical conclusion is they will do it again.

Tobacco or food makes no difference .... ? its simply a product to be sold. Why would the same people suddenly act differently when all they got for purgury the first time was a slap on the wrists? Of course they will be more careful, they will have others present the "facts" but I see no reason as to why they would suddenly change....

In case you think my internet source for the ownership of Kraft and Nabisco and many others is "unreliable" coming from the internet it comes form their own offical website...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is simply not true. You cannot say that we all have "thresholds" and then decide that for *most* people that threshold is anything more than 2-3 cigarettes. Its not logical....especially considering second hand smoke kills plenty of people every year. Obviously for these people their threshold was reached at zero cigarettes per day. I'm with you Rachel. Why anyone with any common sense would think it's not harmful to be inhaling smoke day in and day out, is beyond me! You look at people that smoke, it leathers their skin, dirty's there homes and cars, make them smell, yellows their teeth--why would anyone think these things are not harmful. And if it does these things to the outside world, imagine what it does to the inside of you.

My father in law smoked Camels all his adult life. When my kids would ask him to stop smoking, he would say, "God will take ya when he wants ya, doesn't matter what you do until that day!" Well, he had emphysema for 20 years, had a terrible time catching his breath and still smoked, then he developed lung cancer, which took his life 2 years ago. Nothing like ignoring the warnings God sends you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The rest of my posts were trying to defend when my comments were taken out of context or discredited with what I saw as a imprecise analogy. For example I said "eat pure MSG all day" and someone responded with "we do eat MSG all day", leaving out the "pure" changed the point I was making.

Tim...are you skimming the posts or are you reading them?? :unsure:

Here is my resonse to you...

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.

This is what I wrote....how did I leave out "pure" to change your point?? I addressed what you said and did not change it in any way.

MSG is MSG.....the more its processed...the more dangerous it becomes. Since the American diet is mainly fast food and processed food....we *are* eating MSG in its "purest" form. There is no such thing as "unpure" MSG. It is what it is.

Are you referring to its "purest" form being seeweed?? :huh:

If so...then I guess you're right.....we are not eating MSG from seeweed in the American Diet....we dont get it from that source anymore. We get it from "cheaper" and more widely available sources such as corn, beet sugar, cane sugar, tapioca, etc.

The point is.....its still the SAME THING...no matter what source it came from.

Please explain to me how I "changed" the point you were trying to make. :unsure:

That slight restating of the point is a technique that our current adminstration (for the US board participants) has perfected.

At this point it seems to me that your only purpose here is to challenge and play word games rather than to contribute to the subject topic (whether it be for, against, or neutral)

Someone asked for a link to a peer reviewed study. None were provided
.

You asked for a peer reviewed study regarding the cumulative affects of MSG. As GFP stated....there are none available....noone has put any money into this.

Instead of putting all of my efforts into finding my answers or coming to my conclusions based only on what we know about MSG....I researched *other* neurotoxins that have been more extensively researched.

This is how I learned of the cumulative effects of neurotoxins on the body....also by talking with my Dr.'s who specialize in this type of illness and detoxification of neurotoxins.

I posted this earlier on in this thread...an incomplete list of neurotoxins:

(1)Heavy metals:

Mercury, lead, cadmium, iron, manganese and aluminum (are the most common).

Common Sources: metallic mercury vapor escapes from dental amalgam fillings (they contain about 50 % mercury, the rest is zinc, silver copper, tin and trace metals).

Cadmium: car fumes, cigarette smoke , pigment in oil paint

Lead: outasing from-paint, residues in earth and food chain from time when lead was used in gasoline, contaminated drinking water Aluminum: cookware, drinking water

(2) Biotoxins:

such as tetanus toxin, botulinum toxin (botox), ascaridin (from intestinal parasites), unspecified toxins from streptococci, staphylococci, lyme disease, clamydia, tuberculosis, fungal toxins and toxins produced by viruses. Biotoxins are minute molecules (200-1000 kilodaltons) containing nitrogen and sulfur. They belong to a group of chemical messengers which microorganisms use to control the host

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that MSG can give you headaches and stuff, but is it gluten free? I see a lot of people on here say they dont eat it. Is it bc it is not gluten free, or bc they just cant tolerate it?

There's a Celiac website which mentioned that a veterinarian, diagnosed with celiac disease, developed a theory about

how celiac disease and the excitatory neurotransmitters glutamic acid and aspartic acid play a role in the damage

caused by this disease.

We have recently found that many persons who report a sensitivity to MSG also report an inability to tolerate wheat

products in general. This seems an odd coincidence until we realize that, grain products have been bred to contain

more and more gluten which is very high in the amount of glutamic acid bound into its protein chains. This fact figures

prominently in this veterinarian's theory on why wheat can be such a problem for many people, and why, perhaps, it

wasn't meant to be in our diet in the first place. See: http://dogtorj.Lame Advertisement

MSG is on the list of foods for celiac patients to avoid. Wheat is such a good source of glutamic acid, as is soy, and

corn, that MSG is often made from these foods.

You'll like this website, I know a couple of people here have read it.

Gail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK HF, now you've gone too far. Badmouthing fruit by the foot. BTW, what is fruit by the foot?

best regards, lm

Fruit by the foot is what passes for a daily serving of fruit in most american children's daily diets these days. It is something like 5 feet of chewy, sticky "fruit" pressed onto 5 feet of waxed paper. Sometimes it is stamped with food coloring in the shape of tatoos the children can press onto their skin or tounge before eating. Sometimes there are "jokes" pressed into the "fruit" that the children can again press into their skin and tounge. I have been at the lunch room with my children and been assaulted, as it were, by fruit by the foot being unraveled with the passion only an overly sugared child can muster. It's horrible to see these children eating this "Food". I am so worried about the state of their health in 20 years from consuming food coloring, and sugar with every meal. Not to mention the lack of fiber, vitamins, minerals. These children will grow into young adults who will suffer until they die from teh damage done to them from a lack of nutrition during the years they were growing. It is more work and more money to purchase real foods and cook them for your family and yourself every single day. My life sometimes feels as though it's about reading labels, cooking, cleaning pots and pans and doing it all over again. Thankfully, my children are getting older and help quite a bit, but I tell you processed foods would be easier that what I'm doing. I can see the appeal. I cannot justify feeding neurotoxins to my children no matter how exhausted I am. Just as I would not feed us gluten once in awhile when I am too exhausted to cook a gluten free meal. I do believe, however, that this work which tires me out some days, is far less taxing than contoling diabetes will be or managing a different auto immune disease. That is how I find the strength to educate my children about proper nutrition then follow through with the meal preparations when I would prefer to purchase a can of soup full of hydrolyzed, autolyzed, msg. Instead, I pull out a cutting board, have someone wash the vegetables, begin chopping, sauteing, seasoning with natural herbs... Someday I will be happy with this, today I am simply resigned to doing it. Right now, I'm tired and going on conviction that it is the proper way to feed my family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gfp.....you can see that tobacco is listed as a source of cadmium (a heavy metal). So yes.....indeed second hand smoke can be damaging to a persons health if they are particularly vulnerable. Cadmium is a neurotoxin. It has cumulative effects.

Yes but the expulsion of cadmium is different, not that it really matters it's only one example...

The basis of what you are saying MAKES SENSE!

.. removed stuff which I agree wityh for brevity...

Do we know *everything* there is to know about MSG?? NO...we do not....the FDA has quite a bit of power and everything that comes out about MSG will then be negated by the FDA...much the same way its been done in the past. They do not tell people that they used Aspartame in their placebo. Why hide this info.?? Why hide MSG in our food?? Why not label it if its there??

I believe the answer to the question as to whether or not MSG is harmful lies in the obvious...If its safe....why hide it????

Just to be technically correct, from what I read the FDA don't make the tests, the companies do and submit them.

Like I said the whole process is a political game... its a bit like driving test people having quotas... if they pass too many they get audited, if they pass too few they get audited so the easiest life for them is to try and just target ones they think are the most dangerous... of course office politics dictates if your boss was the one accepted MSG and you look at it again... you err on the side of agreeing with your boss!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that the people who read this thread decide not to continue to ignore the MSG in their diets. Truthinlabeling.com will guide you in identifying hidden sources of MSG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my perspective it isn't that "no one denies that MSG is a neurotoxin". The reality that I see is that no one says that it is a neurotoxin except a couple of advocacy websites and some people trying to sell books. The FDA website says there is no evidence that dietary quantities of MSG are harmful to neurons.

My bottom line remains the same, do your own research, be very skeptical, especially if the source appears to have an agenda. That includes the pro-MSG websites also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...