MSG in foods

A place to get your questions answered from McDougall staff dietitian, Jeff Novick, MS, RDN.

Moderators: JeffN, carolve, Heather McDougall

MSG in foods

Postby Ed Petersen » Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:59 pm

We all know MSG is a food additive which has been discredited and most Chinese restaurants now claim not to use it. I got an email saying that it is still widely used in processed foods under some other name I cannot remember.

My question is how dangerous is this substance. And secondly have you any information about the stuff being used in everything from coffee to soft drinks?

Thanks Ed Petersen
Ed Petersen
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:05 pm
Location: Mine? Calgary Alberta Canada

Re: MSG in foods

Postby JeffN » Tue Feb 26, 2008 9:18 pm

Ed Petersen wrote:We all know MSG is a food additive which has been discredited and most Chinese restaurants now claim not to use it. I got an email saying that it is still widely used in processed foods under some other name I cannot remember.

My question is how dangerous is this substance. And secondly have you any information about the stuff being used in everything from coffee to soft drinks?

Thanks Ed Petersen


Hi Ed

I do not known what you mean by "discredited" but MSG sure has created a lot of controversy.

There are certain groups of people who are highly sensitive to MSG and clearly react to it. However, some well done double blind studies have also shown that many who think they are allergic, do not react when given MSG in these studies.

Quoting on the label issue..

"Under current FDA regulations, when MSG is added to a food, it must be identified as "monosodium glutamate" in the label's ingredient list. If MSG is part of a spice mix that is purchased from another company, the manufacturer is still required to list the ingredients of that spice mix including MSG. Some companies whether intentionally or unknowingly may simply use the words "flavorings" or "spices" even if other ingredients including MSG are present. This is technically against the regulation and should the company be questioned about it, would be required to update labels. Braggs Liguid Aminos had to remove the "No MSG" from their label.

MSG may be in some foods and not labeled as such. MSG is only one of several forms of free glutamate used in foods. Free glutamate may also be present in a wide variety of other additives, including: hydrolyzed vegetable proteins, autolyzed yeast, hydrolyzed yeast, yeast extract, soy extracts, protein isolate, "spices" and "natural flavorings."


There is a petition in front of the FDA to have these foods labeled as containing MSG if they contain free glutamate and a warning label that it may be harmful to certain groups of people, but the FDA has not acted on this to date.

In regard to how dangerous it is... while I think there are some valid concerns I am not convinced it is as bad as many websites make it out to be.

For a more balanced view, I would recommend you read this Continuing Education Document written by a colleague and close friend of over 10 years who I have some of the utmost professional respect for. I am not saying I agree with it 100&, but it is a well written/documented view that you do not often hear.

Is MSG a Serious Public Health Problem?
Jay Kenney, PhD, RD
https://foodandhealth.com/cpecourses/msg.doc

Personally, I avoid it but that is my personal choice and I avoid most all chemicals and additives and packaged processed foods. Many people put great effort and energy into avoiding it, yet continue to ingest many well known harmful foods and substances that are proven to be much more harmful then MSG.

If you are looking to avoid it, focusing your diet on natural foods, as grown in nature, and avoiding and/or limiting refined packages processed foods, will go a long way to keeping it out of your diet.

However, in the great scheme of things and all the food and diet related troubles our nation and now the world faces, I do not see MSG in the top, or even near the top, of the things I am most concerned about. However, for those who are sensitive to it, they should avoid it as well as anyone else who chooses to do so.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby DianeR » Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:20 am

Jeff, are you familiar with the work of Dr. Russell Blaylock, such as the book "Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills"? I have a great deal of difficulty in squaring articles such as the one you mention with the far more extensive treatment of the literature such as Dr. Blaylock provides. The sources that say that MSG is fine seem to ignore a lot of studies or say that the negative ones are poorly designed and leave it at that. But then the other side says it is the pro-MSG studies that were poorly designed or are being cited for propositions they don't support.

I don't have the time or expertise to find all these studies myself and see what I conclude.

I guess where I come out is that natural food is the best thing, not manufactured food substances and certainly not chemicals. Since I'm not sure, I resolve the issue by avoiding things I don't know to be safe.

A list of the places where MSG can hide (or at least this is what is claimed):
http://www.truthinlabeling.org/hiddensources.html
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. --
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
User avatar
DianeR
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:29 am

Postby JeffN » Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:26 am

Hi

Yes, I am very familiar with the Dr Blaylock and his book. And, while I find it interesting, he has published nothing supporting his claims and there is nothing really published elsewhere to support it. I am not saying he is wrong, but if he is right, he is lacking the evidence to support it. I am also concerned about his other information that he puts out and his relationship to the supplement industry.

Now, I am not recommending MSG or other chemicals, I am only giving you another view that is well supported by research and documentation and should be considered. Considering it can only enhance your position and not compromise it. If you are for Truth In Labeling, we should also be for Truth In Information. Blaylock is a very heavily biased one sided view.

Here are some of the other views.

In 1958, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classified MSG as a "generally recognised as safe" (GRAS) ingredient, placing it in the same category as vinegar, baking powder and salt. Since that time there have been several extensive scientific reviews on MSG.

In 1980 the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) reported that MSG was safe.

In 1985 The Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), the scientific advisory body on food additives to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, placed MSG in the safest category of food ingredients.

1991: The European Commission Scientific Committee on Foods reviewed the safety of MSG and agreed with the JECFA classification.

1992: The American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs reviewed MSG and stated that MSG was generally safe.

1995: The Food and Drug Administration (USA) asked the Federation of the American Society for Experimental Biology (FASEB) to conduct another review of MSG. FASEB reported that MSG was generally safe again.

2003: The Australian Food Standards Agency. Reaffirmed the safety of MSG.

2005: The World Health Organization acknowledged that "neurotoxic effects have been seen in animal studies, but only at very high doses," often administered by injection; it concluded that "there is a substantial body of work investigating MSG at lower doses with no indication of any adverse effects."

2006: Consensus meeting on MSG, Germany. A group of experts met to update the safety review of MSG and concluded MSG can be "regarded as harmless for the whole population"

Health Canada says "some individuals who consume MSG may exhibit an allergic-type reaction or hypersensitivity," but "the safety of MSG has been studied worldwide.

More than 80 per cent of the consumption is in Asia, specifically in China, and they are not suffering from unusual amounts of neuro-toxicity.

Jack Samuels and his wife, Adrienne, who run the Truth in Labeling campaign and website says he is hypersensitive to MSG but admits that he's a "very, very rare" type, to have these kinds of extreme reactions and also acknowledges that most people would go through life and not have any kind of problem at all.

Again, I am not recommending the use of MSG as it is high in sodium and
I am more concerned about the proven harmful effects of the sodium in the MSG then in any potential neuro-toxicity.

In addition, I think people are better off getting used to the wonderful natural tastes and flavors inherent in natural foods.

I do agree that there should be better labeling of foods and ingredients that have MSG added to them, so people who want to can avoid it.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby DianeR » Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:37 am

Dr. Blaylock does cite studies. Is there something wrong with the way he does so? Or something wrong with the studies themselves? Or are there studies he neglects to mention?

I'm just trying to get at the basis for saying that he lacks evidence and presents "a very heavily biased one sided view." Is there something he has done that leads you to believe he didn't simply look at what evidence exists and drew a conclusion? Have you read the book in question or are you relying on what others have said about it?

I hadn't heard before about his relationship with the supplement industry. I know he recommends supplements (which advice I ignore) -- is there more to it than that? Of course, even if he had a financial relationship it wouldn't mean he might not be correct.

He himself says that more studies need to be done. He explores the FASEB report in particular, which differs in its executive summary versus the more nuanced report itself. Really all that report found is that from the studies done they couldn't conclude that certain harm took place. They did not find that appropriate and sufficient studies had been performed to begin with.

Frankly governmental agencies, etc. finding no problem isn't dispositive to my mind. They also find dairy an important part of a healthy diet, for instance. Not to mean they can't be right about something. But the potential for bias due to political reasons is present in any such report.

The issue is perhaps moot as far as we are concerned. We wouldn't want to eat the sort of things with MSG, aspartame, or carrageenan in them to begin with.

This is the first I've heard about the bulk of MSG being used in China. Do we know that it is consumed in China, or might it be used in food products and additives that are exported? My understanding is that the actual consumption figure in the US is really unknown because companies do not disclose how much they use. I don't know that the information of actual consumption would be any better in China. But I stand ready to be informed further on this subject.

Of course, from the China Study it appears that their diet and lifestyle in general is much healthier than ours. This could provide a protective effect.

I appreciate the time you've devoted to this and other topics on this board. You've really added a lot to the board. I hope you view my posts not as an attempt at debating with you. Rather, I am merely trying to get more information.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. --
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
User avatar
DianeR
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:29 am

Postby JeffN » Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:05 pm

Hi Diane

I am sure you wont like my response :)

Citing studies is one thing. But many studies are misrepresented.

If you saw my presentation on fat, I show how the studies on the Lyon Heart Trial, the French and the Greek and on olive oil (and many other things) are all misrepresented and misquoted even by other MDs.

I remember many years ago, buying one of the alt health books that bragged that it listed over 400 studies. I decided to try and research them all. By the time I was done with the first 100, I quit because most all were either non-existent, misrepresented, misquoted, or not of any quality.

We have to find and read the original data. Most of the ones he cites are very old and done on rats. MSG is one thing that rats metabolize differently then we do, especially in relation to the blood/brain barrier, so the rat studies may have no relevance.

But, we have new data. Studies have been done recently and they do not find the problems that he is stating. Yes, they find some problems in those who are very sensitive but they are rare. And for those people, they should avoid it.

My concern is why some many in the alt health field consider any info from the mainstream bad, and any info from an alt health guy with something to rail about as good. Science is science. There is no alt science.

The thing that first and most impressed me about Dr McDougall back in the early 80s, was he went into the mainstream and found all the medical and scientific evidence to support what he was saying. Same with the Pritikin family. And then they all published more and more info on it supporting it. And eventually, all the mainstream scientific organizations moved in their direction, not away from it. Mainstream recommendations for sat fat, cholesterol, sodium, sugars have all come down. Recommendations for vegetarian and vegan diets have become part of the dietary guidelines of the USDA and the ADA. Maybe not as good as we want, but the info is accepted more and more.

I do not believe that WHO, EU, Health Canada, FAO, AFSA, FASEB, AMA and USDA and FDA are all involved in some health conspiracy and each one, on their own, and together, choose to ignore all the data showing harm and then give their recommendation to it. Yes, the USDA, AMA and the FDA has shown they can be influenced by industries and politics, but not all these international organizations at once on one issue that has such potential for harm. I would need some really good evidence to convince me of that.

I sat on the Pritikin Science committee for 10 years and we debated this every year amongst a group of open-minded scientists. One of them would present data to approve this as an option for the clients each year. We never approved it but not for medical or health issues. Only because of the bad press it gets and the negative perception it has. In 10 years, no one on the science committee could argue against it or find the data against it for medical and health reasons and we tried hard.

But, in the end, this is all moot. It is just not that toxic nor is it creating any major health problem. Or if it is, it is not showing up in a way that reflects this. And, if it is, show me the current data showing the problems in individuals or in populations who have high consumptions. Remember 80% of the MSG is consumed in SE Asia with most of it in China and they just don't have the problems we would expect from such a high consumption.

Yet at the same time, there are many very toxic chemicals that we seem to ignore. If you look at the top 10, or even 50, or even 100 chemicals that are causing health problems and death, do you think MSG would be in any of those lists? Yet, how many things in those lists, especially the top 10, do you think people are ignoring? Even those who shout the loudest about MSG?

Besides, I do not know of any food that might potentially have MSG in it, that I would recommend anyway for other reasons. And, the others reasons would be more important for known reasons, then the MSG. Most of the processed foods that may contain MSG are usually high in sodium, sugars, fat, sat fat and calorie density, all of which are much more of a health concern than MSG.

Again, I am not recommending MSG and would not recommend MSG, but not because of the glutamate in it but first because of the sodium in it And, second, I would also not recommend it for the same philosophical reason I do not recommend any other powerful flavoring. I would like people to get used to the wonderful natural flavors of food, as is. And if someone is sensitive to it, then they should by all means avoid it. And, the industry should label clearly which foods have it.

I enjoy the discussion but I just do not see it as being very relevant to our main health issues as either a planet, a nation or as individual. Of course, if you can show me data proving that it is, I would gladly & enthusiastically add MSG to those things I am adamant about.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby DianeR » Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:47 pm

One thing you are wrong about -- I did not dislike your response :D

Have you or someone else gone through Blaylock's work? He does write persuasively. But, as you point out, for me to know for sure I would have to dig up all the studies and read them for myself (unless someone has already done this work for me). That would be assuming I have the time or the expertise to do this, not to mention the motivation. I don't want to eat the sort of foods that contain MSG to begin with. So even if I were to become absolutely convinced of its safety, well, I'm not going to change what I'm eating.

The only studies I know of are the ones I see mentioned in his books. Are you saying he miscites them? Putting things in the passive voice -- "many studies are misrepresented" -- leaves it unclear who is doing the misrepresenting.

I agree that science is science. I don't know if Dr. Blaylock can be labeled alternative simply because he reaches a different conclusion. It isn't like he's relying on auras, crystals, homeopathy, quantum mechanics, etc., or lacks credentials. He's a board certified neurosurgeon and a former professor at a medical school, not some random nut. I don't see that he discounts any information from the mainstream bad (nor do I), but he examines it to see if it is well-founded. Or at least it seemed like this is what he did.

Actually, the body of the FASEB report (not the executive summary) contains a number of caveats and words of warning. I admit that I only have the quotes Dr. Blaylock provides; I haven't endeavored to find the long thing and read it to see the context. For instance (page numbers are to the FASEB report):
1. Citation of a study by Bogdanov and Wurtman finding deep brain levels of glutamate rose sharply following a dose of MSG (p.29) -- Dr. Blaylock has three other studies he cites showing the same thing
2. An admission that several areas of the brain possess no blood-brain barrier (p.29, p. 43), although ignoring the clinical conditions in which that barrier can be damaged (according to Dr. Blaylock and his studies), such as hypertension, diabetes, stroke, Alzheimer's and head injury
3. "Levels of ingested MSG might be sufficient to raise the concentration of blood glutamate and related compounds enough to change the levels of these amino acides in the brain, particularly in the circumventricular areas not protected by the blood-brain barrier....The elevated levels of glutamate and related compounds would then have adverse neuroexcitatory effects, be neurotoxic, and/or initiate a chian of metabolic events that would result in either neurotoxicity or the release of substances that would cause the neurological manifestations reportedly associated with MSG exposure." (pp. 42-3)
4. "It is conceivable that the consumption of MSG in genetically or otherwise prdisposed individuals can exacerbate a preexiting neurological condition." (p.46)
5. According to Dr. Blaylock, "The expert panel concluded on page 57 that after reviewing 43 different studies the weight of the evidence is "convincing" that MSG causes destructive lesions in the hypothalamus and a reduction in endocrine organ weights in all species studied....On page 103 they conclude, "Theoretically, if blood levels seen in animals as a result of MSG challenge were achieved in humans, similar lesions and/or neuroendocrine effects could be expected to occur." Studies, even by defenders of MSG safety, have shown that, in fact, humans develop blood levels of glutamate much higher than that seen in animals, when given MSG in comparable doses. In fact, humans develop blood levels higher than any known species."
6. "Motor disturbances and changes in seizure threshold have been noted in numerous studies." (p.65) Dr. Blaylock says that all the newer anti-seizure medications (bear in mind this is a 1997 book) are glutamate blocking drugs.

You mention "new data." Which studies are those? Do they go unaddressed in either the original book or subsequent work? I know he discusses the Reynolds study which said she couldn't replicate what Olney found. However, Reynolds only belatedly, and after being challenged publicly, mentioned that the monkey (not rats) vomited (and so didn't have the amount of MSG absorbed that was implied), the monkeys were give a known glutamate blocker as an anesthetic, and they had the wrong parts of their brains examined (using photomicrographs of areas of the hypothalamus known not to be affected by MSG). Apparently, in several papers reviewed by the panel, used to show no brain lesions following MSG exposure, the animals had been given a glutamate blocker as well.

You also repeat your point about China but didn't answer what I had to say on the subject. I've spent some time trying to find actual per capita average consumption figures of, say, China versus the US, but I've been unsuccessful.

I don't think it fair to say that he ignores what he views as other toxic chemicals. He discusses many of them in his most recent book, in which he also recommends a vegan diet, exercise, and restricting sugar & coffee. I don't think he ever says that MSG is the biggest problem in the world and I certainly have never said so.

Moving beyond Dr. Blaylock, I tried to do a little more research. So, yes, I found Wikipedia. :D Not science, but at least a summary that explains the controversy and has some citations to primary materials. It also mentions that at a meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, the delegates had a split opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutamic_a ... h_concerns

Again, you haven't said you have actually read his books. Of course, we don't have time to read everything. You may have bigger fish to fry. Of course, the fish and the frying are purely figurative :lol:

But if neurologists and neuroscientists can't agree -- and if it is true that, as Dr. Blaylock says, a number of neurologists confess to him that they advise their patients to avoid MSG and aspartame -- this gives me enough reason to convince me to avoid MSG. I don't need it, it isn't real food, and some experts think there is reason for concern about its safety.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. --
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
User avatar
DianeR
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:29 am

Postby JeffN » Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:05 pm

Diane,

DianeR wrote: Have you or someone else gone through Blaylock's work? He does write persuasively. But, as you point out, for me to know for sure I would have to dig up all the studies and read them for myself (unless someone has already done this work for me). That would be assuming I have the time or the expertise to do this, not to mention the motivation


Yes. I have. And yes you would. But, let me help. I have read his books and his articles and even looked into many of the studies. In addition, so has my colleague extensively who writes continuing education on the topic. So has the science committee I mentioned, who reviewed the data each year. All of who, are experts in not only conducting research but also in evaluating it.

Also "persuasive" scores points in marketing, not in science. Science speaks for itself. Often softly.

DianeR wrote:I don't know if Dr. Blaylock can be labeled alternative simply because he reaches a different conclusion. It isn't like he's relying on auras, crystals, homeopathy, quantum mechanics, etc., or lacks credentials. He's a board certified neurosurgeon and a former professor at a medical school, not some random nut.


Atkins was board certified with a stack of credentials. So, is Barry Sears. and Mercola, Whittaker, etc etc. Credential are helpful and I respect his, but again, it is not the deciding factor. The deciding factor is the data.

DianeR wrote: You mention "new data." Which studies are those?


Please read the simple CEU course I posted the link to, which is easy to understand and will discuss some of this.

DianeR wrote:You also repeat your point about China but didn't answer what I had to say on the subject. I've spent some time trying to find actual per capita average consumption figures of, say, China versus the US, but I've been unsuccessful.


Let me help you.

Consumption estimates for the USA is roughly .5 grams for the average consumer, spread out through an entire day. In Taiwan, per capita consumption figures are much higher, averaging 3 grams daily which is 6x the USA amount.

Rhodes, J., Alison, C., Titherley, J.A. et al. A survey of the monosodium glutamate content of foods and an estimation of the dietary intake of monosodium glutamate. Food Additives and Contaminants, 8:265-274, 1991.

The average American consumes around 10,000 mg (10 grams) of glutamate daily even if all the foods and beverages they consumed had no added MSG. Meanwhile, the intake of MSG amounts to approximately one-half gram per person, or 1/10 teaspoon, daily.

Wen you look at these numbers, remember a teaspoon is about 4.5 to 5 grams and a tsp is 5 ml.

Glutamate Content of Foods (mg/100 grams of food)

Potatoes 102
Corn 130
Tomatoes 140
Broccoli 176
Mushrooms 180
Peas 200
Grape juice 258
tomato juice 260
Walnuts 658


Chronic feeding of MSG to rabbits, dogs and monkeys found that even doses as high as 42g MSG/Kg body weight failed to cause any neurological damage. For a 70 Kg (150 lb) man this dose would be 2940 g daily or over 6 lbs of MSG per day.

Heywood R, Worden AN. Glutamate toxicity in laboratory animals. In Glutamic Acid: Advances in Biochemistry and Physiology. Edited by LJ Filer,Jr et al. p. 363. Raven Press, New York

An epidemiological survey of about 5000 users and nonusers of MSG in Hawaii found that chronic use of MSG was not associated with any increase in neurological problems. It also showed that the regular use of MSG did not affect serum cholesterol or blood sugar levels and had no effect on body weight.

Go G, Nakamura FH, Rhoads GG, Dickerson LE. Long-term health effects of monosodium glutamate. Hawaii Med J. 1973;32:13-7

DianeR wrote:I don't think it fair to say that he ignores what he views as other toxic chemicals


Agreed and you would be right if i said it. But, I didn't. I said many in the alt health field do while ignoring more important issues.

DianeR wrote:Moving beyond Dr. Blaylock, I tried to do a little more research. So, yes, I found Wikipedia. big grin Not science,


Agreed. bigger grin. :) Doesn't count.

DianeR wrote:But if neurologists and neuroscientists can't agree -- and if it is true that, as Dr. Blaylock says, a number of neurologists confess to him that they advise their patients to avoid MSG and aspartame -


Does not count either. Scientists will also disagree, even those who work together on similar projects with similar perspectives. That is how science, and life works. Just because some MDs, think fat is good, doesnt mean the all the evidence supporting low fat is wrong.

Many MDs tell patients to avoid things, because they don;t know any better and/of heard/read the same mis information as everyone else. At the same time some MDs, tell patients not to worry, for the same exact reasons.

In here, our standards are much higher. :)

DianeR wrote:this gives me enough reason to convince me to avoid MSG. I don't need it, it isn't real food, and some experts think there is reason for concern about its safety.


I am not arguing or disagreeing with you or anyone wanting to avoid it.

But, let me ask you a more important question.

Can you find just one food, that has MSG in it, that you think would pass my guidelines and be recommended by me as an otherwise healthy food. Just one food that I would recommend and passed my guidelines and I would consider healthy, but you would want me to reconsider due to the MSG content.

Otherwise, again, this is a very moot point. :)

Thanks.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD

PS Maybe this will help put this in better perspective. I was just interviewed today for my opinion on "cloned" meat and why people should avoid it.

I said, I have no opinion on cloned meat but have a strong opinion on meat. I do not thing people should avoid meat because it is "cloned'. I think they should avoid meat regardless of whether it is cloned or not just because it is meat, period! And that is a more important health issue.

Meat is high in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and void of fiber and many needed nutrients. Cooking it (heating either the protein or the fat) can create certain cancer causing compounds and it has been related to heart disease and colon cancer.

Isn't that enough?

:)

Who cares if it is cloned or not, just avoid it anyway!

:)
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby DianeR » Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:29 am

Jeff,

I just want to thank you for your detailed response to me. I've been away from the computer for weeks (for a variety of reasons) and have only just now been working my way through all my old emails.

I must say, I find you persuasive too :lol:

You asked me if there was any food you would recommend that would have MSG in it. The only thing I can think of, offhand, is that most of the McDougall Right Foods cups contain yeast extract, which I've seen in a list of "hidden" MSG sources as something that "always" contains MSG. (Also, "natural flavors" which have been said to often contain MSG.) Whether this is true or not, or if the amount is significant, I don't know. Perhaps you can tell me :-D
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. --
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
User avatar
DianeR
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:29 am


Return to Jeff Novick, RD

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.