Being the number one producer of MSG didn’t just happen

Ask successful business people and they’ll tell you that while it’s great to have a decent product, it’s really the marketing that counts. And there’s no better marketing tool than having the FDA follow your script, broadcast the virtues of your product, and ignore all data that say your product kills brain cells. Brain cells that if not obliterated would have regulated appetite (preventing obesity) and reproduction function (preventing infertility).

References:

Industry’s FDA: https://www.truthinlabeling.org/fda.html

Samuels, A. (2020). Dose dependent toxicity of glutamic acid: A review: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2020.1733016

Olney, J.W. (1969). Brain lesions, obesity, and other disturbances in mice treated with monosodium glutamate. Science 164: 719-721.


If you have questions or comments, we’d love to hear from you. If you have hints for others on how to avoid exposure to MfG, send them along, too, and we’ll put them up on Facebook. Or you can reach us at questionsaboutmsg@gmail.com and follow us on Twitter @truthlabeling.

Fact Checked?

People send us all kinds of articles, sometimes for information, sometimes to comment on. livestrong.com is one we’ve been seeing a lot of lately. Livestrong is the perfect venue for MSG-is-safe misinformation.

Every article about MSG has a certain sameness. Most important to industry is that the message you get, even if you don’t notice it, will be that MSG is perfectly safe. Sometimes the article will point out that MSG has gotten “a bad rap.” That was very popular for a while. Sometimes the story line revolves around there being less sodium in MSG than in table salt. That’s still circulating widely and is even mentioned in “The verdict on MSG: is it really safe to eat and where is it lurking?” one of the recent articles at livestrong.com.

To be effective, an article just has to make you think that MSG might be a safe food additive. It just has to make you doubt that MSG causes reactions you can see like obesity and migraine headache. The brain damage that can’t be confirmed unless an autopsy is done will never be mentioned.

“Everything You Need to Know About Food Ingredients and Additives” and the article it links to, “The Verdict on MSG: Is it really safe to eat and where is it lurking?” serve up lots of facts from various “authorities.” The hook is the claim that what they write is “fact checked” or “reviewed” before it is published. You, the reader, are supposed to believe you’re about to read something of merit that’s been meticulously researched. But behind the check mark link next to the words ‘Fact Checked’ is concealed the information that “fact checked” only means that “we’ve confirmed the information cited in it comes from reputable primary sources.” So, Ajinomoto, the company that produces MSG would be a reliable source for information on MSG, as would be their collaborators at the International Food Information Council, which has worked for them for years. And checking the truth of what is written is not considered.

A quick scan of the two articles we looked at suggested that all of their “experts” came through the glutamate industry. And when we looked a bit closer, it became obvious that neither authors April Benshosan nor Tiffany Ayuda, did any research of their own, but took material from Ajinomoto or one of its public relations firms and added some background material. Or maybe these ladies didn’t write the pair of articles at all. A simple Google search of “monosodium glutamate toxicity” turned up articles citing MSG toxicity by Niaz, Hyndman, Husarova, Nnadozie, Kayode and others who weren’t mentioned in the Livestrong.com articles. And authors Tiffany Ayuda and April Benshosan sure didn’t go to the website of the National Library of Medicine where “monosodium glutamate AND toxic” turned up 242 articles.

We checked out some of their “experts.” In 1990 the International Food Information Council (IFIC) was employed by Ajinomoto (producer of MSG) to scuttle, or do damage control, for the anticipated 60 Minutes program on MSG. Besides doing odd jobs for Ajinomoto, IFIC often parrots the disinformation that MSG is made by the same process used to produce beer, yogurt and sourdough bread. Actually, MSG is made using carefully selected genetically modified bacteria that secrete glutamate through their cell walls. Beer, yogurt and sourdough bread aren’t made that way. Tiffany Ayuda listed IFIC three times as a resource.

Mayo Clinic was used as the reference for “researchers haven’t been able to find a reliable link between MSG and allergy.” Taking things out of context is a specialty of the Glutes. The fact is that the reaction to MSG isn’t an allergic reaction. It’s a reaction to a poison. Allergic reactions are IgE mediated. Reactions to poisons are not. So, no informed person would dream that there would be a link between MSG and allergy. But the casual reader may not know that, and the sound bite makes good propaganda.

Bonnie Gaub-Dix, author of “Read it before you eat it” is quoted as saying that “MSG has been around or centuries…it is safe to consume…” But if they’d done their homework, Tiffany Ayuda and April Benshosan would have known that MSG was only invented around 1908, at which time it was made by extraction of glutamate from a protein source, with production of MSG limited by its slow and costly method. And they would have known that in 1957 Ajinomoto began producing the glutamate in MSG using genetically modified bacteria that excreted glutamate through their cell walls. And that it was only after there were sufficient quantities of glutamate in the food supply to cause that glutamate to become excitotoxic (killing brain cells), that the world began seeing MSG-induced reactions such as a-fib, seizures, and migraine headache – and behavior dysfunction, obesity and infertility caused by the brain damage that couldn’t be seen with the naked eye.

Women’s & Children’s Hospital (which one we don’t know) is another interesting resource. It’s strange that it is not included in the list of references following the article. It is also strange to find some allegedly authoritative source listing hydrolyzed and autolyzed products as containing MSG. They contain glutamate, the same toxic ingredient found in MSG, but they don’t contain the ingredient MSG. Wherever the list came from, it didn’t come from someone who had carefully researched MSG.

And then there’s the predictable industry clincher: “Researchers haven’t been unable to find a definite link between these symptoms and MSG.” (Just for fun, note the Freudian slip, “Unable.”)

Why predictable? Because every article put out by industry must deliver the message that MSG is harmless. And psychologists will tell you that what comes at the very beginning or at the very end of a story has the greatest impact.

The tarnished ‘gold standard’ of peer-reviewed studies

“Why we shouldn’t take peer review as the ‘gold standard,’” (1) which appeared in the Washington Post on August 1st, should be read by everyone who values their health and well-being.

The authors, Paul Thacker and Jon Tennant, bring to light the fact that shoddy work often makes it past peer reviewers while excellent research gets shot down. They explain how peer reviewers “often fail to detect bad research, conflicts of interest and corporate ghostwriting,” and that the practice is “neither golden nor standardized.”

At the Truth in Labeling Campaign we have spent roughly 30 years monitoring badly flawed research published by glutamate-industry agents, and are very familiar with a wide variety of insidious journal/industry cooperation.

For years the International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC) was the primary front organization responsible for production and publication of research for Ajinomoto (principal producer of MSG in the US). During that time the IGTC amassed a number of double-blind studies concluding — but not demonstrating — that MSG is safe. The fact that these studies were often done at generally respected universities or medical schools, all of which required that the research be approved by medical research review committees, had, and still has, public relations value. Subsequently, those studies were published in peer reviewed journals — accepted by editors who, themselves, often had ties to the food and/or drug industries.

If the “peers” who review the work of glutamate-industry representatives are themselves glutamate-industry representatives (or very close friends), that work is very likely to be published. Also consider the fact that the journals may have close ties to industry.  For example, the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology accepts advertising, and The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, acknowledges the generous support of members of the food and/or drug industries. Both of those journals publish glutamate-industry sponsored studies. 

When professional peer review journals hesitated to take articles from glutamate industry researchers because the flaws in their badly designed studies – such as lacing their placebos with excitotoxic aspartic acid (in aspartame) — had been pointed out to journal editors, those researchers held seminars and/or presented their papers at professional meetings with abstracts printed in appropriate journals. Studies reported in abstract form are not peer reviewed, and letters to the editor criticizing abstracts are not generally published. In the 1990s, the principal forum for such papers was the American Academy of Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology. In addition, there were journals that, by policy, do not accept critical letters. Food Additives and Contaminants is one. 

Not to be overlooked is suppression of information. When contradictory or embarrassing information has been published, those in positions of power block dissemination of that information. When critiques of deceptive and misleading research reports are offered for publication, those in positions of power refuse to publish them. When, prior to publication, criticism of deceptive and misleading research reports are anticipated, researchers publish their questionable research in journals that do not accept comment following publication, present their findings orally at industry-sponsored or professional meetings, or publish their findings in abstract form only. Neither oral presentations nor published abstracts are subject to peer review or to published criticism. In no case is it immediately obvious that the data or criticism of that data have been suppressed.

References and additional information can be found in The toxicity/safety of processed free glutamic acid (MSG): a study in suppression of information, by A. Samuels.  Account Res.1999;6:259-310.

If you have questions or comments, we’d love to hear from you. If you have hints for others on how to avoid exposure to MfG, send them along, too, and we’ll put them up on Facebook. Or you can reach us at questionsaboutmsg@gmail.com and follow us on Twitter @truthlabeling.

Reference


  1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-we-shouldnt-take-peer-review-as-the-gold-standard/2019/08/01/fd90749a-b229-11e9-8949-5f36ff92706e_story.html