Talk:Monosodium glutamate

Misquote of the review article corrected

The article by Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) was misquoted. Differences were found but they suggested more research. I used their words so that no one could claim was I being biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a reason why my edits were changed. Otherwise, I will change it back to the author's words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

They weren't misquoted - that's not what a quote is. Misrepresented perhaps? But I think the existing text accurately reflects their findings without putting a massive quote into the text. --tronvillain (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

And if one did feel compelled to have a quote, using something from the conclusion of the paper rather than the abstract might be worth a try:

From the fact that the results of the human studies are not consistent and it is assumed that most studies using beverages as a vehicle are not properly blinded, we suggest that a causal relationship between MSG and headache has not been proven. In addition, statistically significant differences in the incidence of headache were not observed when MSG was administered with food, except in one case of the female group where the blind integrity was questionable. It would seem premature to conclude that the MSG present in food causes headache.

I think that could accurately be summarized as as something like "but double-blind tests have found no significant evidence of this", or perhaps even "but there is no good evidence to support this."

One out of six studies did find a significant effect when taken with food and four out of seven found an effect without food. Plus the author calls for more research. Please quote them accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not Shakespeare but here is my factually accurate paraphrase of the article findings, "A article reviewing research about the link between MSG and headaches explained that only one of six studies showed a significant effect when taken with food (and then only for women), though four of seven studies showed it caused a headache when taken without food." — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ref says "we conclude that further studies are required to evaluate whether or not a causal relationship exists between MSG ingestion and headache" This is a fair summary "but double-blind tests have found unclear evidence regarding if this is the case." of that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I quoted from the conclusion above, which says that the studies which found a significant effect were unlikely to have been blinded. The ones that were properly blinded (the ones with food, except one in which "the blind integrity was questionable") found no significant effect. That's accurately described as there being no good evidence to support MSG causing headaches. --tronvillain (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You cannot be serious. Use the facts, please. I understand that this entry is heavily monitored to ensure that no negative information is posted. I know that it has been watched every day multiple times a day for at least a decade--I have tested that multiple times. Just a word of caution: it is one thing to downplay negative information and quite another to actively mislead people about the content of an academic article. Don't go too far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have again quoted the article. What I have posted is factually correct and pretty much what you want to hear. Therefore, please don't change it to something incorrect. You cannot say there is NO EFFECT. That is NOT how statistics works nor what they found! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, the conclusion says (see above) the studies which found a significant effect were unlikely to have been blinded, and the ones that were properly blinded (the ones with food, except one in which "the blind integrity was questionable") found no significant effect. That's accurately described as there being no good evidence to support MSG causing headaches - you apparently want to bring up the studies that had a significant effect but not mention that they weren't blinded properly. I think it's pretty clearly who's trying to be misleading here, SPA. --17:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

User:FFN001 you will need to get consensus here before a change occurs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

What you wrote above is accurate "the conclusion says the studies which found a significant effect were unlikely to have been blinded." The problem is that MGS is like salt or sugar, you can't properly blind it because you can taste it. MSG does cause headaches--the research explicitly states that it does. However, in undetectable doses it does not. That just means you can't give someone a headache by slipping in undetectable amounts of MSG. However, if you eat MSG all day long, guess what--you might end up with a headache. So your statement is factually misleading. Please use the author's words, or at least their intention, if you are going to cite their work. About the consensus, you won't respond to my posts UNLESS I make changes. So I will use your words for my next change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I have written the following: "An article reviewing studies about the connection between MSG and headaches notes that few articles have actually found a significant effect, and those that did were not properly blinded--hence, people knew they had received MSG which could have caused a psychological effect." — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The article explicitly states no such thing. In fact, what it says is "...we suggest that a causal relationship between MSG and headache has not been proven." Reporting a headache after consuming MSG when not properly blinded is not good evidence of MSG causing headaches, especially when the effect doesn't appear when blinded... which is why the review has the conclusion it does. When a quality source does a review of properly blinded studies (MSG in pill form or with food) and finds a significant effect, then we'll be able to say that there's good evidence of the effect. And sign your comments - just add four tildes (~) at the end. --tronvillain (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It does multiple times. It says, "Among human studies with the MSG administration with food, significant difference of headache incidence was not found at the dose of 1.5 and 3.0 g in capsule, 3.15 g/300 ml beverage, 3.0 g in boiled rice with pork, and 3.0 g/150 ml beef broth. The significant difference was found only in female administered 3.0 g MSG/150 ml (2.0 %) beef bouillon but not in male." So it does among women (who tend to be smaller in body weight). It also says, "Because of the absence of proper blinding, and the inconsistency of the findings, we conclude that further studies are required to evaluate whether or not a causal relationship exists between MSG ingestion and headache." and "It would seem premature to conclude that the MSG present in food causes headache." The key word is "premature." You are making it sound absolute--there is not connection. The authors say no such thing. They say more research is needed.FFN001 (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

And before you undo my changes, tell me what is FACTUALLY incorrect about my statement. FFN001 (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that one of the authors has a conflicting interest. "YO is an employee of MSG manufacturer which joins International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC). IGTC is an international scientific non-profit organization, dedicated to the support of targeted scientific research on the biochemistry/metabolism, physiology, pharmacology and toxicology of glutamic acid. IGTC finances the publication fee of this manuscript." — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

No. Nothing in that quote supports the assertion that "MSG does cause headaches--the research explicitly states that it does." You're attempting to draw conclusions and make connections that are not supported by the source, like "So it does among women (who tend to be smaller in body weight)." When the only groups to have a significant effect weren't properly blinded and groups properly blinded don't find a significant effect (as I have pointed out multiple times), that is generously summarized as having no good evidence for the effect. The lack of good evidence for the effect does not mean there is no connection, it simply means that the available evidence doesn't support one. If quality evidence becomes available that does, the statement can be revised to reflect that. --tronvillain (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

See... everything above. I quoted from the conclusion above, which says that the studies which found a significant effect were unlikely to have been blinded. The ones that were properly blinded (the ones with food, except one in which "the blind integrity was questionable") found no significant effect. That's accurately described as there being no good evidence to support MSG causing headaches. --tronvillain (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

L-glutamate vs D-glutamate vs MSG

The only claimed difference I was able to find between glutamate supplements and MSG, besides the sodium atom, is the claim that supplemental glutamate is L-glutamate, whereas MSG is mixed D- and L-, which I believe would be called DL-glutamate. The article also claims impurities in MSG such as pyroglutamic acid. Assuming that were true, what would be the health consequences of consuming D-glutamate? I find nothing about it in Wikipedia nor elsewhere. Of note, Wikipedia has articles on three enzymes that act on D-glutamate, such as D-glutamate oxidase; which in turn have references to a "D-glutamate" Wikipedia article that has not been written. I found this chart for D-glutamate metabolism, if it helps. --(talk) 21:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

"WWW.truthinlabeling.ORG" is not a credible source. --tronvillain (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That is a kooky website. According to the EFSA the L-isomer is what is sold as MSG. See here. It has a section on manufacturing. I wonder why we have this separate article. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Fix the safety quote

I have changed the safety second to reflect the actual writing of the review article. Please don't change it back to "there is no evidence" because that is not factually true. It is highly misleading. The review study is sponsored by MSG and food manufacturers--it is already prone to be industry friendly as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I diagree with your edit because other sources were suppressed. GRAS status and LD (currently also lead material which summarizes the body) were also removed along with the longstanding consumption of other glutamic acid sources. —PaleoNeonate – 14:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

What other sources? Here is the exact wording from the study that you are citing "Of five papers including six studies with food, none showed a significant difference in the incidence of headache except for the female group in one study. Of five papers including seven studies without food, four studies showed a significant difference. Many of the studies involved administration of MSG in solution at high concentrations (>2 %). Since the distinctive MSG is readily identified at such concentrations, these studies were thought not to be properly blinded. Because of the absence of proper blinding, and the inconsistency of the findings, we conclude that further studies are required to evaluate whether or not a causal relationship exists between MSG ingestion and headache." — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This is almost exactly the same thing you tried in February. From above: I quoted from the conclusion above, which says that the studies which found a significant effect were unlikely to have been blinded. The ones that were properly blinded (the ones with food, except one in which "the blind integrity was questionable") found no significant effect. That's accurately described as there being no good evidence to support MSG causing headaches. --tronvillain (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Plus, as PaleoNeonate points out, you removed other relevant material and sources.--tronvillain (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a reason why it is the same--because it is accurate. You say, "The ones that were properly blinded (the ones with food, except one in which "the blind integrity was questionable") found no significant effect." That is NOT true. The study says"...none showed a significant difference in the incidence of headache except for the female group in one study." In other words, there was an effect in one study! You MUST soften your language. I am not saying MSG causes headaches, I am faithfully reporting the findings of this industry-friendly study. About removing the cheese thing, that is not relevant to the page. Cheese has naturally occurring glutamates, not added glutamates. It is like saying, soda is healthy because people have been eating fruit for thousands of years. Added sugar is not comparable to natural sugar and neither are added glutamates. I have provided cite after cite in the past showing a link because headaches and MSG and I am NOT trying to do that here. I am simply trying to get the page to accurately reflect the industry-sponsored research findings. If you want, I can go back to fighting for neutral language which would entail a more drastic change. Do you want that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

That "the blind integrity was questionable" is directly from the review:

"In addition, statistically significant differences in the incidence of headache were not observed when MSG was administered with food, except in one case of the female group where the blind integrity was questionable."

Again, the conclusion of the study is accurately summarize as there being no good evidence to support MSG causing headaches. And sucrose is sucrose, whether added or natural.--tronvillain (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for trying a new edit rather than still reverting to the old one. From the edit summary: Don't change back without a discussion. This is not how Wikipedia works though, see WP:BRD and WP:ONUS suggesting that the one who makes the edit should reach WP:CONSENSUS before reinstating it when reverted. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I saw the note at WT:MED. It looks like everyone is trying to do the right thing here, and that's always good to see. So thank you, all of you, for that.

FFN001, I think it's important to carefully consider the exact original wording: "double-blind tests have found no good evidence to support this". It's not a claim of NO evidence; it's a claim of no GOOD evidence. There is only a claim of weak evidence (e.g., a study with questionable blinding), in a small minority of studies – and even then, only in the women who participated in the trial (which smells like the results of a post hoc type of subgroup analysis, which is often a source of misleading not-exactly-scientific claims). I think that this situation is properly described as "no GOOD evidence". If the text had said "NO evidence", then of course I would have to object to that claim, as I see you rightly doing in this discussion. However, since the text says "no good evidence", rather than "no evidence at all", I think it is probably accurate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree - "no good evidence" is the correct form of words for summarizing the sources here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

yes it would be the best way to summarize agree w/ WAID and Alexbrn--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

We paraphrase and write in easier to understand language. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Question for administrator

I am needing administrative help. We are having a debate about citing a particular study. I have explained my logic but the two editors who are monitoring this page keep undoing my changes without proper debate. The problem is that their changes are not accurate to the article and continues to refer to tangential information about foods that do not contain added MSG (e.g., cheese). Could you please look into this matter? The accurate version should read, "Few studies have found a link between MSG and headaches, and those that did were typically not double-blind." It is not correct to say that there is NO evidence or link between MSG and headaches--there was even one double-blind study showing a link. I am just trying to accurately cite the article.

--FFN001 (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if an administrator will be interested in a content dispute, but I'll also notify WT:MED to obtain input from some relevant experienced editors in relation to health issues and claims. —PaleoNeonate – 01:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Though an admin might be interested in the edit warring ... Alexbrn (talk) 06:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The edit war has not - yet - crossed the 3RR threshold, although it's not far off. @FFN001:, thank you for finally bringing this to the talkpage. You should avoid making any further changes to that section of the page until a discussion here has demonstrated consensus for your proposals. Admins have no additional authority in content disputes such as this, and since there is no current need for administrative action, I will simply point you to the dispute resolution process and close this help request. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Or, you know, you could just carry on edit warring. Enjoy your week off. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Less Bias Please?

Well, I am back from my week off. Wikipedia requires consensus and I am asking for a rewrite of the safety research to make it more neutral and unbiased. Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) acknowledge industry ties—they are biased and we cannot use their study as our only source. Furthermore, they do not actually refute the evidence provided by Shimada (2013) and others that MSG causes headaches without food. For example, they raise a concern about the small sample size used by Shimada (2013) but a small sample size only increases type 2 errors (failing to find a true positive result) and does not lead to type 1 errors (falsely finding a positive result). A small sample size only makes it harder to find significance but, “if it’s significant, it’s significant. A small sample size makes the hurdle higher, but if you’ve cleared it, you’re there” (Norman 2010, p. 4). That means there is double-blind evidence that MSG causes headaches. That aside, there are other studies not discussed by Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) that also have found a link (e.g., Shimada et al. 2016) and it is not appropriate for Wikipedia editors to make judgements on these studies. Thus, you cannot say there is no “good” evidence. There is evidence and that is a fact. Many health researchers have moved beyond the question of whether MSG causes negative health effects and are now looking at mechanisms of how (e.g., Sato et al. 2016). However, Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) are correct that some research has not found a link, such as Rosenblum (1971)—though it should be noted that they actually did find effects in their survey study. Certainly, most government reviews have not felt MSG was harmful. It is perfectly unbiased to point that out. In addition to headaches and obesity (which you already discuss), researchers are also looking at how it negatively impacts reproductive systems and fetal development (Foran et al. 2017; Mondal 2017; Onakewhor 2017) so I have added that. I have also dropped extraneous references to natural foods with glutamate because that is irrelevant to discussions of a food additive and could mislead readers. Frankly, it reads like old-school propaganda and needs to be dropped. I have kept as much of your original text and tone as possible. Here is my example rewrite,

“A popular belief is that MSG can cause headaches and other feelings of discomfort. A 1995 report from the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) for the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded that MSG is safe when "eaten at customary levels." The academic evidence regarding the link between headaches and MSG is mixed. There is some evidence that relatively large doses of MSG taken without food can lead to headaches (Geha 2000; Shimada 2013). However, most double-blind studies taken with food have failed to find a link (Obayashi and Nagamura 2016). Under normal conditions, humans can metabolize relatively large quantities of glutamate, which is naturally produced in the gut in the course of protein hydrolysis. The median lethal dose (LD50) is between 15 and 18 g/kg body weight in rats and mice, respectively, five times greater than the LD50 of salt (3 g/kg in rats). Typical consumption of MSG as a food additive combined with the natural level of glutamic acid in foods are not toxicological concerns in humans.[Gov. 4]

Studies exploring MSG's role in obesity have yielded mixed results.[16][17]. Although several studies have investigated anecdotal links between MSG and asthma, current evidence does not support a causal association.[18] Some rat studies have found that MSG may impact the reproductive system (Onakewhor 2017) and fetal development (Foran et al. 2017; Mondal 2017) but these results have not been replicated in humans yet. Since glutamates are important neurotransmitters in the human brain, playing a key role in learning and memory, ongoing neurological studies indicate a need for further research.[19]”

Feel free to alter my writing if you want but keep it as unbiased/true to actual research findings as possible. Let’s not have this article featured in the next edition of Merchants of Doubt please! If I don't hear from anyone by tomorrow, I will assume you agree with me and make the changes.

My references: Foran, Lindsey, Kaitlyn Blackburn, and Randy J. Kulesza. "Auditory hindbrain atrophy and anomalous calcium binding protein expression after neonatal exposure to monosodium glutamate." Neuroscience 344 (2017): 406-417.

Mondal, Mukti, Kaushik Sarkar, Partha Pratim Nath, and Goutam Paul. "Monosodium glutamate suppresses the female reproductive function by impairing the functions of ovary and uterus in rat." Environmental Toxicology (2017).

Norman, Geoff. "Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics." Advances in health sciences education 15, no. 5 (2010): 625-632.

Onakewhor, Joseph UE, Israel AO Oforofuo, and Sarrjit P. Singh. "Chronic Administration of Monosodium Glutamate Induces Oligozoospermia and Glycoen Accumulation in Wistar Rat Testes." African Journal of Reproductive Health 2, no. 2 (2017).

Sato, H., E. E. Castrillon, B. E. Cairns, K. H. Bendixen, K. Wang, T. Nakagawa, K. Wajima, and P. Svensson. "Intramuscular pH modulates glutamate‐evoked masseter muscle pain magnitude in humans." European Journal of Pain 20, no. 1 (2016): 106-115.

Shimada, A., E. E. Castrillon, L. Baad‐Hansen, Bijar Ghafouri, Björn Gerdle, Karin Wåhlén, M. Ernberg, B. E. Cairns, and P. Svensson. "Increased pain and muscle glutamate concentration after single ingestion of monosodium glutamate by myofascial temporomandibular disorders patients." European Journal of Pain 20, no. 9 (2016): 1502-1512.FFN001 (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing reliable/due here; your proposed changes run entirely counter to the WP:PAGs. See particularly, WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I have explained myself, you have not. You do not have my consensus to keep the page "as is." According to the rules you must achieve consensus. The only question is how.FFN001 (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I should also note that I have provided HIGHLY reliable sources. They are double-blind academic research without reported industry funding. For example, Neuroscience, CiteScore: 3.42, Impact Factor: 3.277, 5-Year Impact Factor: 3.318, Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 0.955, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 1.685 So yeah, what in the world are you talking about?FFN001 (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

A change gets made tomorrow. You can decide how it happens. You will not shut out science.FFN001 (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Geha's study says "The results suggest that large doses of MSG given without food may elicit more symptoms than a placebo in individuals who believe that they react adversely to MSG. However, the frequency of the responses was low and the responses reported were inconsistent and were not reproducible", so it might be worth seeing if anyone review's Geha's study, and what their conclusions are. We shouldn't use the conclusions of individual studies, only reviews. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. We need secondary sources; the primary literature is not reliable for assertions about health.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 21:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Other places on Wikipedia use individual studies. Why can’t we? The review paper we are using has an acknowledged bias. Here is an idea, can we do a quick lit review only using tier 1 journals?FFN001 (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

We only use primary studies in medical articles on very special occasions. In those cases the reason we added them was because [1] the study was very important and [2] it was the ONLY study available (no reviews). With MSG we have a lot of reviews, so there is no reason for using primary studies. The opinion of a good review trumps the personal opinion of a wikipedia editor. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I hear your point and that is why I suggest tier 1 journals. Those are vetted by at least three peer scientists and at least one editor in a blind review. Hence, not our opinion. Rankings are easy to obtain on http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php. I understand the value of meta analyses because they look at aggregate results. However, review papers without the meta analysis are often considered less impactful to science and land in far less prestigious journals with less rigorous peer review. Only using review papers would actually decrease the quality of information and opens the door to industry sponsored “retorts”. I urge you to consider including tier 1 studies. FFN001 (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

We must follow WP:MEDRS. The essay WP:WHYMEDRS explains why. Alexbrn (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I will concede the point. I don’t think the O and N (2016) paper is unbiased but even that paper is less biased than the Wikipedia entry. They specifically say that there are “inconsistent findings” and more work is needed. We have a duty to accurately cite articles. I will change it from “no good evidence” to “inconsistent findings” and remove references to non-additive foods to clean up the page. That way we are accurate and not more biased than the source article. Any problem with that? I’ll wait to change until tomorrow for feedback (don’t say “no” please work with me). FFN001 (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The current wording is spot on, as discussed above, and so must not be changed absent of new good sources. Time to drop the WP:STICK. Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Where do they say “no good evidence” in their paper? Inconsistent evidence is not an indication of good vs bad. Wiki editors are not allowed to make those judgements according the links you sent me. An example is needed. You look out your window and see a sunny day but I look out and say it is cloudy. Do you have “no good evidence” there are clouds? No, the interpretation is that there clearly a least one moderating variable—location. The moderator is causing inconsistent findings. The same is true of MSG research. There is clearly a moderating variable causing the different results. The evidence is inconsistent but all evidence coming from peer reviewed journals is “good” evidence unless it is retracted. Consequently, I am going to force a wording change. You have to do it because we need consensus and I am asking it to change. I am going to change it later today unless you change it first. No edit wars, it will change.FFN001 (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This is re-opening the discussion in the section above. That was concluded I think & consensus is clear. Your view has been rejected by many editors. Also stop with all these "deadlines" - if you continue to edit against consensus you will likely just get sanctioned again. Alexbrn (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

What you are saying is untrue--there is no reopening, we never reached a consensus. Instead, I have been continually shut out. I am compromising on whether there is a link but I am not compromising on accuracy. I have read the entire article. "No good evidence" is not an option--it is willfully inaccurate and you know it. Here are some options that are accurate and say what you want to say. You pick which one you like the best. A. "Health studies have evaluated the link between MSG and headaches. When taken in moderate doses with food, a link between MSG and headaches has not been established (the O and N 2016 citation)." B. "Health studies have evaluated the link between MSG and headaches. However, study findings are inconsistent and there does not appear to be a link between normal consumption of MSG and headaches(the O and N 2016 citation)." C."Health studies have evaluated the link between MSG and headaches. However, a link between normal MSG consumption and headaches has not been definitively established (the O and N 2016 citation). Hence, there does not appear to be a link between normal consumption of MSG and headaches." If you don't pick, I will escalate this using Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and I will make a change happen anyway.FFN001 (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Consensus ≠ unanimity. There is consensus and you are at odds with it. Using dispute resolution will at least avoid you a sanction, but I can tell you now you are wasting your time and everyone else's. Alexbrn (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is clearly against FFN001. furthermore, phrases like this -Consequently, I am going to force a wording change. You have to do it because we need consensus and I am asking it to change. I am going to change it later today unless you change it first. No edit wars, it will change. are disruptive and wont go down well with people assessing behaviour on this page. You should calm down and listen to other editors here, and at Alexbrn's Talk page. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

What is wrong with what I’ve written? Change the single phrase “no good evidence” to something more scientific sounding and I go away. Why must it be “no good evidence”? It sounds hokey. FFN001 (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The current wording is a more accurate paraphrase correctly pitched for our readership (as others have already explained above). If you're going to do WP:DR then actually do it, rather than applying a WP:BLUDGEON here - it is becoming disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You say I am being disruptive but I feel completely marginalized. I don't mean to pick on you but that phrase "no good evidence" is misleading to lay people. It implies that studies have never found a link, which is obviously untrue. I really don't want to do the dispute, I am deeply perplexed by your response. Are you concerned that acknowledging any link, even a weak one, will cause lay people to believe MSG is a health risk?FFN001 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)