Talk:Food additives and addiction

Food for thought (pun intended): the FDA has rated MSG as GRAS (generally recognized as safe) and its "acceptable daily intake" is "not specified", which is about as good as it gets. The UN and WHO both place MSG alongside salt and wheat.

I'm a little suspect of that reference. It gets its information from a book, and the author of the book (who doesn't seem to have any notoriety; he doesn't even have the bio page of his own website finished yet) just read a bunch of studies that other people made, and decided that MSG causes autism. While I haven't read the book, I'm highly suspect that this random guy figured out something that scientists can't seem to figure out, and on top of it, that the FDA doesn't know it yet. There's also (according to Amazon) a chapter in his book about "the benefit of a natural zero calorie sweetener and a natural hormone proven to reduce breast and prostate cancer". I think I hear a duck. HelpJazz 20:55, 23 November 2008 (EST)

MSG is still addictive. Chinese restaurants have to say "No MSG" because people are afraid of consuming it.-Foxtrot 21:09, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Can you find a citation for that? The FDA doesn't seem to think so. And people being afraid to consume it doesn't mean anything. See ad populum. HelpJazz 21:21, 23 November 2008 (EST)

(ec)People being afraid of it is not indicative of being addictive. I think what you're talking about is "Chinese restaurant syndrome which is kind of an urban legend [1]. The restaurants say "No MSG" because people are afraid, yes, but that doesn't mean the people who are afraid are informed. Life's a little rough over here right now, so I'm not sure if that really makes much sense. I hope it helps, though. LiamG 21:26, 23 November 2008 (EST)

(edit conflict) I have added two quotes from doctors about MSG while you were writing this comment, I believe. Also, I think you are confused in your edit comment about "regulation and food scares". There is a big difference in liberals unduly calling for bans on trans fats and conservatives calling for regulation of poison and highly addictive drugs in food. Remember that the D in FDA is there for a reason: drugs. Not acceptable in food, in playgrounds or elsewhere. -Foxtrot 21:28, 23 November 2008 (EST)

(EC) The two quotes you mentioned don't say anything about MSG's supposed addictiveness. As for calling MSG a "drug"... I think you are playing a little fast and loose there with the definition. If you want to claim that the FDA can regulate MSG (and they can and do) it falls under the F: food. Drugs are those things that pharmaceutical companies make and they sell you to cure things. You are using scare tactics (let's face it, there is no mainstream science that says MSG is poison, and I haven't even seen *bad* proof that MSG is addictive) to regulate something. That's the same thing liberals do. Does it matter that you are regulating something "bad"? No... and that's the same argument that the liberals use, isn't it? So when I said that "regulation and food scares" are a tactic liberals use, and that you are using the same tactic, I was absolutely correct. HelpJazz 21:36, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Perhaps we should create an article on MSG to explain who finds it addictive and who doesn't and why it could be a bad thing if it is (remember caffeine is one of the most addictive substances there is but no one is crying for Starbucks to be regulated) --WillB 21:34, 23 November 2008 (EST)

HelpJazz, I have added quotes about MSG's addictiveness. I am not using scare tactics and I resent you calling me a liberal (the irony of whose mouth that's coming from). If MSG is so addictive and is behind the obesity epidemic which liberals are so keen to ignore in favor of "world poverty" (see: here), then scientists and the FDA have a moral responsibility to make Americans aware of its addictive power. Depending on how addictive it is, it may need regulation, like the removal of cocaine from Coca-Cola (or do you consider that a scare tactic too?). Again, I will stress that there is a BIG difference between any sort of regulation of addictive or toxic substances (such as cocaine, the toxic additives China has put in its products, etc) and the liberal desire to regulate unhealthy components of food (like trans fats, sugars, butter). If liberals had free reign we'd all be eating boiled hemp and washing it down with seaweed puree. -Foxtrot 22:05, 23 November 2008 (EST)