Another Misguided Diet Trend Debunked

We continue our series of posts from student's in MET ML 619, The Science of Food and Cooking, with Professor Valerie Ryan, with this entry from gastronomy student Adrian Bresler.

We owe a lot to scientists who cure diseases, increase crop yields and even fly us to the moon.  But scientists do not always get it right.  One clear example is related to their unyielding certainty surrounding the impact of dietary fat and cholesterol on health and mortality in the US in the mid to late 20^th century.  Here are the facts: Anti-fat sentiment began in full force in the US in the 1980s and continued through the 1990s in response to a number of scientific studies identifying American high fat diets as the main cause of heart disease and the rise in obesity (Johns and Oppenheimer 2018).  Fueled by government agency recommendations, widespread coverage by the media, and increased public interest, food companies were only too happy to launch significant numbers of new low fat and nonfat versions of products heretofore available only in their original ‘full fat’ forms.

Knowing that the new low fat variants also needed to taste good in order to be acceptable to the American consumer, in spite of the removal of some or all of the fat content, manufacturers found that they needed to substitute or add ingredient(s) that could either mimic the taste of fat or provide mechanisms for making the product taste more palatable (Colla, Costanzo and Gamlath 2018).  The answer often relied on an increase in sugars in various forms.  Moreover, the food industry invested heavily in Research & Development, leading to the discovery of new ingredients never before consumed by humans, or resulting in the introduction of new methods used in food processing that could deliver on the promise to reduce all fats, regardless of type, from diets. These replacements would come in the form of carbohydrates, fats and protein (Frankel Cardiovascular Center 2020).

One of the simplest methods for reducing unwanted fat from baking recipes was to substitute carbs for fats.  Replacements were not only of increased sugars, but also fruit and vegetable purees, gums and fibers (Hayek and Ibrahim 2013).  And while these replacements did not impart all of the characteristics of fats, they could partially replace their texture, mouthfeel, moistures and flavors (Zbikowska and Kowalska 2016).  By using carbohydrate replacements, manufacturers could also claim the advantage of using “naturally occurring ingredients” despite a similar calorie load to the full fat product.  This “natural” substitution had the support of many cookbook authors and magazine writers who provided home cooks with recipes that cut out or reduced fats and instead incorporated purees, often apple or banana.  In spite of the scientific studies that showed mixed results in taste tests involving the use of fruit/vegetable purees in baked products, the promised health benefits often outweighed the lack of enthusiasm; for example, cookies, biscuits and crackers were more tolerable to consumers while cakes seemed to turn rubbery and hard (Colla, Costanzo and Gamlath 2018).  The most acceptable versions of the recipes were a combination of purees and a reduced amount of fats (Colla, Costanzo and Gamlath 2018).

In fact, my favorite banana bread recipe from the 1990s called for applesauce instead of butter or oil.  The only fat in the recipe came from the yolk of one egg.  My children loved it—perhaps it was the generous amount of sugar that made it popular, certainly not the banana bread’s texture which resembled that of an eraser after a day or so.

One of the more controversial examples of fat substitutes was a fat-based product, Olestra, developed by Proctor & Gamble (P&G) and introduced to the public in the late 1990s as a core ingredient in ‘Wow’ chips.  The fat normally found in snack foods was replaced by a newly laboratory-developed substance:  sucrose molecules bound with eight fatty acids—constituting molecules too large to be absorbed through the intestine which therefore contributed no calories to the body (Bimal and Guonong 2006).  Unfortunately, the severe gastrointestinal distress they caused, as well as the corresponding loss of fat soluble vitamins required that P&G place a warning label on all bags of Wow chips (Nestle 2013).  What started as a promising new tool in the fight against dietary fat became a case study for business school students.  Few countries permitted the sale of Olestra as a food additive.  Wow chips are no longer sold anywhere.

Compare that to the third method of fat substitution:  one centered around protein-based products.  The best example: Simplesse.  Developed by a subsidiary of Monsanto as a fat replacement, Simplesse is a low-calorie whey protein (or egg white protein) concentrate introduced in 1988 that is still found in many products (Widder 1988).  A stroll down the dairy aisle of a supermarket today will reveal a myriad of low fat and nonfat cottage cheeses, spreadable cheeses, ice creams and yogurts that contain the whey protein additive.  The minute particles of whey proteins create the mouthfeel of fat by giving a creaminess to these products that was lost when the original fat was removed (Marcus 2013).  The substitution of whey protein for fat translates to an 85% reduction in calories per gram of ingredient (Haddix 1988).  A shortcoming: the additive can only be used in uncooked food.  Cooking the whey protein denatures the protein and causes it to coagulate.  This has not stopped Simplesse from becoming quite successful;  try to find a full fat yogurt in the dairy case.  Not so easy.

To get a better understanding of the impact of these new foods on the American diet, I spoke with nutritionist and registered dietitian Elyse Sosin, who has over forty years of experience advising and teaching adults and children about nutritional health in NYC. She began by describing the overwhelming influence the low-fat/no fat diet craze had in the late 1980s.  Eating full fat or high cholesterol products bore a stigma.  For example, Sosin distinctly remembers that, at the beginning of her career, the mere act of selecting a plate of eggs in the hospital cafeteria where she worked caused her to be scolded by a colleague, “I can’t believe you’re a nutritionist and you are eating that!”  And, she said, despite the encouragement by professionals writing newspaper columns and magazine articles supporting this behavior, the lack of fat and the inclusion of higher levels of sugar in processed foods left some people feeling hungry –a real setup for weight loss failure.  Through the years she has seen the diet rules change from very low-fat to no-saturated-fat to no-trans-fat to the current rallying cry of low-carb by diet gurus.  These diet regimens, Sosin believes, that declare a particular food or category of food ‘bad’ are often too rigid and can lead to their abandonment on the part of those people following the advice of practitioners and trying to maintain a healthy weight and lifestyle.

Even the Food Pyramid, a presentation of healthy food groups introduced here by the US Department of Agriculture in 1992, placed complex carbohydrates (bread, pasta, rice, cereal) at the bottom or base, suggesting that people consume 6 to 11 servings per day (Sosin 2022).  As a result, the meat and dairy industries suffered.  Fats and oils were at the top along with sweets;  these were the ‘bad’ foods to be eaten sparingly.

So despite the minority of skeptics who questioned the validity of the causal relationship of dietary fat and cholesterol on heart disease and the impact of encouraging millions of people to eat more low fat/no fat snacks by promising them ultimate weight loss, newspapers, magazines and the airwaves flooded consumers with advice about fat avoidance (La Berge 2008).   Did the introduction of these low fat, no fat products improve the diet and overall health of Americans?  Our diet was and is too high in fat. And, according to CDC statistics, approximately 15% of the US adult population was obese in 1980; by the early 2000s that figure rose to over 30% of US adults (Ogden and Carroll 2010).   And by 2018, over 40% (Sosin 2022). Heart disease is still the leading cause of death in the US.  There is no shortage of possible contributing factors:  genetics, sedentary lifestyle, abundance of cheap processed foods, environmental toxins, food deserts, computer games, television, celebrities that promote questionable products, local customs and traditions, ethnic background, government regulations and subsidies.  The list goes on and on.  Therefore, we understand that neither a quick fix nor a single recommendation exists that will address all of these issues.  But the answers will come from those scientists, in a multitude of disciplines, who will need to get it right next time.

Works Cited:

Bimal, Chitrakar & Guonong, Zhang. 2006. Olestra: A Solution to Food Fat? Food Reviews International, 22(3), 245–258.

Colla, Costanzo, A., & Gamlath, S. 2018. Fat Replacers in Baked Food Products. Foods, 7(12), 192.

Frankel Cardiovascular Center, University of Michigan. 2020. Date of access 3/5/2022.

https://www.umcvc.org/health-library/uq1419

Haddix, Carol. February 4, 1988. Chicago Tribune. “That Phenomenon Simplesse ‘Supplies the Feeling of Fat’”.

Hayek, Saeed and Ibrahim, Salam A. 2013. Consumer acceptability of chocolate chip cookies using applesauce as a fat (butter) substitute. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, 25(3), 159.

Johns, David Merritt, and Gerald M. Oppenheimer. 2018. "Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?." Science 359, no. 6377: 747-750.

La Berge, Ann F. 2008.  How the Ideology of Low Fat Conquered America, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Volume 63, Issue 2, April 2008, Pages 139–177.

Marcus, Jacqueline. 2013. Culinary Nutrition: The Science and Practice of Healthy Cooking. Academic Press.

McGee, Harold. 2004. On food and cooking: the science and lore of the kitchen. New York: Scribner.

Nestle. Marion. 2013. Food politics : how the food industry influences nutrition and health (Revised and expanded 10th anniversary ed..). University of California Press.

Ogden, Cynthia and Carroll, Margaret. 2010. Prevalence of Overweight, Obesity and Extreme Obesity Among Adults, Trends 1960-1962 through 2007-2008. Center for Disease Control, Division of Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys.

Sosin, Elyse. 2022. Oral Interview, March 10, 2022.

Widder, Pat. January 28, 1988. Chicago Tribune. “Firm Takes Guilt from Fat”.

Żbikowska, & Kowalska, M. 2016. The use of apple fiber as a fat substitute in the manufacture of bakery products. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 41(6), e13241–n/a.

The Marvelous Misunderstanding of Miss Mustard Oil

Today's post, the second in our series from student's in MET ML 619, The Science of Food and Cooking, with Professor Valerie Ryan, is submitted by gastronomy student Julian Plovnik.

Last January, I accepted a job with a company whose focus centered around the delivery of authentic, homemade food to hungry customers across the country, with dishes being made predominantly by immigrant populations living in major U.S. cities. I was fortunate enough to be in a role that facilitated a lot of 1-on-1 interaction with the cooks on our platform, allowing me the opportunity to ask them questions about their backgrounds, national cuisines, and specific culinary traditions. Conversations often included winding trips down memory lane, emotional stories about each cook’s journey to the U.S., and obviously lots of talk about food.  It was not out of the ordinary for me to learn something new each day. In fact, it was rare for me not to. From ingredients like jaggery, galangal, and kaffir lime, I was constantly being introduced to food and foodways that lived outside of my daily life experiences.

For the most part, I was never surprised by anything I learned. There was no reason for me to question specific techniques or dishes that some of the cooks on the platform wanted to prepare. That is, until I was asked by one woman what seemed to be a very simple question at the time. “I’m not allowed to use mustard oil in my dishes, correct?” Unsure of exactly what she was asking, I asked her why that would be the case. “Well,” she said, “because it’s illegal”. I was confused. I had never heard of mustard oil before and I definitely hadn’t heard of an illegal cooking oil before. What could possibly be illegal about it? Was it highly combustable? Were there new sanctions on Pakistan that I hadn’t heard about? Maybe it was toxic to pets. Nevertheless, I assured her I would look into her question and get back to her.

Mustard oil is a bright, pungent oil made from pressing the seeds of the mustard plant to release an oil that is relished in many countries for its unique spiciness and high smoking point of 480F (Sharma, 2020). It’s most popularly used as a cooking oil or condiment in the cuisines of East and Central Asian countries such as China, Bangladesh, and India, but also appears in some dishes in Russian and other Baltic cuisines. It’s particularly popular in the northern state of West Bengal in India, where it’s used in dishes such as achaars, a pickled condiment used to add an acidic spice to a wide variety of dishes. One difference that you might see as you traverse Asia is the type of mustard seed being used to make mustard oil. In India, black mustard seeds from the plant Brassica nigra are used to make the oil, while brown mustard seeds from Brassica juncea are more commonly used in China and Russian oils (2020). However, the controversy behind mustard oil lies deeper into the biology of the mustard plant and Brassicaceae family in general, specifically with a long-chain fatty acid called erucic acid.

Erucic acid is a naturally-occuring, non-branched, monounsaturated fatty acid with 22 carbons and a cis-configured double bond on the 13th carbon (Vetter et al., 2020). The Brassicacea family of plants, often referred to as the Cruciferae or mustard family (Šamec et al., 2019) includes vegetables that are highly consumed all across the world, such as broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbages, and of course mustard greens. Additionally due to their high fat content, many species of fish, such as wild salmon, also contain measurable levels of erucic acid (Vetter et al., 2020). While mustard oil is comprised of a variety of fatty acids, erucic acid can sometimes comprise up to 50% of an oil’s fatty acid composition, causing it to be a liquid at room temperature  (Wendlinger et al., 2013). It’s because of this high concentration of erucic acid in the fatty acid composition that makes mustard oil such a controversial ingredient, as many of the other members of the Brassicaceae family tend to have much lower overall levels.

Discussion around the potential toxicity of erucic acid first began in the 1950’s when research began to surface showing a potential link between high levels of erucic acid consumption in rats and the development of myocardial lipidosis and heart lesions (2013). In one of the studies, fully refined rapeseed oils (another oil with a high concentration of erucic acid) containing different amounts of erucic acid from 1.6% to 22.3% were fed, at 20% by weight of diet, to weanling male and female rats for periods up to 112 days.. Myocardial lipidosi, a temporary, reversible heart condition was seen in rats that had been fed oxidized and unoxidized rapeseed oil containing 22.3% erucic acid, moderate with rapeseed oil containing 4.3% erucic acid and very slight in rats fed rapeseed oil containing 1.6% erucic acid (2013). Its most serious detrimental health effects were determined to be high triacylglycerol accumulation in the heart due to insufficient oxidation, which could possibly result in a reduced ability for the heart muscle to function (2013). In other words, the lower the concentration of erucic acid in the rapeseed oil a rat was fed, the less likely they were to develop heart conditions.

At the same time that these studies were being produced, work was being done by scientists and manufacturers in Canada to develop a “heart healthy” cooking oil that was low in erucic acid. Through careful breeding processes, the group of scientists were able to produce rapeseed plants with low levels of erucic acid. The oil, later to be named canola oil (can- for Canada, -ola which stands for “oil, low acid”) soon became a commercialized, easily marketable hit with both the public and science community alike (Fisher, 2020). The question then became, is the risk worth the reward?

The regulations on mustard oil began in 1976 when the EU introduced a maximum level of 5% erucic acid contribution to the total fatty acids in edible oils and added fats (Vetter et al., 2020). 16 years later, the U.S. followed suit in the 1990’s when the FDA banned the import and sale of mustard oil as foodstuffs (Sen, 2011). External uses of the product, such as for massage oil, were still viewed as acceptable. Most recently in 2016, the FDA released Import Alert #26-04 which stated that “[M]ustard oil is not permitted for use as a vegetable oil. It may contain 20 to 40% erucic acid, which has been shown to cause nutritional deficiencies and cardiac lesions in test animals” (U.S. Food & Drug Administration, 2016). Additionally, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) released a report in 2016 suggesting the decrease of the acceptable maximum level from 5% down to 2% of the total fatty acid composition (Vetter et al., 2020).

All in all, things haven’t looked good for mustard oil and its devoted fans since the 1950’s, despite there not being any presence of evidence or work towards researching that high concentrations of erucic acid would have negative health consequences on human beings, not just lab rats. When I first learned about the banning of mustard oil, I was fairly frustrated. The use of this type of incomplete research on laws and regulations can have widespread negative effects on the greater population if not properly reexamined over time. With so many Southeast Asian cuisines relying on the inclusion of mustard oil to create some of their most beloved dishes, a banning of the substance inherently creates a lack of accessibility for specific populations that immigrate to any country where the ingredient is banned. While yes, mustard oil can still be sold in stores, it must don a “For External Use Only” label on it in order to be purchased, forcing a narrative on its consumers that they as an entire population eat ingredients that are not deemed to be edible by greater science. When these consequences are then balanced with the fact that the laws and regulations around mustard oil were based off of decades-old research that was performed on laboratory rats, the ends in no way seem to justify the means.

While there has been some progress towards a better understanding of the importance of mustard oil (the very first refined, single-ingredient mustard oil called recently became approved by the FDA in 2016 (U.S. Food & Drug Administration, 2016)), there still is much work to be done in understanding the cultural and societal consequences in banning particular foodstuffs and ingredients, specifically when the research is outdated or incomplete. What can be learned from mustard oil’s struggle for acceptance is an overall better understanding of the holistic impacts on food safety decisions and what they inherently say about a specific culture, cuisine, or population.

Works Cited

Charlton, K M, A H Corner, K Davey, J K Kramer, S Mahadevan, and F D Sauer. “Cardiac Lesions in Rats Fed Rapeseed Oils.” Canadian journal of comparative medicine : Revue canadienne de medecine comparee. U.S. National Library of Medicine, July 1975. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277456/.

“Erucic Acid a Possible Health Risk for Highly Exposed Children.” European Food Safety Authority. Accessed March 25, 2022. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/161109#:~:text=Tests%20on%20animals%20show%20that,occur%20at%20slightly%20higher%20doses.

Fisher, Ben. “The Real Reason Mustard Oil Is Banned for Cooking Purposes in the U.S.” Mashed.com. Mashed, July 22, 2020. https://www.mashed.com/228910/the-real-reason-mustard-oil-is-banned-for-cooking-purposes-in-the-u-s/.

“Import Alert 26-04.” accessdata.fda.gov. Food and Drug Administration, November 18, 2016. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/importalert_89.html.

Sen, Indrani. “American Chefs Discover Mustard Oil.” The New York Times. The New York Times, November 1, 2011. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/dining/american-chefs-discover-mustard-oil.html.

Sharma, Nik. “The Truth about Mustard Oil: Behind the ‘for External Use Only’ Label.” Serious Eats. Serious Eats, September 11, 2020. https://www.seriouseats.com/mustard-oil-guide.

Vetter, Walter, Vanessa Darwisch, and Katja Lehnert. “Erucic Acid in Brassicaceae and Salmon – an Evaluation of the New Proposed Limits of Erucic Acid in Food.” NFS Journal 19 (2020): 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nfs.2020.03.002.

Vles, R. O., G. M. Bijster, and W. G. Timmer. “Nutritional Evaluation of Low-Erucic-Acid Rapeseed Oils.” SpringerLink. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, January 1, 1978. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-66896-8_3.

Šamec, Dunja, and Branka Salopek-Sondi. “Cruciferous (Brassicaceae) Vegetables.” Nonvitamin and Nonmineral Nutritional Supplements. Academic Press, October 5, 2018. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128124918000278.

To Eat or Not to Eat: The Persistent Questionability of MSG

This month we will be featuring a series of posts from student's in MET ML 619, The Science of Food and Cooking, with Professor Valerie Ryan. Today's post is submitted by Gastronomy student María José Córdova.

Is MSG a Chemical?

Over one hundred years since its isolation and fifty years since the “discovery” of the Chinese Restaurant Syndrome (CRS), the safety and status of monosodium glutamate (MSG) remains debatable among laypeople. Initial distrust of MSG’s safety may have been fueled by both chemophobia and xenophobia, but the reason for its persistence appears to be less clear. Negative attitudes about MSG are often based on a legacy of misunderstanding and misinformation. Here, I endeavor to develop an overview of MSG’s origins, chemistry, and production that may better inform the individual’s opinion on MSG and dispel some lingering mistrust.

The Chemistry 

MSG is the sodium salt of glutamic acid (Wang & Adhikari 2018). Glutamate is a naturally occurring amino acid that dissolves into free glutamic acid. Free glutamate is found in a variety of foods like tomatoes, parmesan cheese, and seaweed and is naturally found in our bodies (Taliaferro 1995). Glutamic acid is a nonessential amino acid with a variety of functions, one of which is to act as a neurotransmitter.

In 1908, Japanese chemist Kikunae Ikeda succeeded in isolating glutamic acid and identifying it as responsible for the savory taste of konbu dashi (sea kelp broth). Ikeda called this taste umami and proceeded to develop a crystalline powder via a chemical process. Thus emerged monosodium glutamate, which Ikeda patented and later founded Ajinomoto, a company that continues to mass-produce MSG today (Ikeda 2002).

Various methods exist for producing MSG. The most common way to produce MSG today is through the fermentation of plant-based ingredients like sugar cane or corn (Ault 2004, Sand 2005). According to the Ajinomoto website, after the fermentation process produces glutamic acid, the solution is decolorized, filtered, and crystallized, yielding the MSG powder that we recognize (“What is MSG and how is it made?”). This is the powder that made its way into many foods across the U.S. food supply for decades before facing questions about its safety.

The MSG Symptom Complex

In 1968, the New England Journal of Medicine published a letter from Chinese American doctor Robert Ho Man Kwok entitled “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome” in 1968. Kwok’s letter described a syndrome which produced “a numbness at the back of the neck, gradually radiating to both arms and the back, general weakness and palpitations” (796). While Kwok’s letter is not definitive about MSG’s causal role in producing these symptoms, he does isolate this experience to dining at Chinese restaurants and coins the term “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome” (CRS). The following month after Kwok’s letter was published, The New England Journal of Medicine published eleven different correspondences on CRS that express relief and identify with Kwok’s experience. Few suspect MSG is the cause. Instead, they focus on the experience occurring after consuming food at Chinese restaurants (1968, 1122-1124). The first of these correspondences is from H. Schaumburg, a professor of neurology who published a study on the effects of MSG the following year. His research both legitimized CRS as a medical condition and determined MSG was the cause. Schaumburg also pointed out that MSG was widely used as a food additive which widened the scope of the issue beyond Chinese restaurants (Mosby 2009). While Schaumburg’s and other subsequent studies have since been questioned or delegitimized for their faulty methodologies, their legacy persists.

Anti-MSG attitudes in the United States are associated with medical ailments and racialized with terms like “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome” (CRS). It becomes difficult to separate anti-MSG campaigns from anti-Asian ones. In the U.S., there exists a long history of systemic xenophobia, first codified with the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act (Wahlstedt et al. 2022). To specifically associate MSG with Chinese cuisine when it had been used for decades in processed food is indicative of xenophobic bias by medical professionals. Moreover, media seized upon the early correspondences to spread misinformation that was, up to this point, based on anecdotal evidence. However, today we see consumer preference for natural foods and a fear of chemicals continues to fuel a mistrust of MSG.

The Chemophobia

While there is scientific consensus that MSG is not unsafe, studies on consumer attitudes demonstrate that negative attitudes toward MSG are shaped by consumers’ chemophobia and misinformation about MSG (Wang and Adhikari, 2018). Several studies also show that many of the initial studies performed on MSG produced questionable results based on flawed methodology (Freeman 2006; Geha et al. 2000; Taliaferro 1995; Wahlstedt et al. 2022).

In the simplest terms, chemophobia is the fear of chemicals. In “Food Chemistry and Chemophobia,” Gordon W. Gribble suggests that the advent of chemophobia occurred in the wake of Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’ and the environmental movements of the era. Such reports moved the public to distrust the chemical industry. Gribble argues that, ultimately, everything we “see, smell, and touch is chemical!” and that the media uses the terms aroma, bouquet, fragrance, and odor are euphemisms for the volatile chemicals we breath (2013, 178). For Gribble, the breakdown of everything around us into molecules renders it a chemical because of chemistry. Moreover, he believes that “The Dose Makes the Poison” and argues that, in excess, the ingestion of natural compounds like water or salt are fatal.

While Gribble’s approach is extreme, it is evidence-based and works to reset the baseline for what is chemical and what makes a chemical dangerous. Gribble does not discuss MSG, but his argument touches on the tension between natural and artificial chemistry. Wang and Adhikari’s study on consumer perceptions about MSG concluded that subjects with a preference for natural food were more concerned about MSG which coincided with a general fear of chemicals. Additionally, the researchers found that many of their subjects misunderstood the function of MSG and believed it to be high in sodium when it contains less sodium than sodium chloride (2018).

Contemporary articles on MSG and its safety tend to agree that MSG has been misconstrued to be seen as unsafe due to misinformation and a history of questionable research methodologies, both of which contribute to the public’s mistrust of MSG.

Future Research

As of now, scientific research has not proved that MSG is bad for our health. Studies performed in the wake of Kwok’s original correspondence have since been discredited for only testing a handful of subjects that produced biased results. Anti-MSG messaging has largely been based on misinformation and personal experiences and xenophobic responses. However, this cultural response has had a long-lasting impact on American attitudes towards MSG. In recent years, anti-MSG sentiment stems more from chemophobia, yet the impact is similar because of the historical link between MSG and anti-Asian attitudes.

Future research should endeavor to explore a more nuanced approach to the bias against MSG and the link between consumer’s attitudes and cultural bias. Such a study may be more subjective but could illuminate whether anti-Asian sentiments continue to affect consumers’ opinion on MSG and perhaps where consumers first met anti-MSG messaging. As has been overviewed here, anti-MSG attitudes have largely been shaped by a serious of unfortunate events that sowed distrust while also capitalizing on anti-Asian xenophobia. Such a legacy is difficult to undo but doing so would leave the public better suited to understand their implicit bias, its origins, and ways to move forward.

Works Cited

Ault, Addison. "The Monosodium Glutamate Story: The Commercial Production of MSG and Other Amino Acids." Journal of Chemical Education 81, no. 3 (2004): 347-55.

Freeman, Matthew. “Reconsidering the Effects of Monosodium Glutamate: A Literature Review.” Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners 18, no. 10 (2006): 482–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-7599.2006.00160.x

Geha, Beiser, A., Corren, J., Saxon, A., Ren, C., Patterson, R., Greenberger, P. A., Grammer, L. C., Ditto, A. M., Harris, K. E., Shaughnessy, M. A., & Yarnold, P. R. “Review of alleged reaction to Monosodium glutamate and outcome of a multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled study.” The Journal of Nutrition, 130 (4), (2000): 1058S–1062S. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/130.4.1058S

Gribble, G.W. “Food chemistry and chemophobia.” Food Security. 5, no. 2 (2013): 177–187. https://doi-org.ezproxy.bu.edu/10.1007/s12571-013-0251-2

Ikeda, Kikunae. 2002. “New Seasonings.” Chemical Senses, 27, 847-849.

Kwok, R. H. “Chinese-restaurant syndrome." New England Journal of Medicine. 278, no. 14 (1968):796.

Mosby, Ian. “‘That Won-Ton Soup Headache’: The Chinese Restaurant Syndrome, MSG and the Making of American Food, 1968–1980.” Social History of Medicine: The Journal of the Society for the Social History of Medicine 22, no. 1 (2009): 133–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/shm/hkn098

Sand, Jordan. “A Short History of MSG: Good Science, Bad Science, and Taste Cultures.” Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture, 5, no. 4 (2005): 38-49.

Schaumburg, H. "Chinese-Restaurant Syndrome." The New England Journal of Medicine 278, no. 20 (1968): 1122-124.

Taliaferro, Patricia J. “Monosodium glutamate and the Chinese Restaurant Syndrome: a review of food additive safety.” Journal of Environmental Health, 57, no. 10 (1995): 8-12.

Wahlstedt, Amanda, Elizabeth Bradley, Juan Castillo, and Kate Gardner Burt. "MSG Is A-OK: Exploring the Xenophobic History of and Best Practices for Consuming Monosodium Glutamate." Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 122, no. 1 (2022): 25-29.

Wang, Shangci and Koushik Adhikari. "Consumer Perceptions and Other Influencing Factors about Monosodium Glutamate in the United States." Journal of Sensory Studies 33, no. 4 (2018): e12437-n/a. doi:10.1111/joss.12437.