From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Is MSG sensitivity superstition?
Organization: Quake Public Access, San Fernando Valley, CA (818)362-6092
Lines: 92

Have you ever met a chemist?  A food industry businessman?  You must
personally know a lot of them for you to be able to be so certain that they
are evil mosters whose only goal is to inflict as much pain and disease
as possible into the general public.  Gimme a break.
 
In article <1993Apr15.215826.3401@rtsg.mot.com> lundby@rtsg.mot.com (Walter F. L
undby) writes:
>
>>>Is there such a thing as MSG (monosodium glutamate) sensitivity?
>>>Superstition. Anybody here have experience to the contrary?

 person who is very sensitive to msg and whose wife and kids are
>too, I WANT TO KNOW WHY THE FOOD INDUSTRY WANTS TO PUT MSG IN FOOD!!!
 
Because it makes the food TASTE BETTER!  Why does it put salt in food?
Same reason.

>I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!

Obviously.
 
>Somebody in the industry GIVE ME SOME REASONS WHY!

>IS IT AN INDUSTRIAL BYPRODUCT THAT NEEDS GETTING GET RID OF?
 
Of course not!  (Although I would think that a person like you would be a
big fan of such recycling if that were the case).

>IS IT TO COVER UP THE FACT THAT THE RECIPES ARE NOT VERY GOOD OR THE 
>FOOD IS POOR QUALITY?
 
On occasion that's probably the case, but in general the idea is that MSG
improves the flavor of certain foods.
 
>DO SOME OF YOU GET A SADISTIC PLEASURE OUT OF MAKING SOME OF US SICK?
 
No.
 
>DO THE TASTE TESTERS HAVE SOME DEFECT IN THEIR FLAVOR SENSORS (MOUTH etc...)
>  THAT MSG CORRECTS?
 
No.
 
>I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!
 
Obviously.
 
>ALSO ... Nitrosiamines (sp)
 
As I recall, these are natural by-products of heating up certain foods.
They don't "put it in there".
 
 
have a number of criteria in choosing how to process food.  They want to
make it taste good, look good, sell for a good price, etc.  The fact that they
use it tells me that THEY think that it contributes to those goals they are
interested in.  One of those goals is NOT "making people sick".  Such a goal
woud quickly drive them out of business and for no benefit.
 
>I think
>1) outlaw the use of these substances without warning labels as
>large as those on cig. packages.
 
Warning of what?  In California there is a law requiring that ANYTHING which
contains a carcinogen be labeled.  That includes every gasline pump, most
foods, and even money cleaning machines (because Nickel is a mild carcinogen).
The result is that now nobody pays any attention to ANY of the warnings.
 
>2) Require 30% of comparable products on the market to be free of these
>substances and state that they are free of MSG, DYES, NITROSIAMINES and
>SULFITES on the package.
 
Why?  What if not 30% of people wanted to buy this ugly, rotten, not-as-tasty
food?  I guess it will just be wasted, huh?  How terribly efficient.
 
>3) While at it outlaw yellow dye #5.  For that matter why dye food?
 
Because it makes food look better.  I LIKE food that looks good.
If vitamin companies want to do that it is fine, but who are you to
tell THEM how to make vitamins?  Who are you to tell ME whether I should
buy flavored vitamins for my kids (who can't swallow the conventional ones
whole).
 
>KEEP FOOD FOOD!  QUIT PUTTING IN JUNK!
 
How do you define "junk"?  Is putting "salt" in food bad?  What about
Pepper?  What about alcohol as a preservative?  What about sealing jars
with wax?  What about vinegar?  You seem to think that "chemicals" are
somehow different than "food".  The fact is that all foods are 100% chemicals.
You are just expressing an irrational prejudice against food processing.
 
--Brian
