In article <1993Apr17.184435.19725@cunews.carleton.ca> wcsbeau@alfred.carleton.ca (OPIRG) writes: >Many people responded with more anecdotal stories; I think its safe to >say the original poster is already familiar with such stories. >Presumably, he wants hard info to substantiate or refute claims about >MSG making people ill.   There has been NO hard info provided about MSG making people ill. That's the point, after all.  >>Like youself?  Someone who can read a scientific paper and apparently >>come away from it with bizarrely cracked ideas which have nothing to >>do with the use of this substance in human nutrition? >Have you read Olney's work? I fail to see how citing results from >peer-reviewed studies qualifies as "bizarrely cracked".  That's because these "peer-reviewed" studies are not addressing the effects of MSG in people, they're looking at animal models. You can't walk away from this and start ranting about gloom and doom as if there were any documented deleterious health effects demonstrated in humans.  Note that I wouldn't have any argument with a statement like "noting that animal administration has pro- duced the following [blah, blah], we must be careful about its use in humans."  This is precisely NOT what you said.  >Tests have been done on Rhesus monkeys, as well. I have never seen a >study where the mode of administration was intra-ventricular.  The Glu >and Asp were administered orally. Some studies used IV and SC. >Intra-ventricular is not a normal admin. method for food tox. studies, >for obvious reasons. You must not have read the peer-reviewed works >that I referred to or you would never have come up with this brain >injection bunk.  It most certainly is for neurotoxicology.  You know, studies of glutamate involve more than "food science".  >Pardon me, but where are you getting this from? Have you read the >journals? Have you done a thorough literature search?  So, point us to the studies in humans, please.  I'm familiar with the literature, and I've never seen any which relate at all to Olney's work in animals and the effects of glutamate on neurons.  >The point is exceeding the window. Of course, they're amino acids. >Note that people with PKU cannot tolerate any phenylalanine.  Well, actually, they HAVE to tolerate some phenylalanine; it's a essential amino acid.  They just try to get as little as is healthy without producing dangerous levels of phenylalanine and its metabolites in the blood.  >Olney's research compared infant human diets. Specifically, the amount >of freely available Glu in mother's milk versus commercial baby foods, >vs. typical lunch items from the Standard American Diet such as packaged >soup mixes. He found that one could exceed the projected safety margin >for infant humans by at least four-fold in a single meal of processed >foods. Mother's milk was well below the effective dose.  Goodness, I'm not saying that it's good to feed infants a lot of glutamate-supplemented foods.  It's just that this "projected safety margin" is a construct derived from animal models and given that, you can "prove" anything you like.  We're talking prudent policy in infant nutrition here, yet you're misrepresenting it as received wisdom.  >>>Read Olney's review paper in Prog. Brain Res, 1988, and check *his* >>>sources. They are impecable. There is no dispute. >> >>Impeccable.  There most certainly is a dispute. > >Between who? Over what? I would be most interested in seeing you >provide peer-reviewed non-food-industry-funded citations to articles >disputing that MSG has no effects whatsoever.   You mean "asserting".  You're being intellectually dishonest (or just plain confused), because you're conflating reports which do not necessarily have anything to do with each other.  Olney's reports would argue a potential for problems in human infants, but that's not to say that this says anything whatsoever about the use of MSG in most foods, nor does he provide any studies in humans which indicate any deleterious effects (for obvious reasons.)  It says nothing about MSG's contribtion to the phenomenon of the "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome".  It says nothing about the frequent inability to replicate anecdotal reports of MSG sensitivity in the lab.  >>dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com  >Hmm. ".com". Why am I not surprised? >- Dianne Murray   wcsbeau@ccs.carleton.ca  Probably one of the dumber remarks you've made.