Research Chef: You’re Not Allergic to MSG and More Culinary Secrets | Hacker News Reader

Research Chef: You’re Not Allergic to MSG and More Culinary Secrets

chow.com

92 pointscwan85 comments

The actual troublemaker is free glutamic acid, a molecule with flavor-enhancing properties. It's one of the basic amino acids that make up proteins. No one reacts badly when they eat it if it's linked up to other amino acids, but when it's running around free it causes reactions in some people.

A largish dose of free glutamic acid will trigger a migraine for me (and my dad) consistently. It's anecdotal, but I'm confident that this particular anecdote would hold up in a double-blind test.

Monosodium glutamate (MSG) disassociates into sodium and free glutamic acid in food; that's why it's often added. But any ingredient that contains broken up protein can be an issue; e.g. hydrolyzed soy protein or autolyzed yeast extract. MSG has a bad rep, so often foodmakers will try to slip free glutamic acid in some other way (often while shouting on the package, "NO MSG").

Food that benefits a lot from the flavor enhancer, such as canned soups, will almost always have a lot of it. Lots of stuff has _some_ amount of free glutamic acid (such as broccoli, like the article mentions) but (speaking personally), it's not enough to trigger a reaction.

There aren't many foods our ancestors would've eaten that contained lots of free glutamic acid. We're talking about the same molecule that serves as an excitatory neurotransmitter in your brain. It turns out that if you eat a lot of it, it's possible to get a headache (other people claim other ailments). Not much is known about the specifics of the mechanism, but it's not that implausible.

So, you can't eat parm or tomato paste then? Both have high levels of free glutamic acid.

More on glutamates in parmesan and tomatoes (agrees with tptacek): http://blog.khymos.org/2007/07/06/glutamic-acid-in-tomatoes-...

I avoid parmesan cheese, but I didn't know about tomato paste. Thanks for the heads up.

We're talking about the same molecule that serves as an excitatory neurotransmitter in your brain. It turns out that if you eat a lot of it, it's possible to get a headache (other people claim other ailments). Not much is known about the specifics of the mechanism, but it's not that implausible.

The blood-brain barrier makes this completely implausible.

Does it? The blood-brain barrier lets lots of stuff pass, primarily restricting large molecules and hydrophilic molecules. Some, like glucose for instance, are specifically pulled through. I would expect amino-acid monomers would go right through. Prions, misfolded proteins consisting of many monomers, certainly manage to pass through, or no one would ever get the associated diseases.

Carrageenan is on a lot of labels, and I'm often asked, 'What is that chemical?' It's not a chemical. It's seaweed!

Actually, it is very much a chemical. All food is chemicals. It's just perverted advertising that convinced the masses that chemical = "something bad".

For more sad laughter on this topic, the Royal Society of Chemistry's blog has a category for "chemical free" living:

http://prospect.rsc.org/blogs/rsc/tag/100-chemical-free/

They even announced a £1 million bounty for anyone who can find a chemical-free cosmetic:

http://www.rsc.org/AboutUs/News/PressReleases/2010/CTPA100Ch...

Absolutely. All food is made up of component chemicals. Still, I think people need to be more aware of the food they are eating.

Have you ever had a look at the ingredients in non-dairy creamer: http://foodconstrued.com/2011/01/cream-in-my-coffee/

I agree completely that we need to be aware of what we eat. My concern is that we're using really bad terminology to scare people.

A much better word would be "artificial" or "synthetic" additive IMHO.

Which would be only marginally more specific. Humans have been eating "artificial", "synthetic" foods for thousands of years, and all of these things are made from "natural" ingredients because matter can't be conjured from thin air. Can you really come up with a test to distinguish between a just-invented stabilizing agent with unknown long-term effects on health and, say, flour?

Carrageenan also causes all sorts of cancer in rats - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...

Interesting. I haven't heard about that. Wikipedia has a nice simple overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrageenan#Health_concerns

Actually, it is very much a chemical. All food is chemicals.

That's literally true, but not the intended meaning. Chemical has become a synonym for "man-made". It's a useful distinction. If you were forced to choose between eating 100g of a random "chemical" molecule, or 100g of a random "natural" molecule, you would be much better off with the latter.

True, scientific studies can show that chemical X is harmless, but.... only if the study was done over a very long time. Only if it was done properly. Only if the scientists didn't receive their financing from BigCo.

It's perfectly reasonable to be wary of "chemicals", heuristically.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not one of these people living in mistrust of chemicals. But I understand where they're coming from, especially if they have a poor grasp of science. A reasonable move for Kasparov (e.g.: sacrificing his queen for tactical advantage) might be a terrible move for me in the same situation.

> If you were forced to choose between eating 100g of a random "chemical" [man-made] molecule, or 100g of a naturally occurring molecule, you would be much better off with the latter.

How about some supporting evidence? (I assume that you're excluding man-made molecules which are also found in nature, but if you're not, please explain where you're putting them and why.)

I think there are two parts to what you're saying: "chemical" molecules are, as I said elsewhere in this thread, are better described as artificial or synthetic. We agree on that, but I disagree that it's reasonable to be wary of chemicals - it's a triumph of rubbish marketing.

The other part is the assumption that "natural" molcules are inherently better. There is no difference between naturally-occuring vitamin C vs synthetic vitamin C. Also, there are lots of naturally-occuring molcules you don't want in you.

The other part is the assumption that "natural" molcules are inherently better.

I wouldn't say "inherently better", but...

Through evolution, we've adapted to molecules present in the environment, and because other organisms have similar tolerance to toxins, eating them is usually safer than eating a random substance.

It's just a heuristic, of course, reasonable people may disagree. I was just pointing out that the OP's position is not "obviously dumb".

I disagree that it's reasonable to be wary of chemicals - it's a triumph of rubbish marketing.

It goes both way: companies producing artificial products (including drugs) have massive advertising budgets, but there's no ad touting the merits of oranges and tap water.

Honest question: if I find a new mammalian species and try to sell its meat, do I need FDA approval?

EDIT: In your top post, you're objecting to the man's argument that "it's natural therefore it's safe". I agree with you that it's naive in this context. I guess I misread your post and argued against something else :/

"Through evolution, we've adapted to molecules present in the environment"

Flows both ways, though. Through evolution, our biological enemies have come up with the nastiest chemicals they can.

Natural vs. "man made chemicals" people often forget that on the whole, Nature is out to kill you. The most potent known toxin is called Botulinum toxin and is named after the bacteria that produces it (or vice versa).

Sometimes nature is out to cooperate with you or merely take advantage of you, for example: fruit.

I don't think the intent is to kill with poisons as much as to serve the ultimate goal of most organisms, self preservation.

>If you were forced to choose between eating 100g of a random "chemical" molecule, or 100g of a random "natural" molecule, you would be much better off with the latter.

Here, have a delicious puffer fish. I prepared it myself!

Rating chemicals by whether or not they occur naturally is a really piss-poor way of judging danger. There is a practically unlimited number of naturally occurring chemicals what will knock you dead, and there are similarly tones of synthesized chemicals that are completely harmless, or even beneficial. Bringing "synthesized vs. naturally" is always disingenuous, we have had better ways of judging danger since the dark ages.

You make a good point, though I wish you hadn't called mine retarded.

we have had better ways of judging danger since the dark ages.

That's true. And if you trust scientists and the FDA to do their jobs, you're all set. But what if you don't? Let's say that I'm at the supermarket in a small, poor country with a corrupt FDA, and I want to buy some juice. Well, I'm going to favor those brands with natural ingredients (and hope that the ingredient list is correct). Maybe that's a stupid move, but it has served me well so far.

"You make a good point, though I wish you hadn't called mine retarded."

Apologies, I sometimes forget some people find that word particularly offensive.

No problem! In fairness, this "pick a random chemical component" idea was at least moderately retarded, and most worthy of criticism.

I think this comes up because natural substances tend to have a longer history of usage. I'd take a natural additive that has been generally proven safe by 500 years of human history over a synthetic chemical that was (supposedly) shown to be reasonably safe through 5 years of lab testing.

Until very recently lead and mercury were commonly considered to be swell things to ingest as medicine. With the exception of "these berries taste good and these berries will kill you"^, history of human consumption is a pretty bad thing to go by.

^ and they even messed this up on occasion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#History

At least we have a long history of data on which to base conclusions. Unlike some of the stuff Monsanto is eager to spray on your food, lead wasn't invented in a lab last year. And see how long it took for the harmful effects to become apparent? Longer than a FDA testing cycle, definitely!

As for tomatoes, there was a serious lack of information regarding many topics in Europe at that time. Did the people living in lands to which the tomato is indigenous suffer from that misperception?

Anyway, the point is to analyze these substances based on what we know now, not what someone thought 250 years ago.

To ingest, use as cosmetics . . you name it they tried it. A long history of use is neither a sign of safety or efficacy, but try telling the non scientific public that.

Lead, mercury, and Tobaco where known to be unsafe before I was born. That's a fairly long time from my perspective. Also, in the short term they are reasonably safe. It's only because we can look at long term exposure that we understand how harmful these things are.

I personally wish the FDA "Generally Regarded as Safe" list were more well-known. I think "GRAS" would make a good replacement for "natural."

The problem is that some non-natural chemicals are GRAS, and the people who make the most noise about 'all-natural' will never accept them as being benign.

If you were forced to choose between eating 100g of a random "chemical" molecule, or 100g of a random "natural" molecule, you would be much better off with the latter.

That is a distinctly ignorant and biased statement. Go eat 100g of sand, of seawater, tree bark, crude oil, or algae. Notice how I stacked the deck in that list, as these are just naturally occurring things not merely chemicals. Try eating 100g of caffeine, botulinum toxin, vitamin E, nicotine, DNA, warfarin, morphine, or ricin.

Nature is far from harmless, it's merely familiar so that we are more prone to accept whatever degree of harm it holds as, well, "natural". Man-made novel chemical compounds are not all harmless either, but imagining that there is a firm barrier between "natural" and "man-made" and that one category is far and away safer than the other is superstitious thinking.

The article's author demonstrates poor analytical skills.

Regarding poisons themselves, they all depend on how much you ingest. How much salt do you eat? Three pounds a day? Salt is a poison and if you eat too much you can get sick and die. Almonds contain cyanide. People eat almonds without dying. Does that mean cyanide is a beneficial substance in all quantities?

Regarding allergens there are similar dynamics. Someone allergic to cat dander will be able to walk down a street where cats have been. But they may not be able to sleep well in a bed that is normally occupied by 100 cats. Or consider peanuts. Someone allergic to peanuts will not do well eating a peanut butter sandwich. But most of them can handle being in the presence of peanuts, despite hysterical media reports of people dying after kissing someone who had recently eaten a peanut, all stories of which were discredited.

Glutamate content of some foods (mg per 100g) roquefort cheese 1280 parmesan cheese 1200 soy sauce 1090 walnuts 658 fresh tomato juice 260 grape juice 258 peas 200 mushrooms 180 broccoli 176 tomatoes 140 mushrooms 140 oysters 137 corn 130 potatoes 102 chicken 44 mackerel 36 beef 33 eggs 23 human milk 22

So people are claiming "It is in human breast milk and beef and eggs!" Yes, 22mg to 33mg of glutamates per 100g. Up at the top, parmesan is 1200mg per 100g. How much parmesan do you eat exactly? Is this a cheese that you slice off in giant wedges and gnaw on? Or is it grated and used like a spice in relatively small amounts by weight?

> Chef Wendy, who works for a Canadian firm that develops private-label products for companies like Whole Foods, Safeway, General Mills, and McDonald's, would prefer not to reveal her last name, but that was the last thing she was reticent about.

So, uh, why did she put her real name on her Chow.com account, then? Once I had that, it only took a Google search to find out where she works.

Probably because nothing discussed in the article is actually something her employers would be worried about. The whole secrecy seems to be there to add sexiness and authority to the article. In fact the way she and her personal work and values are presented I would be pretty happy if I was her employer.

Who made that microwave burrito you're eating..."It's all in code," says Chef Wendy. If the product has meat, poultry, or eggs in it, by law it must have an establishment number or name somewhere on the label

I wonder if there is an opportunity for a mobile app where you scan a food barcode/code and see where it was made. You could rate the food and see ratings of other foods made by that company / at that facility.

The data is here: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/Meat_Pou...

A local jam/sauce maker, Beerenberg, has a Provenance Pathway feature on their site:

http://www.beerenberg.com.au/go/our-products/provenance-path...

Enter the barcode and expiry of the product and it will show you the recipe, when/where it was made, photos of the workers involved in its production, description of the process, the source of each ingredient, packing specs, etc.

Big deal, so it's not a real allergy. When I eat food containing a lot of added MSG, my brain feels like it's on fire. Maybe it's not anaphylaxis but it's still annoying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate#Health_con...

On one hand most of the linked studies were likely paid for by food companies. On the other hand, considering the wide variety of sources that MSG averse people don't react to, claims that it's psychosomatic seem fairly reasonable.

This is one double-blind test that would be fairly easy to do with friends.

Try it at home, kids?

What are the foods you eat that you perceive as containing a lot of added MSG? Maybe there's something else they have in common. Insulin responses can easily and predictably give you a headache.

Two foods have reliably caused symptoms that I connect with MSG: the fried rice from one particular place near where I went to school, and Doritos. I can eat equivalent amounts of other fried rice or corn chips without symptoms.

I think I get a similar thing. A weird overwhelming sensation then a rush of fire in the neck and then brain on fire. Always at a chinese restaurant, with specific dishes.

My favorite part? The mystery chef actually appears in the comments herself.

Overall, though, the article is rather light on actual content.

For reference, the link to Whole Foods "Unacceptable Ingredients" list is here: http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/products/unacceptable-ingred...

Wow. Which - of - those - things - is - not - like - the - othhhhers?

[edit after downvote: it was the foie gras].

The list mentioned in the article was about Trader Joe's.

The Whole Foods list was also mentioned in the article.

Chef Wendy says it's absolutely possible to make a frozen meal that will knock you out of your chair with greatness. "But that entrée needs to cost $7 to $10. People are willing to spend that much in a restaurant for something mediocre but not for something fabulous from the grocery store."

I would pay that in a second. I cook for myself and it ends up costing around $7 a dinner.

Okay, either you are cooking with some seriously high-end ingredients, live in an insanely high cost of living area, or you're doing something wrong.

I highly doubt that a prepackaged frozen meal that costs $10 is going anywhere near as tasty as what you can make at home for $7 a meal.

plenty of people are simply abysmal at any form of 'cooking' more complicated than a microwave. the list of skills you could learn that would save you a couple bucks here and there is far longer than your arm. we can't expect everyone to have every money-saving skill, or the time to actually put them to use.

(yes, everyone eats food so that seems like an 'obvious' one, but everyone also uses indoor plumbing, electricity, has a roof over their head, etc, and i hear far fewer folks suggesting that we all learn roofing.)

Frankly, as an "immigrant" to the big city, I found myself constantly flabbergasted by the things most people couldn't do that we'd just sort of taken as said back in my little Northern Ontario mining community. Hell, I even remember a minor rush on the documents supply trade when someone decided you weren't allowed to wipe your solder joints anymore when plumbing (there wasn't a plumbing code book to be found for miles around for months). Yeah, there was always that guy who couldn't swing a hammer to save his life, but he'd almost always know what to do even if he couldn't do it himself.

You only get ingredients cheap when you buy them in bulk. I can totally see a good steak and a veggie costing $7 when you buy them solo.

Pretty much.

Ever need to buy fresh thyme/bay leaf/parsley for a bouquet garni? Or lots of vegetables to make a sauce? Or if something calls for a chicken/beef/vegetable stock, even if I make it myself to save myself from the pre-packaged brands, it'll cost a few dollars per serving on top of the other ingredients that go into a meal.

You're right. I live in San Francisco and eat high quality, fresh ingredients. I'm guessing that there are enough people like me to support frozen $7 to $10 meals.

I am not sure I agree with this. I routinely get frozen food from the grocery store that's $7.

"Cost" (in the grocery world) usually refers to the wholesale cost to the store.

But the article says "$2-$3" as what people want to pay, and that's what stuff costs at the store.

Maybe a lasagna that feeds half a dozen people. That's all I've ever seen in that price range. What single-entre item costs $7?

Amy's organic stuff.

I think that is exactly the point the chef was making. Consumers in general are not willing to pay (or can't pay) for high quality frozen food. Look at how many brands are available in the $2-$3 range vs. higher cost items.

But I mean, I can buy it at the normal "cheap" grocery store. Stores like Whole Foods have even more options.

My "normal" grocery store has Amy's and the like in a special section I think of as the "food for hippies who didn't have time to go to Whole Foods today" section. They also keep all the "environmentally friendly" cleaners and such in the same area. (I believe it is technically referred to as the "natural foods" section, but none-the-less the point is that they actually segregate the expensive, organic, natural, enviro-friendly, etc stuff off into a little store within a store.)

Where you're buying it might be a big factor. Single-serving Amy's frozen dishes cost $5 or less at my local Whole Foods.

Amy's also charges $4 for a can of beans... they're a rip off, so not really a good example.

Frozen pizzas with pictures of famous chefs on them.

[sigh] glutamate != monosodium glutamate. Those have glutamate but not necessarily MSG...

So you think maybe that by being paired with sodium in a salt, the glutamic acid that occurs naturally in many of the most popular natural foodstuffs in the world might "set peoples brains on fire" (see above)?

No, he probably agrees that they are functional analogs and is just making the point that if you are brought in as expert in an article, you should strive for as much accuracy as possible.

While I agree with her general precept that MSG allergies do not exist, and I personally have no more fear of glutamates than of sodium, I'm bothered by the level of inaccuracy in the statement: "Broccoli, mushrooms, tomatoes, inosinate, guanylate, and autolyzed yeast extract? Give up? They are all sources of monosodium glutamate."

Guanylate and inosinate are comparable to glutamate, and often used in conjunction with it, but I don't think it's even colloquially correct to say that they contain it. Am I wrong? In the same vein, it also seems fair to point out that the naturally occurring form is different than the purified salt. Would you say that corn on the cob 'contains' high-fructose corn syrup?

I'd normally just assume she was misquoted, but in the comments she attacks the discussants for "carrying on with this technical mumbo jumbo and further confusing the issue". Maybe she's a good chef, but I sure don't trust her science.

You make a good point, and I probably was being tendentious with my comment, but note that your point is slightly orthogonal to his; I'm just reacting to the implication that glumatic acid might be OK and MSG might not be, which rankles.

And for all I know, maybe this is what 'tingletech' meant, but I figured I'd give him the benefit of doubt. I also gave this benefit to the Chef in the piece until I read her comment on the commenters, where for me at least she 'removed all doubt'.

But agree with you completely on the conclusion: if you are allergic to MSG, there's a lot else you should be avoiding. It's wild how many traditional 'seasonings' like Parmesan, fish sauce, ketchup, and kombu are effective because of naturally occurring glutamate/inosinate/guanylates.

maybe TMI; but I have high blood pressure and am on a low sodium diet -- for me the tasty umami amino acid is okay; the sodium in the MSG not so much.

But my main gripe was about the technical accuracy.

Maybe not allergic to small amounts but if I eat a large amount of MSG I get really thirsty and sometimes it triggers a bad headache.

Have a large amount of coke (regular or diet). Hell, have a large amount of sea salt. Same effect!

You being thirsty is just because your cells are dehydrated when there is a large-ish concentration of salt on your blood. The headache you are feeling? Dehydration.

I am actually sensitive to MSG and I still eat the stuff. In large doses that it causes my lips/tongue/throat to numb. It took me years to figure it out since it would only happen after eating at certain restaurants or foods and I could never find anything in common.

It wasn't until I bought a bottle of MSG and started putting it on everything that I managed to reproduce it at home. Of course, I was putting it on things like pizza (I thought it was the greatest substance since salt!).

Most restaurants and snack foods don't put nearly as much on food as necessary to trigger my reaction.

I still think MSG is awesome.

I found it interesting that the chef claimed that frozen food could taste better than restaurant food. I recently bought a few frozen dinners to see what they taste like. The more expensive ones definitely taste better than the $0.88 Banquet dinners. Claim Jumper was the best, IMHO. One area where the dinners consistently fail though, is texture. Things that should be crispy (like a deep-fried steak), are soft and mushy. Can you accomplish the wide-variety of textures in frozen-dinner format without additional preparation?

The lack of textural variety is the main thing that puts me off frozen foods as well. Choosing a frozen meal over a restaurant meal is like choosing to eat at an old folks home instead of accepting a friend's home-cooked dinner invite.

Also, people deep fry steak? Mind blown. I didn't know people did that.

also called "chicken fried steak" - usually it's 'cube steak" which looks a lot more like ground meat than like actual steak, then it's breaded, deep fried and smothered in gravy. It's a very traditional dish in the south, though it doesn't taste very much at all like what most Americans would call a 'steak'

Fascinating, first the concept of deep fried steak and then chicken steak? ... American food never ceases to surprise me (a pescetarian from New Zealand). So different :)

no, chicken fried steak is beef cube steak breaded and fried. it's "chicken fried" meaning fried in the same manner as chicken. That said, like fried chicken it doesn't have to be made in a deep fryer it can be made with a good solid layer of very hot oil in a pan.

Oh, thanks! Steak, fried 'chicken style'. Hah.

Oops, yeah, meant to say "chicken-fried steak" (also "country-fried steak")

There are different things you can do to affect texture with the wrapping. For instance, some microwave paninis come with a special plastic-foil thing that helps crisp them (they're still inedible because of the sodium content but they are crisp). I imagine it'd be hard to make crispy and a steamed soft mushy food at the same time, which holds them back from using it in full meals.

Also some of the complicated steamed or crispy microwave meals produce so much garbage it's embarrassing to cook them.

Jeffrey Steingarten's excellent "It Must've Been Something I Ate" has a good chapter on MSG and the myths about it

http://www.amazon.com/Mustve-Been-Something-Ate-Everything/d...

Actually, some people are allergic to MSG. My wife is allergic to corn and corn derived foods such as MSG. MSG might also exist in broccoli but not in the MSG powder many people refer to when talking about MSG.

MSG isn't derived from corn, and even if the sugar that fed the yeast that made the glutamate came from corn, by the time it's commercially sold MSG it is so chemically pure that it would be irrelevant.

According to Wikipedia, it is made from starch, sugar beets, sugar cane, and molasses.

And starch quite often is corn starch.

As for the chemically pure aspect, I don't know enough to comment. No one really understands what causes allergies and no one can point out what aspect of corn causes it. For example, she also has a milk allergy (not intolerance), but does not have issues with milk that has been cooked, such as creme anglaise for making ice cream. Something with cooking the milk changes it. As for how this is related to corn, who knows. What part of corn caused the allergy? If you don't know, how do you know it was removed in the process of making MSG?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com