How MSG Got A Bad Rap: Flawed Science And Xenophobia

That MSG isn’t the poison we’ve made it out to be has been well-established. News stories are written regularly about the lack of evidence tying MSG to negative health effects. (Read here and here, for example. Or here, here, here, here and here.) Still, Yelp reviews of Chinese restaurants tell tales of racing hearts, sleepless nights and tingling limbs from dishes “laden with MSG.” Even when the science is clear, it takes a lot to overwrite a stigma, especially when that stigma is about more than just food.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-msg-got-a-bad-rap-flawed-science-and-xenophobia/

I didn’t think Chinese restaurants used MSG anymore. MSG is used in loads of everyday items though.

dv said:

How MSG Got A Bad Rap: Flawed Science And Xenophobia

That MSG isn’t the poison we’ve made it out to be has been well-established. News stories are written regularly about the lack of evidence tying MSG to negative health effects. (Read here and here, for example. Or here, here, here, here and here.) Still, Yelp reviews of Chinese restaurants tell tales of racing hearts, sleepless nights and tingling limbs from dishes “laden with MSG.” Even when the science is clear, it takes a lot to overwrite a stigma, especially when that stigma is about more than just food.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-msg-got-a-bad-rap-flawed-science-and-xenophobia/

Doesn’t matter, still don’t like the taste of the stuff.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

How MSG Got A Bad Rap: Flawed Science And Xenophobia

That MSG isn’t the poison we’ve made it out to be has been well-established. News stories are written regularly about the lack of evidence tying MSG to negative health effects. (Read here and here, for example. Or here, here, here, here and here.) Still, Yelp reviews of Chinese restaurants tell tales of racing hearts, sleepless nights and tingling limbs from dishes “laden with MSG.” Even when the science is clear, it takes a lot to overwrite a stigma, especially when that stigma is about more than just food.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-msg-got-a-bad-rap-flawed-science-and-xenophobia/

Doesn’t matter, still don’t like the taste of the stuff.

What I never liked about MSG was that it was a substitute for loss of real flavour.

I don’t really care what science tells me about flavour and nutrition in food. Because I can taste the flavour and get the benefit of nutrition from foods that I grow or those grown by others in my region. Food which has very little care put into extracting the flavours available from freshly grown local produce, needs MSG. This is why I don’t want MSG. I prefer natural flavours unenhanced.

This might interest you, roughy.
http://www.markschatzker.com/doritoeffect-home-page/

Divine Angel said:

This might interest you, roughy.
http://www.markschatzker.com/doritoeffect-home-page/

Yes. That is exactly what I was talking about.

I see that all the replies so far are completely missing the point the op makes

The_observer said:

I see that all the replies so far are completely missing the point the op makes

But that’s because it is all bullshit.

or I could say, what point?

roughbarked said:

But that’s because it is all bullshit.

What exactly is bullshit?

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

I see that all the replies so far are completely missing the point the op makes

But that’s because it is all bullshit.

you’re a fuckwit roughb with a mouth that just doesn’t stop

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

But that’s because it is all bullshit.

What exactly is bullshit?

That good food needs flavour enhancers.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

I see that all the replies so far are completely missing the point the op makes

But that’s because it is all bullshit.

you’re a fuckwit roughb with a mouth that just doesn’t stop

Pot, kettle.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

I see that all the replies so far are completely missing the point the op makes

But that’s because it is all bullshit.

you’re a fuckwit roughb with a mouth that just doesn’t stop

Do you only come here to start shit or what?

roughbarked said:

That good food needs flavour enhancers.

Where does is say that?

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

But that’s because it is all bullshit.

you’re a fuckwit roughb with a mouth that just doesn’t stop

Do you only come here to start shit or what?

only when shit needs to happen

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

That good food needs flavour enhancers.

Where does is say that?

it doesn’t but it talks about it anyway.

The issue of people getting the wrong thing in their heads is all about the fact that though science is wonderful and that it knows all about dissecting, it doesn’t have any grasp of the whole.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

you’re a fuckwit roughb with a mouth that just doesn’t stop

Do you only come here to start shit or what?

only when shit needs to happen

Only when your shit needs to happen, you mean.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

you’re a fuckwit roughb with a mouth that just doesn’t stop

Do you only come here to start shit or what?

only when shit needs to happen

There is that gregarious self importance again.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

Do you only come here to start shit or what?

only when shit needs to happen

Only when your shit needs to happen, you mean.

My brain isn’t anyones toilet.

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

Do you only come here to start shit or what?

only when shit needs to happen

There is that gregarious self importance again.

well the point of the op is that science told people that MSG bad.

And everyone took it for granted.

Now, like many things, the science was wrong.

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

only when shit needs to happen

Only when your shit needs to happen, you mean.

My brain isn’t anyones toilet.

my post was to rough b

why do you feel that you need to stich your nose in?

because you think you’re top shit around here.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

only when shit needs to happen

There is that gregarious self importance again.

well the point of the op is that science told people that MSG bad.

And everyone took it for granted.

Now, like many things, the science was wrong.

ooh look!!! You missed the point! The article is actually about xenophobia and how it features in what any single culture might believe.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

Only when your shit needs to happen, you mean.

My brain isn’t anyones toilet.

my post was to rough b

why do you feel that you need to stich your nose in?

because you think you’re top shit around here.

Not think. I was appointed top shit during a ceremony on 10/05/2014.

Any further inaccurate observations or insights?

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

There is that gregarious self importance again.

well the point of the op is that science told people that MSG bad.

And everyone took it for granted.

Now, like many things, the science was wrong.

ooh look!!! You missed the point! The article is actually about xenophobia and how it features in what any single culture might believe.

I left out the bit about how you are also a fuckwit

fixed

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

well the point of the op is that science told people that MSG bad.

And everyone took it for granted.

Now, like many things, the science was wrong.

ooh look!!! You missed the point! The article is actually about xenophobia and how it features in what any single culture might believe.

I left out the bit about how you are also a fuckwit

fixed

Why don’t you just start your own thread naming all the people you don’t like instead of ruining the readability of someone else’s thread?

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

ooh look!!! You missed the point! The article is actually about xenophobia and how it features in what any single culture might believe.

I left out the bit about how you are also a fuckwit

fixed

Why don’t you just start your own thread naming all the people you don’t like instead of ruining the readability of someone else’s thread?

hypocrite

The issue of people getting the wrong thing in their heads is all about the fact that though science is wonderful and that it knows all about dissecting, it doesn’t have any grasp of the whole.

Feynman covered that trope years ago

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

I left out the bit about how you are also a fuckwit

fixed

Why don’t you just start your own thread naming all the people you don’t like instead of ruining the readability of someone else’s thread?

hypocrite

Remembering big words doesn’t mean you know how to accurately apply them. We could help you with that also.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

only when shit needs to happen

There is that gregarious self importance again.

well the point of the op is that science told people that MSG bad.

And everyone took it for granted.

Now, like many things, the science was wrong.

Like with,/font>many things, the science is wrong.

I never take anything for granted but science often does lead us to do so.

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

Why don’t you just start your own thread naming all the people you don’t like instead of ruining the readability of someone else’s thread?

hypocrite

Remembering big words doesn’t mean you know how to accurately apply them. We could help you with that also.

arrogant fuckwit you are post

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

hypocrite

Remembering big words doesn’t mean you know how to accurately apply them. We could help you with that also.

arrogant fuckwit you are post

If you think you have a chance of upsetting me Post, forget it.

Its people like you who keep me coming back

ChrispenEvan said:

The issue of people getting the wrong thing in their heads is all about the fact that though science is wonderful and that it knows all about dissecting, it doesn’t have any grasp of the whole.

Feynman covered that trope years ago

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

Thankfully you spelt tripe incorrectly, because you didn’t get my point. You went off on a defend science tangent, which was entirely unnecessary.

the beauty of science, really scientists, is that they are able to change their minds when new data is collected.

i mean, people always bring up this silly idea that because science has been wrong in the past then everything science does is wrong.

The_observer said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

Remembering big words doesn’t mean you know how to accurately apply them. We could help you with that also.

arrogant fuckwit you are post

If you think you have a chance of upsetting me Post, forget it.

Its people like you who keep me coming back

As long as you keep abusing people I will keep redirecting you and seeking to challenge you. It is a game of patience because you don’t evolve very quickly and seem adamant you would prefer to relate your sub-standard observations to people who aren’t particularly interested in entertaining you.

no, feynmans quote answered your post accurately.

ChrispenEvan said:

i mean, people always bring up this silly idea that because science has been wrong in the past then everything science does is wrong.

when did they do that?

always.

ChrispenEvan said:

the beauty of science, really scientists, is that they are able to change their minds when new data is collected.

Chrispen beat me to it. Apart from xenophobia, the article demonstrates the value of science.

ChrispenEvan said:

i mean, people always bring up this silly idea that because science has been wrong in the past then everything science does is wrong.

I would more call it human error than the fault of science. It is the scientific method that eventually corrects the mistake.

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

The_observer said:

arrogant fuckwit you are post

If you think you have a chance of upsetting me Post, forget it.

Its people like you who keep me coming back

As long as you keep abusing people I will keep redirecting you and seeking to challenge you. It is a game of patience because you don’t evolve very quickly and seem adamant you would prefer to relate your sub-standard observations to people who aren’t particularly interested in entertaining you.

when will you challenge Ian for infering that I’m a moron?

Oh, thats right, you won’t.

I’ll post whatever I like here & will respond to the abuse I recieve when I like dickhead.

And there is nothing you can do about it.

but carry on, you’re making my day, punk

ChrispenEvan said:

always.

fuckwit

well yes, when i say science i mean scientists. i did write that in the next post. or the one before.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

If you think you have a chance of upsetting me Post, forget it.

Its people like you who keep me coming back

As long as you keep abusing people I will keep redirecting you and seeking to challenge you. It is a game of patience because you don’t evolve very quickly and seem adamant you would prefer to relate your sub-standard observations to people who aren’t particularly interested in entertaining you.

when will you challenge Ian for infering that I’m a moron?

Oh, thats right, you won’t.

I’ll post whatever I like here & will respond to the abuse I recieve when I like dickhead.

And there is nothing you can do about it.

but carry on, you’re making my day, punk

sounds like “drool drool I AM NOT A AMINAL!!!!! drool drool……….”

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

As long as you keep abusing people I will keep redirecting you and seeking to challenge you. It is a game of patience because you don’t evolve very quickly and seem adamant you would prefer to relate your sub-standard observations to people who aren’t particularly interested in entertaining you.

when will you challenge Ian for infering that I’m a moron?

Oh, thats right, you won’t.

I’ll post whatever I like here & will respond to the abuse I recieve when I like dickhead.

And there is nothing you can do about it.

but carry on, you’re making my day, punk

sounds like “drool drool I AM NOT A AMINAL!!!!! drool drool……….”

your not very good at what your attempting Post

The_observer said:

ChrispenEvan said:

i mean, people always bring up this silly idea that because science has been wrong in the past then everything science does is wrong.

when did they do that?

well, for starters, you did about 30 minutes ago…

Date: 9/01/2016 09:12:20
From: The_observer
ID: 828218
Subject: re: How MSG Got A Bad Rap

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said: Postpocelipse said: Do you only come here to start shit or what? only when shit needs to happen There is that gregarious self importance again.

well the point of the op is that science told people that MSG bad.

And everyone took it for granted.

Now, like many things, the science was wrong.

ChrispenEvan said:

the beauty of science, really scientists, is that they are able to change their minds when new data is collected.

I agree. I wasn’t actually knocking science. I was however suggesting that we go ahead with so many things because science added a glimmer of truth, without applying science to the whole. Only to find out later that changing their minds should have been done at the beginning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYGy-j_oH5Q

for tO. this video basically is instruction for the futility of overusing certain words as it renders them ineffectual.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

when will you challenge Ian for infering that I’m a moron?

Oh, thats right, you won’t.

I’ll post whatever I like here & will respond to the abuse I recieve when I like dickhead.

And there is nothing you can do about it.

but carry on, you’re making my day, punk

sounds like “drool drool I AM NOT A AMINAL!!!!! drool drool……….”

your not very good at what your attempting Post

And what is it I am attempting?

ChrispenEvan said:

i mean, people always bring up this silly idea that because science has been wrong in the past then everything science does is wrong.

I know what you mean but it wasn’t what I was or have ever said.

ChrispenEvan said:

no, feynmans quote answered your post accurately.

How so?

The_observer said:

ChrispenEvan said:

i mean, people always bring up this silly idea that because science has been wrong in the past then everything science does is wrong.

when did they do that?

You do when you say that billions of people are dead because we stopped using DDT.

ruby said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the beauty of science, really scientists, is that they are able to change their minds when new data is collected.

Chrispen beat me to it. Apart from xenophobia, the article demonstrates the value of science.

Yes it does.

that science leads to a deeper understanding of nature rather than a shallower.

ChrispenEvan said:

well yes, when i say science i mean scientists. i did write that in the next post. or the one before.

Scientists are human too. ;)

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

As long as you keep abusing people I will keep redirecting you and seeking to challenge you. It is a game of patience because you don’t evolve very quickly and seem adamant you would prefer to relate your sub-standard observations to people who aren’t particularly interested in entertaining you.

when will you challenge Ian for infering that I’m a moron?

Oh, thats right, you won’t.

I’ll post whatever I like here & will respond to the abuse I recieve when I like dickhead.

And there is nothing you can do about it.

but carry on, you’re making my day, punk

sounds like “drool drool I AM NOT A AMINAL!!!!! drool drool……….”

Nobody needs to infer that you are a moron.

ChrispenEvan said:

that science leads to a deeper understanding of nature rather than a shallower.

Slowly.

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

ChrispenEvan said:

i mean, people always bring up this silly idea that because science has been wrong in the past then everything science does is wrong.

when did they do that?

well, for starters, you did about 30 minutes ago…

Date: 9/01/2016 09:12:20
From: The_observer
ID: 828218
Subject: re: How MSG Got A Bad Rap

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said: Postpocelipse said: Do you only come here to start shit or what? only when shit needs to happen There is that gregarious self importance again.

well the point of the op is that science told people that MSG bad.

And everyone took it for granted.

Now, like many things, the science was wrong.

I’m glad you post my comment that doesn’t back up your assertion, at all

Ta, dv, I’ve always wondered why anyone would criticise MSG. I never did.

But then again I’m happy to eat lots of foods considered poisonous.

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYGy-j_oH5Q

for tO. this video basically is instruction for the futility of overusing certain words as it renders them ineffectual.

there are many words overused rough

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

ChrispenEvan said:

i mean, people always bring up this silly idea that because science has been wrong in the past then everything science does is wrong.

when did they do that?

You do when you say that billions of people are dead because we stopped using DDT.

no, millions of people died from malaria, deaths that could have been prevented with the use of the very effective DDT.

The environmental movement was directly responsible for that occurance

Slowly

does it matter? really, these statements are just misguided. people complain when science gets it wrong and we should move slower then in another breath complain that it is too slow when we want something to be done.

The_observer said:

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYGy-j_oH5Q

for tO. this video basically is instruction for the futility of overusing certain words as it renders them ineffectual.

there are many words overused rough

rough didn’t say that. In case you didn’t notice.

in your case, ‘observer’ is continually overused and misrepresented.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

when did they do that?

You do when you say that billions of people are dead because we stopped using DDT.

no, millions of people died from malaria, deaths that could have been prevented with the use of the very effective DDT.

The environmental movement was directly responsible for that occurance

Wrong. Science long ago proved that not only did DDT have many nasty surprises, the most important one was that it did not eradicate any species with a short life cycle.

ChrispenEvan said:

Slowly

does it matter? really, these statements are just misguided. people complain when science gets it wrong and we should move slower then in another breath complain that it is too slow when we want something to be done.

No, again you miss it. For science to really impress it should do all the work before allowing people to run off with it half cooked.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

You do when you say that billions of people are dead because we stopped using DDT.

no, millions of people died from malaria, deaths that could have been prevented with the use of the very effective DDT.

The environmental movement was directly responsible for that occurance

Wrong. Science long ago proved that not only did DDT have many nasty surprises, the most important one was that it did not eradicate any species with a short life cycle.

the many nasty surprises is a fallacy promoted by environmentalists, as usual a tool to gain an objective.

The world health organisation promoted the use of DDT to prevent deaths from malaria.Fact

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

You do when you say that billions of people are dead because we stopped using DDT.

no, millions of people died from malaria, deaths that could have been prevented with the use of the very effective DDT.

The environmental movement was directly responsible for that occurance

Wrong. Science long ago proved that not only did DDT have many nasty surprises, the most important one was that it did not eradicate any species with a short life cycle.

In the Ord River cotton growing experiment, DDT use increased tenfold and costed tenfold without any known efficiency, so not only was it discarded but so was the thought that cotton could be grown there because they had DDT to use. Sorry but it isn’t efficient at what it was used for.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

no, millions of people died from malaria, deaths that could have been prevented with the use of the very effective DDT.

The environmental movement was directly responsible for that occurance

Wrong. Science long ago proved that not only did DDT have many nasty surprises, the most important one was that it did not eradicate any species with a short life cycle.

the many nasty surprises is a fallacy promoted by environmentalists, as usual a tool to gain an objective.

The world health organisation promoted the use of DDT to prevent deaths from malaria.Fact

The first isn’t a fallacy at all.

The second is so far in the past because it didn’t work.

DDT remains in use as an important and effective part of WHO’s anti-malaria efforts in scores of countries. It’s not ancient history. It has lost its effectiveness in some parts of the world thanks to natural selection but not everywhere.

dv said:

DDT remains in use as an important and effective part of WHO’s anti-malaria efforts in scores of countries. It’s not ancient history. It has lost its effectiveness in some parts of the world thanks to natural selection but not everywhere.

Continued use anywhere is going to add up to the same thing.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

DDT remains in use as an important and effective part of WHO’s anti-malaria efforts in scores of countries. It’s not ancient history. It has lost its effectiveness in some parts of the world thanks to natural selection but not everywhere.

Continued use anywhere is going to add up to the same thing.

Eventually it will lose effectiveness but in the mean time it will continue to be a life saver.

plus it is used differently these days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Restrictions_on_usage