Jump to content

Talk:Umami

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 222.64.215.115 (talk) at 09:30, 6 April 2010 (→‎Molecular approach to the topic.....: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Umami?

Why exactly is it that the English Wikipedia uses a Japanese loanword as the main topic article of a sense of taste which the majority of all native English speakers know as "savory"? Never in my life have I heard the word "umami", until finding this page here. Why go about using a loanword when there's a suitable enough English word already? PaZuZu 13:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's because that's the word that's already used in the science. (Ever heard of Google?) It would be inappropriate for Wikipedia articles to invent terminology. Are you idiot or what? --192.139.122.66 17:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I disagree with the original point, it seems a valid issue to bring up. Insults are inappropriate; let's at least try to keep this forum civil. --Anonymous 18:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.203.54 (talk)
Savory is not an exact enough meaning to mean specifically basic taste. Many not umami-sensations color the word "savory". The disambiguation page is good enough. --Jonathan Williams 19:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as I know, you could get Umami sensors activated when you eat soy sauce for example. Same thing goes for some seaweed if I understand the article correctly. I've seen umami been used outside this article also, think it was in a science magazine. Anyway, I'd rather keep it like it is. There's plenty of loan words in the English language, so another one wouldn't change anything. Like ombudsman or smorgasbord... =) --84.217.112.254 01:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, there has been a bit of a discussion of this issue over on the basic taste talk page (which has now been merged with taste - the link is to an archive of the page). --PhiJ 16:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Umami is the same as 鮮味 in Chinese, then I must strongly, strongly emphasise that Umami is NOT the same as savoury. 鮮味 is NOT the same as savoury. It is much more than that. 鮮味 comes from a taste description palette that is not used at all in western mentality. 鮮味 includes a kind of freshness to flavour, lightness to flavour, and a kind of sensual experience that Chinese would call clarity and purity of taste. --71.146.2.156 (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest an English translation for the word. I believe savoury works very well, from reading it. The issue in the original post, a non-English word among English words, should be addressed. It is not that loanwords are not a positive, it is that the top words, Sweetness, Bitterness, Sourness, Saltiness, are words that English speaking people can read and understand. If you see "Sourness", you can taste it. "Umami" as a descriptor does not work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.250.38 (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that the title of this article is not going to change. But if we go to the Japanese article on the various tastes humans can experience, they will not use "sweet" or "salty", they will use the Japanese words for these tastes. This is totally appropriate, it's a Japanese article. Why then should Umami be used in an English article when an appropriate English word (Savory) exists?--RLent (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hard time accepting the title not changing. There's no reason for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.250.38 (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only cited link for this miracle new scientific discovery appears to be from a MSG Industry Pressure Group, spewing pro da about how MSG is really safe after all, honest guv. I'm not sure it's a reliable link at all.83.244.149.133 12:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can see that. I've replaced the link with some docs from UofM research, but on the bad side, I also put a link to umamiinfo, which possibly only exists to sell cookbooks. Please take a look at the links and edit as needed. --Mdwyer 13:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Argh... the more I look around, the more it stresses me out. We should just copy most of what is found in the basic taste and monosodium glutamate articles over here... --Mdwyer 13:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

I'm moving this page to Umami because Umami is the much more commonly used spelling. It gets 23,200 google hits and Umame gets only 917 [1] Nohat 02:11, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)

It also doesn't say much for the spelling "umame" for the fact that 8 of the top 10 google hits for it are Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors. [2] Nohat 03:56, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)

Well

If I'm reading the article correctly, this isn't actually a taste in and of itself, but rather, a perception of the intensity of a taste.

So can it really be considered a separate flavor sensation at all?

I propose translating umami as zesty. And I claim there are six tastes, not five, oil being one of the six. lysdexia 16:32, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To me umami does not taste zesty at all, its quite mellow, buy some MSG at an asian food market and see for yourself.

All the literature I've read suggests that its a basic taste, with its own taste receptors, and is not 'intensity' or 'zest'. I've never heard of taste receptors for oil. Maybe you could cite some research that supports your claims, since I can't find any.

--Johnkarp 00:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Speaking from the perspective of a Chinese and with the knowledge that umami is the equivalent of 鮮味 in Chinese, I must emphasise that umami is a separate taste. Think of it this way: the western taste description palette hits certain areas of the range of tastes but leaves out other actual tastes and senses behind. 鮮味 is one taste area that western mentality not only does not have a word for, but also does not have a concept for. This does not mean this taste does not exist. It's merely that western concepts have not captures that taste reality. Think of this analogy: there are certain tones and sounds producible with the western music scale but there are other tones and sounds that a western music scale cannot produce and does not capture those sounds. It doesn't mean those sounds do not exist. It merely means the sound scale used to name those sounds does not point to those sounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.2.156 (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discovered or Described?

If umami is "considered basic" in Chinese and Japanese cuisine, then how can it have been "discovered" in 1907? The second statement implies that umami had not been much noticed by anyone, anywhere until 1907 -- and in conjunction, the two statments suggest that Umami was discovered by Kikunae Ikeda and, in the following 100 years, became so incredibly popular in Chinese and Japaneese cooking that it gained widespread acknowledgement as a fifth basic taste.

For all I know, something like that may be the case, but I am skeptical. Surly the taste was "discovered" by Japanese and Chinese cooks long ago, and then later formally or scientifically described as one of the five basic tastes by Kikunae Ikeda. Could someone who knows more than me about this clarify this article? Solemnavalanche 06:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Addendum: after some basic Wikipedia research, I realized that both I and the article were mistaken. "Umami" was not discovered in 1907; monosodium glutamate was. I've fixed the error. Solemnavalanche 07:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The taste has been "known" for thousands of years. It was only "discovered" in the chemical sense in 1908... It would be like, for example, everyone knows what chilli-taste is, but then one day someone isolates the acid responsible for it. It wouldn't be "discovering" the taste per se. Is there a better way to describe this process? --Sumple (Talk) 00:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He "isolated" the taste? MMetro 20:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Change of number of basic tastes

I changed "5 basic tastes" to 7 because that's what it says in the general Basic Tastes article. --Coolbho3000 12:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Discovery of receptors section

"The researchers called 'taste-mGluR4'." is not a complete sentence.

I've just edited the sentence. Roaming27 05:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the part: "The discovery of the [umami] receptor is interesting especially since the receptor for bitter has not yet been identified." This for two reasons: I could not find any reference to this fact in the wikipedia basic tastes main article, and there were no outside referece to this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.214.3.201 (talk)

It's wrong as well - the bitter receptors are T2R receptors, and I think that means they identified the gene locus for them... Thanks for that. Why did you delete the 'what exactly is umami' external link though? --PhiJ 21:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i re-deleted the part saying that the bitter receptor has not been identified as it says that it has been in the basic tastes main article under bitter. I know this isn't the most accurate way of comparing things, so if anyone can check whether there is proof that the bitter receptor has been discovered that would be helpful. Though on the otherhand it's best to leave it out altogether as its not relevant to the article and why is it interesting to people looking at unami? It suggests that bitter is a more important taste

T2R receptors are sweet taste receptors. -unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.91.47 (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The T2R receptor is for bitter, according to this on cell.com [3] According to this on nature.com [4], umami is monosodium glutamate. Since everybody has heard of MSG, and since there are lot of myths about it (foodies claim to dislike it, while claiming to love umami) it seems this fact should be featured more prominently on the page. 69.203.73.99 (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary mistake

When I wrote 'rv to version by 70.44.196.93' in my recent edit summary of the main umami page, I meant 'rv to version by 82.214.3.201'. Sorry. --PhiJ 21:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing 'negative effects' section

The two paragraphs of 'Negative effects' are lifted wholesale from the Excitotoxicity article. The negative effects of glutamate aren't really relevant to an article about the sensation of its flavor, so I've replaced them with a single sentance that just acknowleges that there are negative effects. --Dcfleck 17:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh, hrm there seems to be a discrepency and I didn't realize it was removed seriously, BUT this information is new to wikipedia and it needs a home. I'd like to find out where it goes rather than removing it from the books completely. Klichka (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dcfleck. That section on "Negative effects" is inappropriate for the article on umami. Reviewing the published medical literature this morning, it is evident that a link to glutamate receptors is part of the umami sensation, but this does not imply high glutamate release that would be excitotoxic. The section should be deleted wholesale. Also, I would even dispute that a "negative effects" section should be associated with umami. There is no evidence I can see that strong umami sensation is associated with toxicity.
Klichka -- if you search Wikipedia for "neurotoxicity", there are many places where the glutamate work has been discussed similarly to the description in the umami article. Reviewing those links, one can conclude that this "Negative effects" section certainly does not belong here. --Paul144 (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also discussed in the Monosodium Glutamate article, which is linked from here --PhiJ (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Journal article: A New Taste Sensation

A New Taste Sensation. TfB (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

another umami

on huitlacoche, check (if u can read spanshit) [5] pinchi ranchero,--kiddo (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or [6]--kiddo (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even [7]. Conclusion: not all is McDonalds--kiddo (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATP as a Neurotransmitter?

Twice in this article on umami Adenosine TriPhosphate is implicated as a neurotransmitter. While ATP is of great importance in the cell, leave the cell it does not. Especially not to communicate with other cells in the body. I guess then my question would be: WTF? JMcCarthy53 (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article[8] proposed a new interpretation for how ATP would serve neurotransmitter roles.
Quoting the author's abstract, ".. cells responding to sweet, bitter, and umami taste stimuli do not possess synapses and instead secrete the neurotransmitter ATP via a novel mechanism not involving conventional vesicular exocytosis. ATP is believed to excite primary sensory afferent fibers that convey gustatory signals to the brain." ... and "ATP secreted from receptor cells also acts on neighboring taste cells to stimulate their release of serotonin."
Although unexpected roles for ATP, such evidence is consistent with how neurotransmitters convey signals. --Paul144 (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purinergic receptors have now been characterised, which respond to ATP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADP_receptor) 59.101.184.123 (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umami as Kokutai (national characteristics ideology)

I think it would be worth mentioning in the article the notion of kokutai or national characteristics ideology. There are academics in Japan that spew propaganda that Japanese are a unique race. They will list examples such as having different intestines than Westerners (so they do not digest meat the same way), having different brains due to using kanji (Chinese) characters and having a fundamentally different temperment from Westerners becuase they live in a mushi atsui (hot and humid) climate.

Saying that the Japanese have a taste that Westerners don't have and so one must use the word umami is falling into the kokutai ideology. Umami is a savouriness with a Japanese PR team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.188.131 (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe Nihonjinron is more relevant here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.188.131 (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional?

The claim that "umami" is a traditional concept/flavor in Japan (or "generally recognized") should be demonstrated by finding sources older than Ikeda (e.g., secondary sources about Japanese culture in the 19th century, such as Lafcadio Hearn).

This article and the one on savoriness read like infomercials from Ajinomoto, the Japanese company that manufactures MSG and has been promoting glutamates as "natural" for the past couple of decades. We see zero mention of risks or adverse effects, but even salt (a well-known naturally occurring substance) can be dangerous in certain quantities or under specific conditions.

According to a Japanese friend, Ajinomoto changed the name of their product from ""kagaku tyo^miryo^" (chemical condiment or seasoning) to "umami tyo^miryo^" during the past 20-25 years, suggesting that they are motivated to spin "umami" as universal and traditional.

I flagged the claim "generally recognized" in the lead, because the page on taste mentions a wide variety of gustatory sensations, suggesting that here is no definitive consensus on "five". Martindo (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page presents confused and confusing claims about the "long history" of umami. Even in Japan, the flavor was only identified 100 years ago by Ikeda (who should not be relied on too heavily, because he was eventually biased by his financial interests). If there was no word in common use -- and if the average person in most countries doesn't name "savory" as a specific "basic taste" -- then the claim of "generally recognized" is subjective and probably POV.

I would also like to see changes made to the basic tastes page, but first let's see what kind of consensus can be hashed out here. The page on traditional Chinese medicine mentions five basic tastes in passing. If I recall correctly, the fifth is spicy/pungent, not "savory". So, any references to "Eastern civilizations" agreeing on umami is grandiose if not inaccurate. Martindo (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of Chinese term removal

Badagnani reverted a few recent changes with comment "+Japanese and Chinese-specific information about this term of East Asian origin".

I object to this on many levels. First, not just the aspect mentioned in the comment were reverted, but other good changes were undone.

Secondly, the only information added was a Chinese translation which is irrelevant not just to the subject matter, but also to the etymology of the term, which is a Japanese loanword. The Chinese translation adds no useful information to this article, and is as relevant as translations in any other language would be. 205.228.108.185 (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Badagnani, you have done it again. Can we please talk about it here? 122.26.33.28 (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some people intimately familiar with Chinese language and cuisine to comment? I think the "lack of justification" citing "why not Korean or Russian" itself lacks justification. The claim that umami is a BASIC taste implies it is universal. If someone can confirm a close equivalent in Chinese (which shares a lot of culture with Japan), then that would support the claim of "basic".
FYI, Sanseido Japanese-English dictionary (1979 edition) defines "umami" as a NOUN, meaning "taste or flavor". As I mentioned under Traditional, this term seems not to have a long history in Japan as a word referring to a *specific* taste. That usage appears to be new, and seems to have been spun as a PR tool since the 1980s in Japan (and more recently in US). Martindo (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, this neological term is highly promotional!

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umami → Savoriness — I have NEVER heard the term "Umami" used outside of a soy sauce advertisement. As far as I can tell, this term was introduced to the English speaking world as part of a soy sauce PR campaign. I would suggest that keeping this article here, under this non-English name, is providing free advertising for this firm, by spreading the use of their promotional neologism. I would suggest moving this page to Savoriness (already a redirect for this article), in the interests of non-promotion, using English titles and Calling a spade a spade. If "Savoriness" isn't a perfect English translation of this invented term, find a better translation! There are many terms that do not translate perfectly between languages. WuhWuzDat 16:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment...has anyone here ever taken a bite of a nice prime rib (or substitute your favorite meat), and thought "Ooh, That tastes so Umami"? I didn't think so! Now, what about using "savory" in that same sentence, instead of "Umami"? (vegetarians need not reply). WuhWuzDat 06:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partially agree - The prevalence of hits on the web proves nothing about daily use of the word in English, only the ability of web sources to echo each other. The term was hardly in use in Japan before 1980. Well-known Japanese-English dictionary Sanseido translates umami as a NOUN: taste, flavor (1979 edition and unchanged in latest edition). So, if this word means "flavor" in general, how can anyone logically claim that it means "one of the five basic tastes"? The reason I only partially agree with the proposed change is that my English dictionary defines savory as "belonging to a category that is salty or spicy rather than sweet". So, if umami is not a SPECIFIC flavor in Japanese, and savory is not a SPECIFIC flavor in English, does the term umami belong anywhere in wikipedia at all, other than as a footnote or artifact? Martindo (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The argument about web searches is entirely specious - it was a search of scholarly articles which have an existences outside the internet. The widespread use shows an established understanding of this term in the English language scientific community at least, and this is no mere internet phenomenon. The etymological argument is just as weak - words do not necessarily exactly retain their meanings when they are borrowed. When borrowed into English it acquired a far more specific and restricted meaning than it had in its source language. This is a very common phenomenon - compare the definitions of gestalt in and English-only and German-English dictionaries, likewise dressage from French. It's clearly a notable topic - it's far from unlikely that one of our readers could come across one of the many mentions of umami in any one of the high-profile journals mentioned above, and they should be able to come here and find out more about it. Knepflerle (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good counter-argument, but (1) language usually evolves on its own without being pushed, thus "common usage" is an ideal rule of thumb, if it can be ascertained reliably, and (2) there are plenty of REDIRECTs in WP (input "USA" in the search field, for example), so your argument only indicates the topic should be searchable, not the title of the page. Martindo (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I (strongly) agree that en.wiki should not be used to push language evolution, but the process of semantic drift has already finished in this case. Umami is common usage - just check the searches I did which found far greater use of "umami" than "savoriness". For non-technical use, see the 38 uses in The Times and 430 in the New York Times going back to 1983, including examples like these two where the term is used without any further explanation or "translation" - it is assumed the word is understood by the reader. Knepflerle (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this term may be a recent arrival in English, and it may still be relatively obscure, but it has arrived, and I have seen it more than advertisements. "Savoriness" appears to be only an approximate equivalent, so this proposed move appears to be an anti-loanword POV. PatGallacher (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: in the August 2008 Scientific American magazine print edition:
"The Elusive Umami: Although it was discovered a century ago, umami still struggles for acceptance as the fifth basic taste the tongue recognizes. The term is Japanese for "savory" or "deliciousness." It is typically applied to meats, cheeses, broth and other protein-heavy foods to describe their hearty nature. The sensation may be more subtle than salty or sweet, but researchers maintain it is unique and not a combination of any of the other basic tastes."
The name of the article that I find this in is "Magnifying Taste." Bus stop (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Scientific American should have obtained a Sanseido dictionary because they didn't translate correctly. See first citation on the article's page as of this writing. This error is perhaps typical of the topic's confusion of language, physiology, psychology, and philosophy (if something was "discovered" a century ago, how basic can it be in terms of human concepts of taste?)
I would be more impressed by number of researchers than number of articles. FYI, I have a friend who was part owner of an MSG factory in Indonesia and told me quite openly that he paid a scientist to write articles as he requested, in order to publicize the NON-harmfulness of glutamates. Diversity of authors is probably a better guide than proliferation of articles, but that's just my opinion.
Finally, NYT is hardly a guide to common use of a word, though I grant that they are trend-setters in their cuisine section. Japanese themselves didn't use umami much before about 25 years ago -- see Talk topic "Traditional?" (two sections above this) regarding the renaming of MSG in Japanese around that time to include the word "umami". Martindo (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The only unambiguous way to say it in English, and the correct term of art as used by scientists studying flavour. (The fact that I do sometimes slurp broth and say "Ooh the umami"! is perhaps just a sign of my pretension). William Avery (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Molecular approach to the topic.....

--222.64.215.115 (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Umami&oldid=354284601"