Talk:Monosodium glutamate

More on health effects

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)

"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)

FDA link

The FDA link in external links points to a 404 page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandowe (talk • contribs) 12:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference 2

What's up with the big quote at the end of reference 2? Was this supposed to go in the article and mistakenly put in the references or is something else going on? Kehrbykid (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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.wikipedia.org/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)

Health Effects Concern (merge section/article discussion)

This was a comment added to the article by 186.2.20.13 that I reverted and moved here:

Someone needs to review this information. THe MSG industry has created a non-profit NGO called International Food Information Council (IFIC)to support studies that show that MSG has no side effects. I am not an expert on this, but I suffer strong side effects from MSG. THe web is full of data on harmful responses to MSG. I think this data is inaccurate and produce by this MSG supporting industry.

Moved by ChemGardener (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you do some research you'll see that all of the 'harmful responses' are anecdotal, and when proper placebo controlled trials are done there are no more effects from the placebo than from MSG. It is very easy to start believing that some substance such as MSG is causing your health problems when that is not actually the case - this happens to virtually everyone, and it doesn't mean you are nuts or anything. The human mind is just very good at trying to figure out explanations for phenomena - like believing that your midwinter rituals cause the sun to appear again next year. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually this should pose some concern. I did a little bit of digging, and in the list of "Partners and Supporters" from the IFIC site ( http://www.foodinsight.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=nDb%2bLjBPf4U%3d&tabid=91 ) you can find, that amongst them is the largest MSG producer Ajinomoto, as well as more infamous companies like Monsanto. This seems like a great source for conflict of interests. Wiki article also has an external link to EUFIC organization (same mission as IFIC), which supposedly tells facts about MSG, but the organization is supported by a major food companies, which also raises concerns about conflict of interests. 88.119.34.218 (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said at Aspartame, the possibility of lying/COI/etc, or the motive therein, does not GUARANTEE lying/COI/etc, nor should it cause you to ASSUME lying/COI/etc. Companies defend their products- and they aren't evil for doing so. Show me some evidence Ajinomoto is HIDING information a la the tobacco companies, and you have something. But advocacy for your main source of revenue isn't underhanded. It's just good business. I'd be more worried about them if they DIDN'T spend time and money refuting the claims leveled against them. --King Öomie 15:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a waste of time trying to prove more evidence. We have already shown a huge amount of evidence but a few select users have blocked it vehemently(e.g., Sciencewatcher, Cacycle). It is not clear whether they are blocking the evidence because they receive some sort of compensation, they work for the industry or because of sheer hubris but it is clear that these users are preventing this Wikipedia entry from functioning properly. For those people interested in articles linking MSG to adverse symptoms, some of the articles are posted on the discussion section of my page. We have the full debate in the archived section of the discussion. Also, the health section on Glumate is not bad. For those of you interested in improving the MSG page, I am sorry, but you will waste your time here. I certainly wasted a lot of hours!FFN001 (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

One last thing I forgot to mention. When I tried to work together with others (you know, majority opinion), we were all investigated for being sock-puppets and we were temporarily banned from Wikipedia. It turns out that Cacycle is an administrator with a lot of authority.FFN001 (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

FFN001: you commented above "Okay, that makes sense. The current set up is satisfactory but I think merging them would be better". So how come now you're coming up with a conspiracy theory saying we are blocking changes to the article? If you think anything should be added to the page, why don't you give some details of what should be added? --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, given that Cacycle and other active watchers are acting as gate-keepers, this article is probably as good as it can be. It is a lot better than it was originally and I appreciate the improvement we were able to make. There is a long history of our discussions and the discussions made by others--I tried hard to get both sides of evidence included on the MSG section but I failed.

FFN001: We have already discussed this ad nauseum, the whole interaction has been archived to Talk:Monosodium_glutamate/Archive_3 (warning: 300 kB!). Those blocks were 1. not by me and 2. for disruptive behaviour, edit warring, and personal attacks. If you are not willing to contribute in a rational and civil manner and, once again, have to resort to absurd allegations and wild conspiracy theories, then better leave this project. Cacycle (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

About conspiracy theories, you did put out a call to arms on that insider forum--technically, that means you did conspire to get help in shooting down my changes.FFN001 (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You also initiated the sock-puppet investigation.FFN001 (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the references that you provided in the previous discussion. The only point we don't address in the article is a possible link between diabetes and MSG. However I failed to find any revews discussing the link, and I couldn't find any human studies - just a rat model.--sciencewatcher (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a bit about migraines and glutamates acting as a neuro-toxin too (but before we disagreed and I don't want to push the issue again). I had a thought that might make everyone satisfied. Can we delete the entire paragraph and instead say "Because MSG is a free glutamate, the health concerns of MSG are discussed in detail on the main glutamate page:

Main article: Glutamic acid (flavor) § Research into health effects

Regional issues relating to MSG are discussed below." (or something to this effect). This is basically what Cacycle wanted all along (my disagreement with him/her was saying there were no health effects here and then saying something different on the glutamate page), and this way we aren't making a judgement here about what concerns deserve to be discussed and which results are strong enough to include. What do you think?FFN001 (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be redundant because we have another article for additive use. At the top of the page it says "For its use in food flavouring and health concerns, see glutamic acid (flavor)." For the record, I'm still not wild about the number of articles we have in this area (see my comments above from last year—I would support combining glutamic acid (flavor) with glutamic acid or this article), but I think it's pretty clear how they are currently divided up. Cool Hand Luke 02:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Going back to the issue of migraines and MSG, I think FFN001 might have a point. [Tarasoff http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/027869159390012N] says that while large (3g-5g) of MSG produces symptoms on an empty stomach, taking the MSG with food seems to remove the effects. I thought we mentioned this in the article, but it seems we don't. Obviously if taking the MSG with food removes the effect them there isn't likely to be any negative effect from the MSG itself - perhaps it is an ineffective placebo, or just the effects of such a large amount of sodium. Think what effect eating 5g of salt would have on you! Tarasoff concludes "rigorous and realistic scientific evidence linking the syndrome to MSG could not be found." So if you want to add this, go ahead, but make sure you do it in a NPOV way - the evidence still points to MSG not causing any health effects. Let me know if you need the full-text of Tarasoff. --sciencewatcher (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

My preference would be to do what Cool Hand Luke suggested and combine all of the articles. Since MSG is simply a form of free glutamate, and should not have any more health effects, it seems redundant to include everything twice. If we keep them separate, I do believe that we need to point out in the article that MSG can't have more health effects than any other free glutamate; otherwise, most people coming to this site will think the article is incomplete. If we would like to keep them separate, I can add the discussion of migraines as Sciencewatcher suggested. As only last issue, MSG has been the subject some outlandish health claims (e.g., causing autism) and many reputable medical sites make claims to which there is mixed or little scientific evidence. Should we address this? Again, if we don't the article will seem incomplete.FFN001 (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If they're separate, the migraine bit belongs in glutamic acid (flavor). I favor merge, however—any content specific to MSG (as opposed to X-glutamate flavoring in general) would be a subheading of the merged article. Cool Hand Luke 02:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree--how do you feel Sciencewatcher (and others who might be interested)?FFN001 (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to merge. If you look at the glutamic acid (flavor) article you'll see it mostly talks about MSG anyway. I think it would just be better to merge the articles and maybe redirect MSG to glutamic acid (flavor). --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. To be clear, MSG is a disambiguation page, but I agree with Sciencewatcher that monosodium glutamate should probably redirect to the broader term glutamic acid (flavor) rather than vice versa.

That said, we might still want a stub for the CAS number, weight, and structure of actual monosodium glutamate, like potassium glutamate. It would seem strange to include this in glutamic acid (flavor). At the same time, would it be sensible to trim this article down to that point, and then simply link to glutamic acid (flavor) for information on health and food use? I could go either way, but both of these articles are covering the same ground IMO. Cool Hand Luke 16:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your ideas. Can we put all of the glutamic acid articles together? It would be long but at least it would be consolidated. It might be easier to group them than to keep them separated, as well, because there is such a strong mistrust of MSG in many Western cultures (such as the USA). If we do leave the technical bits about MSG as separate article and link to the health effects we run the risk of people continually demanding a health section. To separate them, we must very clearly articulate that MSG has the exact same health effects as other free glutamates--even though many people think they are sensitive specifically to MSG and only MSG. It is a "hot-button" article. However, there is validity in talking about the cultural mistrust of MSG, even in situations where the beliefs are not backed up by research, as long as we do not mix it with the health section and we keep it NPOV (i.e., we don't judge or put people down).FFN001 (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the content currently at glutamic acid is of little interest to people who want to know about food use and health concerns, and I imagine that most of our readers are in that camp. I would prefer to keep that separate. Perhaps that article can be the repository of all the technical information on these salts, while either this article or glutamic acid (flavor) contains all the health/food/medical information.

It might just be best to merge all that information back to monosodium glutamate. While many commercially-used free glutamates are not MSG, this is by far the most common and familiar name for the family of flavor enhancers. My copy of Kirk-Othmer Concise Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology puts everything under MSG—there's a heading for "monosodium glutamate," but much of the article is about glutamates generally in food applications. If using this name is sensible enough for chemists, there's no reason we can't also include all the information under the most common name for the family of flavor enhancers—the name our readers are most likely to search. Cool Hand Luke 17:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a very good solution. Shall we wait a day or so to let others have a chance to voice their opinions and, if there is no disagreement, go ahead and merge them?FFN001 (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, lets merge them. Cool Hand Luke, would you mind merging them when you get a chance--I have never merged an article before.FFN001 (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

i came upon this article in search for some information about msg. had i stayed with the information given here i would have thought that Accent is pretty safe to use but further googling brought me to very alarming information. i feel that as i have found the article today it supports the manufacturers' interests and not the consumers'- meaning everyone (including the company stockholders.... they eat too....they have kids..) i am new at wikipedia as a user but i've come to rely upon it very much in the past years. today's experience has shaken my credibility. hope the plans for merging will help. wikipedia holds a lot of power we got to make sure it's for the better of all of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yazmin.cakmak (talk • contribs) 05:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem with google - you can get lots of dubious information. MSG is safe. You need to research using google scholar and look for high quality reviews to get good information. That is what this article does. If you think anything is missing from the article or there is any incorrect information, feel free to discuss here (or go ahead and change it - but make sure you follow WP:MEDRS and other policies). --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

As SW says, it is indeed generally recognized as safe. We can certainly address and discuss any specific concerns though. Cool Hand Luke 15:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear people you can go on and sprinkle your meals with this "safe" flavour enhancer. As far as taking the responsibility of informing the world about it... it seems that you feel very confident.

in your knowledge. or your interests. I would just appreciate if you do not add headings to my comments. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yazmin.cakmak (talk • contribs) 07:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I suspect you are ingesting it too. Pretty much every bit of food you eat has sodium and glutamate in it. That is (one of the reasons) why it is perfectly safe - the other being that it has been extensively tested. And what did you mean about 'add headings to my comments'? Oh, and please sign your comments in future, thanks. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:45, 14 June 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)

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)

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://upload.wikimedia.org/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)

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 logicallya 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.174.126.200.228 (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)