Talk:Monosodium glutamate

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)

I believe in characterizing the best sources correctly. If you're not going to try and resolve the dispute via DR, this matter is now closed. I shall not respond further since we're going round in circles. Alexbrn (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest rewriting and expanding that sentence ("no good evidence") to more closely match the Obayashi source. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This looks perfectly fine IMO "double-blind tests have found no good evidence to support this." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I meant: it would be worth expanding that to discuss the positive results at high concentrations, as per the abstract of that ref. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't follow why type 1 errors (falsely finding a positive result) can't be caused by a small sample size. Let's do a reductio ad absurdum and go with a sample size of one. If that sample just randomly happens to show the expected result, this would indicate a 100% correlation between the stimulus and the result (ignoring the inaccuracy caused by the sample size). StuRat (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to highlight that the industry ties mentioned above, provided that it is an accurate assessment, are not reflected in the article. I believe that it should be mentioned, as the respective research seems to be an important source of the article and neutralising or legitimising tendencies might turn out serious in the long term. lmaxmai (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Pakistan

For WP:PARITY concerns, I tried to find a source critical of the Dawn or Pakistan's view of MSG but my quick attempt failed. Interestingly, conspiracy theories about iodized salt ([1]) and MSG appear to be promoted in Pakistan. An earlier example in the Dawn: [2]. —PaleoNeonate – 01:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding: this is in response to this edit. —PaleoNeonate – 09:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the "on it being detrimental to general, and particularly cardiovascular, health" - it's an unsupported medical claim made in Wikipedia's voice, and irrelevant to the regulation section. --tronvillain (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the court's decision references effects that are explicitly countered by empirical study (as mentioned earlier in the Wikipedia article). And confusingly, a few news reports refer to the brand Ajinomoto. Was this particular brand of MSG banned, or is Ajinomoto a genericized trademark in Pakistan? Also, if I understand correctly, the head of the court-appointed commission completely failed to show up, which may indicate a less-than-thorough investigation. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking through some other articles, the brand seems to be essentially synonymous with MSG there, the other major label being the problematic "Chinese salt." --tronvillain (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Drop the Society and culture

That section is so ham-fisted and pointless. It relies on a majority of leftist outlets and really is indicative of the 'uninformed are racist/stupid' trope. Just axe it.

174.27.76.244 (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Has been attributed to xenophobic or racist attitudes?

The following content has been added (twice now) by ‎Cold Season:

The perpetuation of the negative image of MSG through the so-called Chinese Restaurant Syndrome has been attributed to xenophobic or racist attitudes, with people specifically targeting Asian cuisine whereas the widespread usage of MSG in western consumer goods (e.g. in processed food) doesn't generate the same stigma.

References

Discussion

I don't think the sourcing is good here, and the "has been attributed" construction is weasel wording. Why is this significant? Alexbrn (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It is significant, because Chinese Restaurant Syndome is a social issue with stigma in specifically Asian cuisine, and not an issue that has basis on in actual food safety. It is verifiable and notable. Vox Media and Al Jazeera are proper sources to report on the presence of social issues. Is there a reason why you want to give full weight on Chinese Restaurant Syndrome, but do not want to acknowledge the social aspect of a social topic? --Cold Season (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the eater.com source, I think there's a WP:V problem. Nowhere does it say anything like "the so-called Chinese Restaurant Syndrome has been attributed to xenophobic or racist attitudes". Rather the author of the piece frames a comment by Bourdain than CHinese restaurant syndrome is racist (it's "the Chinese guy") as relevant to MSG. Bourdain doesn't mention MSG and it's not clear he's even thinking of it. Alexbrn (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems clear to me and that's your speculative WP:OR, as the info reflects the source:

"Bourdain, on why the myth of MSG-is-bad-for-you persists: "You know what causes Chinese restaurant syndrome? Racism. ‘Ooh I have a headache; it must have been the Chinese guy.’""

--Cold Season (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I think what you could say from that is than Bourdain says Chinese Restaurant Syndrome is racist, and the eater.com writer framed it as a comment on MSG. It seeme tenuous - Bourdain doesn't mention MSG. Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Tell you what - I've reverted the content because on balance I think this is better in than out, though could do with some sprucing up. Sorry for the hiatus. Alexbrn (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've looked it up... The MSG part is also attested on the official site for Bourdain's series https://explorepartsunknown.com/sichuan/bourdain-off-the-cuff-sichuan/ --Cold Season (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Vetsin

Shouldn't it be mentioned that monosodium glutamate is also known as 'vetsin', and why? Jan Vlug (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably not, as it's not commonly used in English. Sakkura (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Migraine

I have reverted an edit today based on the edit comment, which is based on something allegedly said by a migraine expert. I would like to read the full quote, and background surrounding it. Migraines are only a small subset of headaches, and should not be generalised to cover this topic. I could be persuaded to change my mind, with adequate sourcing. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Labelling claim in US

The section on labelling in the US claims that as a "natural flavor", glutamic acid does not have to be declared. However, the reference [47] is regulations for labelling animal food, not human food. Any real source? JCBradfield (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)