Every time that public outcry or individual researchers challenge the safety of processed free glutamic acid (MSG), Ajinomoto Company, Inc. and other members of its International Glutamate Technical Committee, The Glutamate Association, and/or the International Glutamate Information Service (all referred to as the "glutes"), hire researchers or physicians with university affiliations to conduct studies designed to assure, convince, and/or persuade consumers that ingestion of processed free glutamic acid (MSG) is "safe." They also hire public relations firms to develop and disseminate propaganda touting the safety of MSG. (Samuels, A. The Toxicity/Safety of Processed Free Glutamic Acid MSG): A Study in Suppression of Information. Accountability in Research 6:259-310, 1999. http://www.truthinlabeling.org/l-manuscript.html)

A recent assault on the alleged "safety" of MSG came from a Japanese study where supplements of MSG fed to rats for either 3 months or 6 months damaged the rats' retinas. (Ohguro et al. A high dietary intake of sodium glutamate as flavoring (Ajinomoto) causes gross changes in retinal morphology and function. Experimental Eye Research 75:(3),2002)

The Truth in Labeling Campaign was excited  to learn of this new study.  Over time, we have observed that some MSG-sensitive people eat certain "fast foods" on a single day without experiencing adverse reactions that they associate with MSG ingestion.  Yet, when those same people ate that same "fast food" two or three days in a row, they had MSG reactions.  Now, Ohguro et al. have documented the fact that significant damage can be caused by repeated ingestion of MSG.

Evidently, the "glutes" were excited too, for they responded immediately with a press release placed with PR Newswire.  That press release appeared on the Internet and was carried world wide. (http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news/)  It contained the same omissions, distortions of the truth, half-truths, and down right lies we have grown to expect when the "glutes" have their backs to the wall. (http://www.truthinlabeling.org/l-manuscript.html)

Since 1969, the "glutes," along with the International Food Information Council (IFIC), one of their most active agents, have disseminated propaganda designed to persuade the public to ignore the sound science and the reports of countless people who tell us that MSG places consumers at risk. The justification for much of their propaganda has come from methodologically unsound double-blind studies wherein, for example, the "glutes" gave subjects MSG and/or aspartame in both test material and placebos, and then pretended to be surprised that as many subjects reacted to placebos as reacted to the test material. (http://www.truthinlabeling.org/l-manuscript.html)

The "glutes" immediate PR Newswire press release was actually written in response to an October 26, 2002 New Scientist review of  the Ohguro et al. retinal study.  This is as would be expected, because the New Scientist review would have been widely read, and would, therefore, require damage control.

We anticipate that the "glutes'" response to the Ohguro et al. retinal study itself will be sent to Experimental Eye Research shortly.  We would guess that as this is being written, the "glutes" are writing to Experimental Eye Research, "explaining" where, in their opinion, Ohguro et al. went wrong in their research.  Next, we would expect the "glutes" to ask that Ohguro et al. allow them (the "glutes") to underwrite another study designed to refute the original Ohguro et al. findings.  We would further anticipate that the International Glutamate Technical Committee will move immediately to set up one or more studies allegedly replicating the Ohguro et al. study using the University of Iowa, the University of California at Davis, UCLA, Harvard University Medical School, Northwestern University Medical School, Scripps Research Institute (LaJolla, California), the Medical College of Virginia, the University of Ottawa (Canada), or one of the schools in Australia that have recently done research overseen and funded by the International Glutamate Technical Committee.  The "glutes" have been pretending to "replicate" sound scientific animal research since 1969, but have never actually replicated a single study.

We have reproduced the "glutes" PR Newswire release below for those who are not familiar with the "glutes'" particular method of setting out disinformation. We have used italics to refer to quotes from the "glutes" propaganda published in the PR Newswire release. We have used bold print to point out their omissions, distortions of the truth, half-truths, and down right lies. To read just the PR Newswire article, read only the italics.

LONDON, Oct. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Allegations about glutamate which appeared in the media on October 23 [October 26, 2002 New Scientist] ignore the wealth of scientific evidence which demonstrates the safety of glutamate.

Distortion of fact. The October 26, 2002 article in the New Scientist discussed the Ohguro et al. study of the effects of processed free glutamic acid (MSG) on the retina.  Data were reported.  There were no "allegations" made in the New Scientist article.

This would not be the first time that the "glutes," appeared to feel the need for a platform from which to address the public about the "safety" of MSG.  The Ohguro et al. study gave them nothing of substance to argue with, so, it would appear, they invented their own arguments.

What the "glutes" refer to as the "wealth of scientific evidence" which demonstrates that MSG is "safe," is made up of studies so badly flawed that we have come to refer to them as being flawed to the point of being fraudulent.  With possible rare exception, the "wealth of scientific evidence" has been funded by Ajinomoto Company, Inc., members of Ajinomoto's International Glutamate Technical Committee, or their agents.  (http://www.truthinlabeling.org/l-manuscript.html)

It is impossible to design research that demonstrates the absolute safety of any product.  One can demonstrate that a group of subjects treated one way has more or fewer reactions to test material such as MSG than a group of subjects treated another way; and using statistics, one can calculate the probability that any difference found occurred by chance.  But a study that shows that an ingredient like MSG has no effect on a group of subjects may only be demonstrating that the researchers setting up the study looked for the wrong thing, in the wrong place, and/or at the wrong time -- or that the researchers used inappropriate test materials, placebos, and/or subjects, and/or failed to control other relevant variables.

Omission/distortion. The reader must not overlook the fact that the "glutes" failed to acknowledge the fact that the purpose of the Ohguro et al. study was to investigate the effects of glutamate accumulation in vitreous on retinal structure and function due to a diet high in MSG.  Ohguro et al. did what they proposed to do, i.e., they set up an experiment to investigate an hypothesis and they published their findings.  Their findings included the fact that ingestion of MSG caused both glutamate accumulation in vitreous and impairment of retinal structure and function.  In their report, they concluded that a diet with excess MSG over a period of several years may increase glutamate concentrations in vitreous and may cause retinal cell destruction; and they recommended further study.

Glutamate is a natural part of our food supply and occurs in many foods we consume as part of our normal diet including tomatoes, mushrooms, fish, meat, cereals and cheese.  It is also a component of mother's milk.

Not the whole truth.  Not all glutamate is a natural part of our food supply.  Only "unadulterated" glutamate occurs "naturally" in many foods we consume as part of our normal diet -- foods including fresh, unprocessed, unadulterated, unfermented, tomatoes, mushrooms, fish, meat, and grains.  The "unadulterated" glutamate that occurs "naturally" in many foods is L-glutamic acid -- a single amino acid which carries with it no contaminants.  The glutamate that is "introduced" into foods is always accompanied by contaminants, including D-glutamic acid and pyroglutamic acid. To claim otherwise is a bold faced lie. (http://www.truthinlabeling.org/manufac.html)

Cereals and cheese found in grocery stores are processed products.  With rare exception, both will contain:

Glutamate that has been grown on bacteria through a manufacturing process prior to inclusion in the cereal or cheese;

Glutamate that has been freed from protein through a manufacturing process prior to inclusion in the cereal or cheese; or

Glutamate that is freed from protein during processing or manufacture of the cereal or cheese.

This processed free glutamic acid, which many MSG-sensitive consumers refer to as MSG, contains D-glutamic acid, pyroglutamic acid, and various other contaminants along with the L-glutamic acid.  It is true that the "L-glutamic acid" portions of both truly natural (unprocessed, unfermented, unadulterated) glutamic acid and processed free glutamic acid (MSG) are identical.  The flaw in the glutamate industry argument about truly natural and processed glutamic acid being identical is that truly natural glutamic acid does not bring contaminants with it, while processed free glutamic acid (MSG) always contains contaminants.

Glutamate is also a component of mothers' milk.  If mother has not consumed any processed free glutamic acid (MSG), the glutamic acid in that milk will be L-glutamic acid, only.  It will not cause MSG adverse reactions in infants ingesting it.

Consider, however, what every nursing mother knows: that the food she ingests can affect her infant, causing, at minimum, such things as gastric distress.  Sound scientific evidence has demonstrated that processed free glutamic acid (MSG) can cross the placental barrier and affect the fetus carried by the mother, causing learning and behavior deficits.

(Gao, J, Wu, J, Zhao, XN, Zhang, WN, Zhang, YY, Zhang, ZX. [Transplacental neurotoxic effects of monosodium glutamate on structures and functions of specific brain areas of filial mice.] Sheng Li Hsueh Pao Acta Physiologica Sinica. 46:44-51,1994)

(Yu, T, Zhao, Y, Shi, W, Ma, R, Yu, L. Effects of maternal oral administration of monosodium glutamate at a late stage of pregnancy on developing mouse fetal brain. Brain Research 747(2):195-206, 1997.)

(Frieder, B, Grimm, VE. Prenatal monosodium glutamate (MSG) treatment given through the mother's diet causes behavioral deficits in rat offspring. Int J Neurosci. 1984 Apr;23(2):117-26.)

We have seen no data that speak to the question of whether or not the contaminants associated with processed free glutamic acid (MSG) will be found in mothers' milk.  Thus we suspect, but do not know, that the milk of a mother in the habit of ingesting processed free glutamic acid (MSG) may cause adverse reactions in her infant.

The body treats glutamate in exactly the same way whether it comes from these foods or is added as seasoning to food as monosodium glutamate.

Not the truth.  Not at all. Processed free glutamic acid (MSG), which is added to foods in over 40 ingredients, one of which is known as "monosodium glutamate," has been shown to cause brain lesions, neuroendocrine disorders, and learning and behavior deficits in laboratory animals (http://www.truthinlabeling.org/Dang.html).  Processed free glutamic acid (MSG) also causes adverse reactions ranging from simple skin rash to asthma, heart irregularities, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, gastric distress, seizures, and depression in animals and humans.  Truly natural glutamate (glutamate that has not been freed from protein by fermentation, hydrolysis, enzymolysis, or other forms of processing, or through Ajinomoto's process of secreting glutamate from the cell walls of selected bioengineered bacteria) does not cause adverse reactions (http://www.truthinlabeling.org/adversereactions.html).

Glutamate also has important nutritional benefits.  It is, for example, the main source of energy for the cells of the digestive system.

Not the whole truth.  L-glutamic acid does have important nutritional benefits.  But humans do not have to eat L-glutamic acid or eat food that contains L-glutamic acid to reap those benefits.  L-glutamic acid is  a "non-essential" amino acid.  "Non-essential" because the body produces L-glutamic acid when needed.  It is not essential that L-glutamic acid be available in food.

Again, L-glutamic acid does have important nutritional benefits.  But the contaminants that accompany processed free glutamic acid (MSG), do not.  When processed free glutamic acid (MSG) is made through acid hydrolysis of protein, for example, mono and dichloro propanols are formed.  Mono and dichloro propanols are carcinogenic.

Glutamic acid has other properties which members of The Glutamate Association rarely, if ever, mention.  L-glutamic acid is a neurotransmitter, causing nerves to fire as messages are transmitted. Excess amounts of glutamic acid applied to nerves cause those nerves to fire repeatedly until they die.  There is no science that tells us how much glutamic acid is "excess" glutamic acid.

The first reports of retinal degeneration caused by glutamic acid appeared in 1957.  The findings that glutamic acid causes retinal degeneration have been replicated many times. (http://www.truthinlabeling.org/Retinal.html).

Scientists have known for over 30 years that there are glutamate receptors (nerves that fire when stimulated by glutamic acid) in the brain and spinal cord of the central nervous system.  But it is only recently that peripheral glutamate receptors (glutamate receptors outside of the central nervous system) have been recognized.  Glutamate receptors on the tongue, for example, account for the flavor enhancing properties of the processed free glutamic acid (MSG) in "monosodium glutamate," "autolyzed yeast," and other flavor enhancing ingredients. (Glutamate has no taste of its own.  Rather, glutamate stimulates nerves on the tongue, making them more sensitive to food being ingested, which causes the eater to perceive greater taste.)  Similarly, glutamate receptors in the lungs may account for MSG-induced asthma, and glutamate receptors in the stomach may account for MSG-induced diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, and gastric distress.

Generally the amount of glutamate added to food as seasoning is in the range of 0.1% to 0.8% of the food consumed.

That may or may not be true.  Regardless, it is irrelevant.  Schaumburg et al. (Schaumburg, HH, Byck, R, Gerstl, R, and Mashman, JH. Monosodium L-glutamate: its pharmacology and role in the Chinese restaurant syndrome. Science 163:826-828,1969.) and Allen et al. ( Allen, DH, Delohery, MB, Baker, G. Monosodium L-glutamate-induced asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 80(4):530-537.) found that as little as .5 grams of processed free glutamic acid (MSG) could cause adverse reactions in some people.  Moreover, there has been no research which has explored the least amount of processed free glutamic acid (MSG) needed to cause brain lesions, neuroendocrine disorders, retinal degeneration, learning and behavior deficits, asthma, seizures, atrial fibrillation, tachycardia, migraine headache, depression, or other reactions known to be caused by processed free glutamic acid (MSG).

Adverse reactions to processed free glutamic acid (MSG) are dose dependent just as are adverse reactions to many other substances to which people are allergic or sensitive.  In addition, there is anecdotal evidence coming from MSG-sensitive people that suggests that repeated ingestion of processed free glutamic acid (MSG) at a given level may cause adverse reactions while a single instance of ingestion of processed free glutamic acid (MSG) at the same level may not.  We who have reviewed countless reports of adverse reactions following ingestion of processed free glutamic acid (MSG) hypothesize that reactions might be caused by MSG (from processed food) accumulating at the site of sensitive glutamate receptors rather than accumulating in the blood stream.  That is consistent with the suggestion made by Ohguro et al. following their retinal study, that a diet with excess MSG over a period of several years my increase glutamate concentrations in vitreous and may cause retinal cell destruction.

The allegations about the safety of glutamate were made by a researcher in Japan who fed laboratory rats a diet, almost 20% of which was glutamate. This is an extremely high dose which is obviously irrelevant to human consumption.

Distortion of fact. The October 26, 2002 article in the New Scientist discussed the Ohguro et al. study of the effects of processed free glutamic acid (MSG) on the retina.  Data were reported.  There were no "allegations" made in the New Scientist article.

Omission/Distortion of the truth.  Ohguro et al. fed some rats 110 grams, 10 grams of which were MSG.  That would be 9.1% MSG.  (Ohguro et al. also fed some rats 120 grams, 20 grams of which was MSG.  That would be 16.7% MSG.)

Propaganda.  Historically, defenders of the safety of MSG have devised and circulated propaganda designed to cause consumers to dismiss any notion that use of MSG might place consumers at risk.  First, the defenders of the safety of MSG argued that animal studies were irrelevant to the human condition.  Then they argued that animals studies demonstrating the toxic potential of MSG were irrelevant because they were not feeding studies, but were, instead, studies where glutamic acid was injected into the animals, not fed to them.

Those statements, however, are not entirely true.  First, no study that points to the potential toxicity of anything we eat or breathe is irrelevant.  Second, among the studies that demonstrated that MSG causes brain lesions, endocrine disorders, and learning disabilities, there were feeding studies.

The feeding study which seems to have provoked the "glutes" attack, evidently posed a new threat to the glutamate industry's claim that MSG is "safe;" a threat calling for a new argument.  As the fact that this study of retinal degeneration is a feeding study can not be denied, the "glutes" have changed their propaganda line to claiming that the "extremely high dose [of MSG used] is obviously irrelevant to human consumption."

"Obviously irrelevant?"  Those are the words of researchers and/or public relations people on the payroll of the glutamate industry.  Those are the words of people who, either directly or indirectly, have an investment in denying that MSG might place consumers at risk.

Even the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which has been shown to have close ties to the glutamate industry, has admitted that processed free glutamic acid (MSG) causes some adverse reactions in some people (http://www.truthinlabeling.org/l-manuscript).

Ohguro et al, authors of the retinal degeneration study being discussed, concluded that "The present study suggests that a diet with excess sodium glutamate over a period of several years may increase glutamate concentrations in vitreous and may cause retinal cell destruction."

Hundreds of scientific studies have been conducted on glutamate with a focus on its use as a food ingredient.

There may have been hundreds of scientific studies, but not very many of them have been published.  By and large, those that have been published have been published in journals where the editors have done work, directly or indirectly, for the Glutamate Association, or journals that accept advertising.  Since the "glutes" use of toxic material in placebos was exposed a number of years ago, publication of "glute" material has generally been limited to abstracts and studies that have been part of symposia -- non of which are peer reviewed.

With possible rare exception, these alleged "scientific studies" have been financed by Ajinomoto Company, Inc., or by members of its International Glutamate Technical Committee or its Glutamate Association.   Taken as a whole, they make up a body of research that is flawed to the point of being fraudulent (http://www.truthinlabeling.org/l-manuscript).

This extensive body of research [regarding the safety of MSG] has been reviewed by scientists and regulatory authorities around the world including the Joint Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Health Organisation, the EU Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) and the United States' Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  All of these authorities have concluded that the ingredient is safe.

"This extensive body of research" -- but little or no research produced by independent scientists that demonstrated that processed free glutamic acid (MSG) has toxic potential -- was reviewed by the international agencies mentioned.  Review of the lists of materials reviewed by each, makes this abundantly clear.  Not one of these international "authoritative" bodies did an independent review of all relevant studies.

The FDA has conducted a number of reviews, which, the FDA has concluded, in its media presentations, show that processed free glutamic acid (MSG) is safe.  However, a careful review of the FDA's work over the years has shown us that they have worked carefully with The Glutamate Association and the International Glutamate Technical Committee: staffing the reviewers with people from the glutamate industry; providing only glutamate industry generated studies to be reviewed by so called "independent" reviewers; limiting reviews to consideration of questions that could have no responses that would have called into question the safety of MSG; and/or ignoring data, including testimony from independent scientists and MSG-sensitive people that demonstrated that use of processed free glutamic acid (MSG) places consumers at risk.

The food ingredient "monosodium glutamate" does not have a long history of use.  It was invented in or about 1908, but was not brought to the United States in any quantity until after World War II.  At that time, it was made primarily through acid hydrolysis of protein, a slow and costly method.

In 1957, Ajinomoto changed its primary mode of production to one of bacterial fermentation, wherein glutamate is secreted through the cell walls of selected genetically modified bacteria into a liquid medium and accumulated there.  At about the same time, U.S. food laws were changed to allow the use of "fake foods;" and from that time forth, the use of processed foods, including the use of all forms of processed free glutamic acid (MSG) has escalated.  The first published report of adverse reactions to processed free glutamic acid (MSG) appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1968 (http://www.truthinlabeling.org/l-manuscript).

Accurate information about glutamate can be found at http://www.glutamate.org/

This is the Web site of The Glutamate Association.  These people are paid to say that MSG is safe.

A detailed analysis of the story which appeared in New Scientist can be found at http://www.glutamate.org/media/news.htm

This is the Web site of The Glutamate Association.  These people are paid to say that MSG is safe.

 

KEEP THIS WEB PAGE ONLINE with YOUR TAX-DEDUCTIBLE CONTRIBUTION TO THE TRUTH IN LABELING CAMPAIGN 850 DeWitt Place, Suite 20B, Chicago, IL  60611

adandjack@aol.com 858/481-9333 http://www.truthinlabeling.org

This page was last updated on July 1, 2004.

IF MSG ISN'T HARMFUL, WHY IS IT HIDDEN?