I sent Joe's question to the fellow on the Net that has studied MSG (and
aspartame) extensively. Here is his reply:
Written by: Mark Gold <[log in to unmask]>
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997, "Joe Ames Sr." <[log in to unmask]> asked:
>How do you explain the lack of reaction to high concentrations of naturally
>occurring MSG found in foods such as tomatoes and mushrooms, as well as
>many other foods ?
>These are consumed in large quantities by people who claim to have the
>litany of reactions to MSG.
>They apparently have no adverse reactions unless they are told that MSG is
>added.
Don, Here is how I look at the situation. Jack and Adrienne Samuels may
have a different perspective if you wanted to call them. I didn't include
references, but they can be found on my MSG page and in the aspartic acid
section of my draft scientific/historic review of aspartame.
Joe,
The food industry has a tendency to make associations that are often
meaningless. Let me give one example (if I may digress for just a
moment). For example, the food industry tried to say that
the methanol from aspartame is safe because methanol is found in
larger amounts in tomatoes, black currents, and other juices. The
problem with this is that one can easily show that if the methanol
from these foods was being converted to the toxic formaldehyde (as
happens when methanol is ingested by itself) we would be seeing the
same toxicity reactions from these foods as has been seen in
occupational methanol exposure since the levels of methanol exposure
can be similar. The lesson we learn from this is that traditionally-
eaten foods often have hundreds of chemicals which can drastically
change the absorption and metabolism of specific chemicals. In the
example above it can be pointed out that we know that ethanol
drastically changes the metabolism of methanol. Fructose may
change the metabolism of methanol as well.
In the case of MSG, there are a couple of issues: 1) absorbtion and
metabolism differences, and 2) chemical differences.
1) There are *many* experiments showing that taking MSG in liquid or
in food spikes the plasma glutamate levels *much* quicker and higher
than occurs by eating protein-rich foods. There has never been a
study showing that naturally-occurring MSG causes a similar plasma
glutamate spike. This may be because the naturally-occurring MSG
is bound up in the fiber to some extent and is therefore absorbed
very slowly. It may also be that one or more of many other
chemicals (released upon digest together with the MSG) in tomatoes
and mushrooms are changing the absorption or metabolism of the MSG.
What this appears to show is that the metabolism of naturally-
occurring MSG *is different* from that of added MSG (for the
reasons mentioned above or other possible reasons). Therefore,
any attempt to claim that naturally-occurring and added MSG are
the same ignores the different biochemical changes that are seen
after ingesting them.
2. Manufactured MSG appears to contain a much higher percentage of
D-glutamic acid and pyro-glutamic acid. In addition to these
differences, some forms of MSG added to foods contain heterocyclic
amines and chloropropanols.
>As I understand it, the FDA recently concluded a very long study regarding
>these reactions, and found no cause and effect. All that could be found
>was anecdotal hysteria.
This is incorrect as the FDA did not conduct research on MSG. If
they had it would certainly be suspect because of extreme bias. The
FDA is currently being sued by physicians and citizens because they
refuse to require labeling of MSG. Even when they do propose
labeling regulations, there are numerous loopholes which allow food
manufacturers to hide MSG using other names on the labels (known as
"clean labels" in the industry). Not only is the FDA being sued on
this issue, but they have repeatedly refused to turn over key documents
during the discovery process (despite the judges ruling demanding
that they must turn over the documents). Hopefully, they will be
cited for Contempt within a couple of months. Given this, it is
clear to all but the most naive persons would understand that any
statements from the FDA on this issue cannot be taken as unbiased
statements.
You may be referring to FASEB committees that were formed to look at
the effects of MSG. In 1992, a FASEB committee was formed to look at
the safety of ingesting various free-form amino acids such as
manufactured glutamic acid (essentially MSG). They concluded, in
part:
"...it is prudent to avoid the use of dietary
supplements of L-glutamic acid by pregnant women,
infants, and children. The Existence of evidence
of potential endocrine responses, i.e., elevated
cortisol and prolactin, and differential responses
between males and females, would also suggest a
neuroendocrine link and that supplemental L-
glutamic acid should be avoided by women of
childbearing age and individuals with affective
disorders." [Ask for "Safety of Amino Acids Use as
Dietary Supplements", FDA Contract No. 223-88-2124,
Task Order No. 8. (Page 166)]
Other very serious potential problems were discussed regarding
glutamic acid (MSG) ingestion, but more research needed to be done.
(Many of the dangers to the general population can be found in a
recent booked entitled, "Excitotoxins" by Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD.)
In 1994-1995, a FASEB committee was formed to look at hazards and
potential hazards of MSG. Unlike the earlier FASEB committee where
more independent scientists were appointed, a number of industry-
friendly scientists (including one who was listed as a MSG industry
expert for a "60 Minutes" broadcast, one who had had a conflict-of-
interest on this exact issue years earlier, and others).
When the results were presented to the FDA, it was apparently not to
the FDA's liking, so they changed the contract (a copy of which I
have) asking the FASEB committee to answer questions that could not
possibly allow them to make an appropriate risk assessment. The
original draft that was presented to the FDA had been sent to the
MSG industry and even referenced in a scientific publication, but no
independent scientists or individuals have received a copy to see
what the original assessment was (before the change in contact).
Even with all of the hurdles thrown up due to inappropriate
appointments to the Committee and a contract that prevents a proper
toxicological assessment, the Committee was not able to ignore the
independent research which has found problems with MSG. They did,
however, gloss over the fact that all industry research since 1978
had aspartame hidden in the drink mix so that the placebo group would
ingest that. There were many other serious problems with these
industry-funded, "double-blind" studies. They also glossed
discoveries which showed industry researchers giving animals brain-
protecting drugs before giving them MSG, recropping a picture from
an earlier experiment to show "no damage" in a later experiment, etc.
So, the Committee did find that Chinese Restaurant Syndrome, now
called MSG Symptom Complex does exist. They *did not* state that
they has been found a minimum individual dose required to cause these
symptoms as implied by the FDA. No one knows what that minimum dose
is.
As far as long-term damage from chronic ingestion, dangers to infant,
children, elderly, and pregnant women, the Committee was not able to
find absolute proof one way or the other but there is evidence
throughout the report of potential significant dangers to various
populations. For example:
"Carlson et al. (1989) reported significant increases in both serum
prolactin and cortisol after glutamate challenge."
....
"Although the functional consequences of such changes have not been
documented, the study of Dolnikoff et al. (1988) is provocative in
its finding of reduced suppression of corticosterone by dexamethasone
in rats exposed to MSG. If a parallel situation occurred in humans,
it would be of particular concern to individuals with affective
disorders (often characterized by an inability to suppress cortisol).
....
"The Expert Panel concluded that the report by Carlson et al. (1989)
while not definitive proof of a direct neuroendocrinological response
to ingested MSG, offers *evidence for the potential for such a
reaction."
A good *independent* overview of the scientific literature (presented
in an easy-to-understand format) can be found in the well-referenced
book, "Excitotoxins" by Russell Blaylock, MD. There are also various
reviews written by independent neuroscientists that are a good place
to start for those near a medical school library: NeuroToxicology,
Volume 15, Number 3, page 535-544 or Progress in Brain Research, Volume
86, page 37-51.
Best Wishes,
- Mark
[log in to unmask]
http://www.tiac.net/users/mgold/health.html
http://www.tiac.net/users/mgold/msg/msg.html
No Web Access? Email Me
|
