MSG IN VEG FOOD ...

[tuc]

Medman, it's great to see you back on the board!

I second that, a great post!

 

IYM, it's just the savoury taste that comes from glutamate. Glutamate is just the thing that makes tomatoes so good.

[xjohanx]

Tuc you have to learn the difference between glutamic acid and MSG. Saying they are the same thing is like saying chloroform and methane are one substance.

 

I'll just jump in here to say that glutamic acid and glutamate are both naturally found in your body. The only difference between glutamic acid and glutamate is one hydrogen (or a positive charge, however you want to look at it), and the two forms exist in the body, with pH being a main factor in determining the balance between them. The difference between MSG and glutamate? None; the sodium is only necessary in order to precipitate it in crystal form (so that you can sell/use it as a powder), and in the body, the sodium become dissociated from the glutamate, and is no different that the sodium you'd get from table salt. So Tuc is actually right; in biochemistry, saying "glutamic acid" or "glutamate" makes no difference, because as soon as you put one of them into the body, it will establish an equilibrium between the two forms (because your pH is buffered).

 

Great post. I know that both glutamic acid and glutamate is found in both food and our bodies naturally, I never argued against that. And the rest of what you are saying is mostly logical I guess. But have you studied MSG in specific? I don't know too much about organic chemistry and biochemistry (I just started studying it) but I know that when you replace a hydrogen on a simple carbonhydrogen chain with another ion it's properties can change drastically thanks to resonance stabilsation and other things. Hydrogen and Sodium have some difference in electronegativity etc that I am sure must matter at least to some extent. So yes, saying that glutamic acid or glutamate might not make a difference in biochemistry but glutamic acid/glutamate shouldn't be equaled to monosodium glutamate (at least not from what I've read).

It would be nice to have a normal discussion with sane arguments instead of blabbering about the taste of tomatoes compared to mock meats.

[Im Your Man]

I know that both glutamic acid and glutamate is found in both food and our bodies naturally, I never argued against that. And the rest of what you are saying is mostly logical I guess. But have you studied MSG in specific? I don't know too much about organic chemistry and biochemistry (I just started studying it) but I know that when you replace a hydrogen on a simple carbonhydrogen chain with another ion it's properties can change drastically thanks to resonance stabilsation and other things. Hydrogen and Sodium have some difference in electronegativity etc that I am sure must matter at least to some extent. So yes, saying that glutamic acid or glutamate might not make a difference in biochemistry but glutamic acid/glutamate shouldn't be equaled to monosodium glutamate (at least not from what I've read).

Exactly. A quote from one of my previous posts :

They use a similar reasoning with MSG and Aspartame which are just slightly modified amino acids.

Like for instance just by doing small modifications to benzene (petroleum) which cannot occur naturally you can produce dioxins. You can come up with 209 different PCB's because there's 209 different combinations possible. All you need is to remove some hydrogen molecules from benzene and replace with chlorine molecules and it becomes the most dangerous matter ever invented by man, 5000x more toxic than arsenic. The higher chlorine level, the most toxic it becomes, like DDT's used as herbicides, Monsanto's 2,4,5-T. The most toxic possible being 2,3,7,8-TCDD, or TCDD.

[DaN]

The sooner scientists realise they shouldnt be tampering on a molecular level with things we end up eating, the better.

 

Especially when the aim is to just make something taste nicer.This is evidence of the retardation of man.

 

I am not going to be eating processed foods with things added for taste though, so I dont really care.I use things called herbs to flavour my food.

 

End.

[Im Your Man]

ah ah ! I love your post, Dan

 

I find that some scientists and their studies are so incompetent, ridiculous and pathetic in their motivations and methods that the only thing they prove is the "evidence of the retardation of man."

 

And "I use things called herbs to flavour my food."

[tuc]

The sooner scientists realise they shouldnt be tampering on a molecular level with things we end up eating, the better.

 

Especially when the aim is to just make something taste nicer.This is evidence of the retardation of man.

 

I am not going to be eating processed foods with things added for taste though, so I dont really care.I use things called herbs to flavour my food.

 

End.

Without scientist tampering food on molecular level there wouldn't be B12 or vitamin D fortified products for vegans. Since for most people it is impossible to get enough vitamin D without eating fish (since people live far north with not enough sunshine) there are 2 options:

 

1.) Let's keep the scientists and their molecular level things.

2.) Most of the vegans have to quit being a vegan since it is virtually impossible to get enough vitamin D or B12 from plant sources in many countries.

 

Which one would you prefer?

 

They use a similar reasoning with MSG and Aspartame which are just slightly modified amino acids.

Like for instance just by doing small modifications to benzene (petroleum) which cannot occur naturally you can produce dioxins. You can come up with 209 different PCB's because there's 209 different combinations possible. All you need is to remove some hydrogen molecules from benzene and replace with chlorine molecules and it becomes the most dangerous matter ever invented by man, 5000x more toxic than arsenic. The higher chlorine level, the most toxic it becomes, like DDT's used as herbicides, Monsanto's 2,4,5-T. The most toxic possible being 2,3,7,8-TCDD, or TCDD.

Oh come-on! That is just the scaremongering I hate. DDT, benzene ect.... and just to make it clear: I do not think that aspartame is dangerous either. It's just another hoax. Huge amounts of studies led the scientist to a conclusion that it is not dangerous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy (however, I do not buy anything with artificial sweeteners)

 

MSG is the same thing as glutamate after digestion, as described before. That means that eating MSG at the amounts the chinese eat it is as dangerous as eating 2 tomatoes per day.

 

Stop worrying about nonsense and concentrate on things that really matter. Animal abuse, cutting down rainforests, climate change, extinctions... those are the things people should use their time on. NOT scaring people about something that has NOTHING to scare of.

 

Yeah, you can tell people it is healthy to eat raw and unprocessed food. But PLEASE do NOT use utterly nonscientific arguments since it gives the whole veganism a bad name. We have to base our arguments on facts and studies, not scare people and tell them lies.

 

ah ah ! I love your post, Dan

 

I find that some scientists and their studies are so incompetent, ridiculous and pathetic in their motivations and methods that the only thing they prove is the "evidence of the retardation of man."

 

And "I use things called herbs to flavour my food."

The only scientists I find incompetent, ridiculous and pathetic and with uncertain motivation and lack of scientific methods are the ones I see on pages which spread rumors about everything being super toxic and dangerous.

 

MSG is among the most studied substances just because of the controversy created by front groups which choose the facts which drive their own interest, not the facts which show what the whole thing is all about.

 

I also think your anti-science arguments are invalid. If the facts don't prove your point, you say that the facts are wrong. What a way to win a conversation.

[Im Your Man]

We have to base our arguments on facts and studies, not scare people and tell them lies.

We need to have arguments, not just repeating results of studies. We need to base our arguments on our brain, intelligence, common sense and observation. "Huge amounts of studies led the scientist to a conclusion that it is not dangerous." What do you mean ? This is impossible. Which study proves that future generations won't be two-headed mutants due to Aspartame or MSG ? ... in fact, there's already lots of malformations happening, what study proved that it is not associated with MSG. Most males have low quality sperm and the size of penis is shrinking since a few generations. Scientific studies have their limits so we need to use our brain.

[tuc]

We have to base our arguments on facts and studies, not scare people and tell them lies.

We need to have arguments, not just repeating results of studies. We need to base our arguments on our brain, intelligence, common sense and observation. "Huge amounts of studies led the scientist to a conclusion that it is not dangerous." What do you mean ? This is impossible. Which study proves that future generations won't be two-headed mutants due to Aspartame or MSG ? ... in fact, there's already lots of malformations happening, what study proved that it is not associated with MSG. Most males have low quality sperm and the size of penis is shrinking since a few generations. Scientific studies have their limits so we need to use our brain.

It has just been told you that you get exactly the same glutamate and sodium in your body if you eat MSG or tomatoes+salt.

 

If eating tomatoes and some salt lowers my sperm count and makes my penis smaller, f**k it. I love tomatoes so much that I'd still eat them. I am willing to take the risk that my lust for tomatoes creates 2 headed monsters in the future.

 

MSG = sodium and glutamate = part of normal salt and part of tomatoes = perfectly safe if you don't use stupid amounts of MSG but then the food would probably taste like crap anyway.

 

For me, the ability to use one's brain means that the person accepts scientific facts and makes one's conclusions based on hard evidence. MSG has been studied way more than half a century and since it really is pretty natural thing (made with fermentation and the substance itself is in abundance in many foods and our own body). You just can't blaim MSG for the things that pollution and other stuff has made to humans.

[xjohanx]

MSG = sodium and glutamate = part of normal salt and part of tomatoes = perfectly safe if you don't use stupid amounts of MSG but then the food would probably taste like crap anyway.

 

Hey I don't know why I bother to write here since you seem to ignore my post but this argument does not work. I really think you are oversimplifying the complexety of life when you say stuff like this. Everything is made of elements but depending on what elements are put together the substance will get different properties. To, again, compare this to chloroform, it's chloride (found in water and our body), hydrogen (well water and every organic molecule) and carbon (again, every organic molecule), does that mean it isn't dangerous? I'm not saying you are wrong in this issue, just that your arguing isn't accurate. The main reason why I don't like MSG is the sodium and the fact that some people are very sensitive to it. Since my dad experienced the chinsese restaurant syndrome a lot of times I don't see any reason to try my luck.

I mostly oppose the use of monosodium glutamate because the industry uses it to make ing overprocessed food taste good and fool people. They do it with meat too, you can not find a MSG free meat slice in Sweden unless it's organic. They also add tons of sugar. And I don't get affected straight away by the meat but I'm opposed to the additives we find in food all the time.

[ralst]

This is impossible. Which study proves that future generations won't be two-headed mutants due to Aspartame or MSG ? ... in fact, there's already lots of malformations happening, what study proved that it is not associated with MSG. Most males have low quality sperm and the size of penis is shrinking since a few generations. Scientific studies have their limits so we need to use our brain.

 

What is this "shrinking penis" issue? I've never heard of this problem, until seeing you mention it on a couple of threads recently. From what did your knowledge of this problem spring?

[DaN]

Tuc, as Yohan stated, you are over simplifying the issue, it seems because you are unable to grasp the fine details.

 

Also you fail to provide any reputable source for your opinion that science has found MSG to be harmless.

 

You also defend scientists rights to tamper with food on a molecular level, even if there is no concern for possible long term effects.

 

This is evidence of the retardation of you.

 

Give up while you can mate.

[tuc]

MSG = sodium and glutamate = part of normal salt and part of tomatoes = perfectly safe if you don't use stupid amounts of MSG but then the food would probably taste like crap anyway.

Hey I don't know why I bother to write here since you seem to ignore my post but this argument does not work. I really think you are oversimplifying the complexety of life when you say stuff like this. Everything is made of elements but depending on what elements are put together the substance will get different properties. To, again, compare this to chloroform, it's chloride (found in water and our body), hydrogen (well water and every organic molecule) and carbon (again, every organic molecule), does that mean it isn't dangerous? I'm not saying you are wrong in this issue, just that your arguing isn't accurate. The main reason why I don't like MSG is the sodium and the fact that some people are very sensitive to it. Since my dad experienced the chinsese restaurant syndrome a lot of times I don't see any reason to try my luck.

I mostly oppose the use of monosodium glutamate because the industry uses it to make ing overprocessed food taste good and fool people. They do it with meat too, you can not find a MSG free meat slice in Sweden unless it's organic. They also add tons of sugar. And I don't get affected straight away by the meat but I'm opposed to the additives we find in food all the time.

Sorry, I have fever and my level of attention is suboptimal.

 

Do not compare to cloroform. It's nonsense. When you eat free glutamine or MSG, they will be converted to the same substance in no time because of the acidity in stomach. There have been HUGE amounts of studies and none say eating MSG is life threatening for humans unless used in amounts that are totally abnormal.

 

Chinese restaurant syndrome has never been scientifically associated with MSG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_restaurant_syndrome#Chinese_restaurant_syndrome

 

While many people believe that monosodium glutamate (MSG) is the cause of these symptoms, an association has never been demonstrated under rigorously controlled conditions, even in studies with people who were convinced that they were sensitive to the compound. Adequately controlling for experimental bias includes a placebo-controlled double-blinded experimental design and the application in capsules because of the strong and unique after-taste of glutamates.

 

Also, if you buy raw meat it doesn't contain MSG. At least in Finland. It must be told if it has been added to food.

[tuc]

Tuc, as Yohan stated, you are over simplifying the issue, it seems because you are unable to grasp the fine details.

 

Also you fail to provide any reputable source for your opinion that science has found MSG to be harmless.

 

You also defend scientists rights to tamper with food on a molecular level, even if there is no concern for possible long term effects.

 

This is evidence of the retardation of you.

 

Give up while you can mate.

I am not oversimplifying the issue. As told before, when MSG reaches stomach it is the same thing as free glutamine which can be found in many, many foods in abundance.

 

I FAIL TO PROVIDE REPUTABLE SOURCES??? WTF! Wikipedia has loads of links to scientific studies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate

 

Without scientist tampering food on molecular level there wouldn't be B12 or vitamin D fortified products for vegans. Since for most people it is impossible to get enough vitamin D without eating fish (since people live far north with not enough sunshine) there are 2 options:

 

1.) Let's keep the scientists and their molecular level things.

2.) Most of the vegans have to quit being a vegan since it is virtually impossible to get enough vitamin D or B12 from plant sources in many countries.

 

Which one would you prefer?

 

You didn't answer this question. I stand 100 % behind my earlier statement. Without scientists touching the molecules in my food, I wouldn't be able to be a vegan. And being a vegan is way more important to me than eating 100 % natural food. And don't get me wrong, I do not oppose natural food. I just got home an automated sprouting machine I ordered from UK. But I have no problem eating some processed food along with unprocesessed food.

 

This is evidence of the retardation of you.

 

Give up while you can mate.

Is that a bad joke? Or an insult? Both? I will NOT give up to people who fight against reason.

[DaN]

Ok let me structure the argument in a different way:

 

Most of us on here believe veganism to be our bodies natural choice of diet.Many, including people who have studied the subject, say that our bodies specialise in processing plant foods & have been for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

If this is the case, why would B12, a vitamin we apparently need, not be found in any plant sources? Why would our natural diet of thousands of years be lacking an essential vitamin for us?

 

I personally think that veganism is our natural ideal diet.if B12 is only found in meat/dairy, then we do not need it.

 

You say scientists tampering with our foods on molecular levels has been a good thing? I suppose you are going to turn around & say there is nothing wrong with GM food? Because there is no evidence that it is harmful yet? You dont need evidence to tell its going to be bad.Anyone who can think for themselves can see it is a bad idea.

 

Scientists tamper with our food then the same scientists turn around a find no evidence that their modified shit is harmful?

 

If you are going to folow that line of thought you are naiive.

 

You say supplements/isolates help you to be a vegan? You need to open your eyes and wake up.

[ralst]

This is evidence of the retardation of you.

 

Give up while you can mate.

Is that a bad joke? Or an insult? Both? I will NOT give up to people who fight against reason.

 

Props for that, Tuc. I get aggravated just reading the stuff your "oppponents" are writing in this thread (excepting Johan)

 

Ok let me structure the argument in a different way:

 

Most of us on here believe veganism to be our bodies natural choice of diet.Many, including people who have studied the subject, say that our bodies specialise in processing plant foods & have been for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

If this is the case, why would B12, a vitamin we apparently need, not be found in any plant sources? Why would our natural diet of thousands of years be lacking an essential vitamin for us?

 

I personally think that veganism is our natural ideal diet.if B12 is only found in meat/dairy, then we do not need it.

 

You say scientists tampering with our foods on molecular levels has been a good thing? I suppose you are going to turn around & say there is nothing wrong with GM food? Because there is no evidence that it is harmful yet? You dont need evidence to tell its going to be bad.Anyone who can think for themselves can see it is a bad idea.

 

Scientists tamper with our food then the same scientists turn around a find no evidence that their modified shit is harmful?

 

If you are going to folow that line of thought you are naiive.

 

You say supplements/isolates help you to be a vegan? You need to open your eyes and wake up.

 

Your an idiot, mate. Sorry for putting it bluntly. You're insulting Tuc, while asking him for evidence and then discounting the evidence he provides. Not only that, you're specifically saying you don't need evidence for your claims to be true. They just are true. Why, because your imagination tells you it's so? I can't argue with your imagination. Neither can Tuc, although he's doing a damn good job of trying.

 

What you call thinking for yourself is quite the opposite; it's an absence of thinking, and just trying to force your dogmatic opinions down other people's throats.

[Im Your Man]

You just can't blaim MSG for the things that pollution and other stuff has made to humans.

MSG is a form of pollution. And I'm not blaming pollution or MSG, I blame humans, for what they've done to humans and to the other animals.

I also think your anti-science arguments are invalid. If the facts don't prove your point, you say that the facts are wrong. What a way to win a conversation.

But you are asking that we give you the benefit of the doubt : you believe MSG is good, rather than bad, when you have the possibility of believing it is bad. No scientific studies can exclude all possibilities of MSG toxicity.

Stop worrying about nonsense and concentrate on things that really matter. Animal abuse' date=' cutting down rainforests, climate change, extinctions... those are the things people should use their time on.[/quote'] You're right, it is more important to fight all this rather than MSG. But I don't have anything against MSG in particular, but against all harmful and potentially harmful chemicals serving as food additives or conservatives, or in any products; it then goes in the environment and will return to us for many centuries. We act against nature, thinking we can outwit her rules, but this behaving comes with consequences: "What goes around comes around"

What is this "shrinking penis" issue? I've never heard of this problem' date=' until seeing you mention it on a couple of threads recently. From what did your knowledge of this problem spring?[/quote']

I heard about that when I saw a i hour documentary on the subject, relating facts mentioned in the quotes below concerning animals, but also about a study concerning humans, but I can't find anything about it on the web, I'll have to look if I still have this documentary for more infos. It was a team of over 20 scientists somewhere in Europe reading ALL the autopsy files that occured in this country since doctors started to note every details (size and weight of every organ). So there was lots of files, maybe 100,000, looking at them one by one for 8 hours per day, took them many weeks/months, to note the length of each penis, they made a graphic and noticed that the average size has been decreasing every year, especially since the 1960 or 1980, I don't remember well, but it's the only organ that have been decreasing, while ALL the others are increasing, as well as the height of the body. The whole human body gain size since the cro-magno era, but penis size stopped increasing since the industrial era and started to decrease.

 

Here's infos about wild animals and in the last paragraphs it talks about humans :

 

http://forums.nightly.net/index.php?showtopic=59562

 

It's official: Men really are the weaker sex

 

Evolution is being distorted by pollution, which damages genitals and the ability to father offspring, says new study. Geoffrey Lean reports

 

Sunday, 7 December 2008

 

The male gender is in danger, with incalculable consequences for both humans and wildlife, startling scientific research from around the world reveals.

 

The research – to be detailed tomorrow in the most comprehensive report yet published – shows that a host of common chemicals is feminising males of every class of vertebrate animals, from fish to mammals, including people.

 

Backed by some of the world's leading scientists, who say that it "waves a red flag" for humanity and shows that evolution itself is being disrupted, the report comes out at a particularly sensitive time for ministers. On Wednesday, Britain will lead opposition to proposed new European controls on pesticides, many of which have been found to have "gender-bending" effects.

 

It also follows hard on the heels of new American research which shows that baby boys born to women exposed to widespread chemicals in pregnancy are born with smaller penises and feminised genitals.

 

"This research shows that the basic male tool kit is under threat," says Gwynne Lyons, a former government adviser on the health effects of chemicals, who wrote the report.

 

Wildlife and people have been exposed to more than 100,000 new chemicals in recent years, and the European Commission has admitted that 99 per cent of them are not adequately regulated. There is not even proper safety information on 85 per cent of them.

 

Many have been identified as "endocrine disrupters" – or gender-benders – because they interfere with hormones. These include phthalates, used in food wrapping, cosmetics and baby powders among other applications; flame retardants in furniture and electrical goods; PCBs, a now banned group of substances still widespread in food and the environment; and many pesticides.

 

The report – published by the charity CHEMTrust and drawing on more than 250 scientific studies from around the world – concentrates mainly on wildlife, identifying effects in species ranging from the polar bears of the Arctic to the eland of the South African plains, and from whales in the depths of the oceans to high-flying falcons and eagles.

 

It concludes: "Males of species from each of the main classes of vertebrate animals (including bony fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) have been affected by chemicals in the environment.

 

"Feminisation of the males of numerous vertebrate species is now a widespread occurrence. All vertebrates have similar sex hormone receptors, which have been conserved in evolution. Therefore, observations in one species may serve to highlight pollution issues of concern for other vertebrates, including humans."

 

Fish, it says, are particularly affected by pollutants as they are immersed in them when they swim in contaminated water, taking them in not just in their food but through their gills and skin. They were among the first to show widespread gender-bending effects.

 

Half the male fish in British lowland rivers have been found to be developing eggs in their testes; in some stretches all male roaches have been found to be changing sex in this way. Female hormones – largely from the contraceptive pills which pass unaltered through sewage treatment – are partly responsible, while more than three-quarters of sewage works have been found also to be discharging demasculinising man-made chemicals. Feminising effects have now been discovered in a host of freshwater fish species as far away as Japan and Benin, in Africa, and in sea fish in the North Sea, the Mediterranean, Osaka Bay in Japan and Puget Sound on the US west coast.

 

Research at the University of Florida earlier this year found that 40 per cent of the male cane toads – a species so indestructible that it has become a plague in Australia – had become hermaphrodites in a heavily farmed part of the state, with another 20 per cent undergoing lesser feminisation. A similar link between farming and sex changes in northern leopard frogs has been revealed by Canadian research, adding to suspicions that pesticides may be to blame.

 

Male alligators exposed to pesticides in Florida have suffered from lower testosterone and higher oestrogen levels, abnormal testes, smaller penises and reproductive failures. Male snapping turtles have been found with female characteristics in the same state and around the Great Lakes, where wildlife has been found to be contaminated with more than 400 different chemicals. Male herring gulls and peregrine falcons have produced the female protein used to make egg yolks, while bald eagles have had difficulty reproducing in areas highly contaminated with chemicals.

 

Scientists at Cardiff University have found that the brains of male starlings who ate worms contaminated by female hormones at a sewage works in south-west England were subtly changed so that they sang at greater length and with increased virtuosity.

 

Even more ominously for humanity, mammals have also been found to be widely affected.

 

Two-thirds of male Sitka black-tailed deer in Alaska have been found to have undescended testes and deformed antler growth, and roughly the same proportion of white-tailed deer in Montana were discovered to have genital abnormalities.

 

In South Africa, eland have been revealed to have damaged testicles while being contaminated by high levels of gender-bender chemicals, and striped mice from one polluted nature reserved were discovered to be producing no sperm at all.

 

At the other end of the world, hermaphrodite polar bears – with penises and vaginas – have been discovered and gender-benders have been found to reduce sperm counts and penis lengths in those that remained male. Many of the small, endangered populations of Florida panthers have been found to have abnormal sperm.

 

Other research has revealed otters from polluted areas with smaller testicles and mink exposed to PCBs with shorter penises. Beluga whales in Canada's St Lawrence estuary and killer whales off its north-west coast – two of the wildlife populations most contaminated by PCBs – are reproducing poorly, as are exposed porpoises, seals and dolphins.

 

Scientists warned yesterday that the mass of evidence added up to a grave warning for both wildlife and humans. Professor Charles Tyler, an expert on endocrine disrupters at the University of Exeter, says that the evidence in the report "set off alarm bells". Whole wildlife populations could be at risk, he said, because their gene pool would be reduced, making them less able to withstand disease and putting them at risk from hazards such as global warming.

 

Dr Pete Myers, chief scientist at Environmental Health Sciences, one of the world's foremost authorities on gender-bender chemicals, added: "We have thrown 100, 000 chemicals against a finely balanced hormone system, so it's not surprising that we are seeing some serious results. It is leading to the most rapid pace of evolution in the history of the world.

 

Professor Lou Gillette of Florida University, one of the most respected academics in the field, warned that the report waved "a large red flag" at humanity. He said: "If we are seeing problems in wildlife, we can be concerned that something similar is happening to a proportion of human males"

 

Indeed, new research at the University of Rochester in New York state shows that boys born to mothers with raised levels of phthalates were more likely to have smaller penises and undescended testicles. They also had a shorter distance between their anus and genitalia, a classic sign of feminisation. And a study at Rotterdam's Erasmus University showed that boys whose mothers had been exposed to PCBs grew up wanting to play with dolls and tea sets rather than with traditionally male toys.

 

Communities heavily polluted with gender-benders in Canada, Russia and Italy have given birth to twice as many girls than boys, which may offer a clue to the reason for a mysterious shift in sex ratios worldwide. Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls, but the ratio is slipping. It is calculated that 250,000 babies who would have been boys have been born as girls instead in the US and Japan alone.

 

And sperm counts are dropping precipitously. Studies in more than 20 countries have shown that they have dropped from 150 million per millilitre of sperm fluid to 60 million over 50 years. (Hamsters produce nearly three times as much, at 160 million.) Professor Nil Basu of Michigan University says that this adds up to "pretty compelling evidence for effects in humans".

 

But Britain has long sought to water down EU attempts to control gender-bender chemicals and has been leading opposition to a new regulation that would ban pesticides shown to have endocrine-disrupting effects. Almost all the other European countries back it, but ministers – backed by their counterparts from Ireland and Romania – are intent on continuing their resistance at a crucial meeting on Wednesday. They say the regulation would cause a collapse of agriculture in the UK, but environmentalists retort that this is nonsense because the regulation has get-out clauses that could be used by British farmers.

[bronco]

Props for that, Tuc. I get aggravated just reading the stuff your "oppponents" are writing in this thread (excepting Johan)

Hey, I agree with ralst .

[medman]

tuc & hilary - thanks

 

xjohanx - what you're saying is true in a general sense redarding organic chemistry. However, the reason that free glutamate and glutamic acid are equivalent within the body is because they exist in a pH-dependent equilibrium when dissolved in water (i.e. in our bodies). So if you ingested 1g of glutamate or 1g of glutamic acid, it makes no difference biochemically because, once in your body, they will reach the same equilibrium of the two forms (if you ingest the glutamate, X amount of it will convert to glutamic acid when dissolved, and if you ingest the glutamic acid, (1-X) amount of it will convert to glutamate).

 

Also (this is for xjohanx and his organic chemistry studying), realize that the hydrogen glutamate loses is on a carboxyl group, not a hydrocarbon chain. In other words, it's an organic acid deprotonation, which occurs everywhere in the body, and always establishes a pH-dependent equilibrium. The sodium in MSG is only used in order to precipitate the glutamate - you can't precipitate an organic anion without tossing in a cation. Sodium is used as the cation because it is the most common and least harmful one out there for us (e.g. we need it in the largest amount to live). Once you dissolve the MSG in the food or your body, the sodium will dissociate completely, giving you glutamate and Na+. This Na+ is identical to that which you would get from table salt; it's only along for the ride while MSG is in solid form.

 

So, in short - yes, solid MSG has different chemical properties than glutamic acid, but once dissolved, the "MS" (monosodium) part comes back out of the equation and all you're left with is the "G" - glutamate, which, once in your bloodstream, reestablishes its equilibrium with glutamic acid.

 

However, if you ingested a sh*tload of MSG, you could potentially disrupt that normal equilibrium, if even for a short while, and that is what could, theoretically, affect the body in a negative way.

 

This is why I don't believe in avoiding it like the plague, but taking in huge amounts of any additive is never a good idea. Even glucose, something we need to live, is bad when you take it in giant spikes like pop - because those transient glucose spikes contribute to insulin spikes, which contribute to insulin resistance and type II diabetes. So I imagine glutamate spikes could be bad in an analogous way, and that's what MSG research is/should be about.

[xjohanx]

Alright cool, I guess that was what I was looking for, great explanation.

 

Props for that, Tuc. I get aggravated just reading the stuff your "oppponents" are writing in this thread (excepting Johan)

Hey, I agree with ralst .

 

Thanks guys. I often end up on the non-popular side of an argument but for completely different reasons than the others who are there. My biggest fear is always that the "opponents" are going to judge us all as one.

[tuc]

I don't judge anyone and I keep issues as issues, they're not personal.

 

However, I think it's really really important that vegans acknowledge the importance of vitamin B12 and D (as well as some other nutrients) and that in many regions it is impossible to get enough of them without supplements. Anyone trying to claim other may end up killing or permanently damaging people.

 

DaN can believe all the crap he wants but he can't deny these facts: in northern regions there simply is no way to get enough vitamin D from sunlight. It has to be taken from supplements or fish (or other animal sources). And our droppings are rich in vitamin B12, as well is dirt. If people ate enough dirt and/or poo then we might get enough B12 from natural sources. Since eating poo might get you in trouble, I'm perfectly fine with supplements. Especially since no adverse side effects have been seen using B12 supplements.

 

The claim that our natural diet has been vegan for thousands of years lacks evidence. And the claim that B12 is not needed is VERY dangerous.

 

BTW, I do fully not oppose GM. However, I think that it should have be researched VERY well before they started using it. It might give food to millions who would starve otherwise and increased crop per land area might preserve nature since it reduces the need to cut forests for farming. I think possible side effects are still better option than dying of starvation.

 

Genes change between species via viruses naturally, so actually nature is doing its own genetic engineering all the time. And breeding and cultivation is genetic engineering as well.

[hilary wright]

Great post Medman, thanks.

Tuc, very well said . . . . no evidence of retardation there.

[DaN]

DaN can believe all the crap he wants but he can't deny these facts: in northern regions there simply is no way to get enough vitamin D from sunlight. It has to be taken from supplements or fish (or other animal sources). And our droppings are rich in vitamin B12, as well is dirt. If people ate enough dirt and/or poo then we might get enough B12 from natural sources.

 

By claiming that without B12 supplements you would be unhealthy on a vegan diet is basically admitting that veganism is not a natural diet for humans, whereas eating animal produce is.

 

You guys are giving veganism a very bad representation when you admit we lack essential vitamins in our diet & that we need to take supplements.I would laugh but it isn't funny.

 

[DaN]

BTW, I do fully not oppose GM. However, I think that it should have be researched VERY well before they started using it. It might give food to millions who would starve otherwise and increased crop per land area might preserve nature since it reduces the need to cut forests for farming. I think possible side effects are still better option than dying of starvation.

 

Genes change between species via viruses naturally, so actually nature is doing its own genetic engineering all the time. And breeding and cultivation is genetic engineering as well.

 

Why doesnt this surprise me....

 

Tuc, nature has been doing its own genetic engineering for billions of years.You think all of a sudden we are qualified to do it?

 

O M G - are you sure there is no retardation here?

[DaN]

DaN can believe all the crap he wants but he can't deny these facts: in northern regions there simply is no way to get enough vitamin D from sunlight. It has to be taken from supplements or fish (or other animal sources).

 

If any creature (yes that includes us) is inhabiting an environment that does not supply it with its essential requirments to live, then said creature is not meant to dwell in that environment.

 

Its not rocket science.

 

Thats why they are not any giraffes on the north pole taking fig leaf supplements.

[blabbate]

Most of us on here believe veganism to be our bodies natural choice of diet.Many, including people who have studied the subject, say that our bodies specialise in processing plant foods & have been for hundreds of thousands of years.

Actually, we've been eating meat for 2.5 million years and have adapted fairly well to it. We have specialized enzymes for breakdown of meat, as well as enlarged canines. We also lack some of the specializations of true vegetarian species, like limbs designed and articulated for climbing and the ability to digest cellulose. However, we also have long intestines good for digesting plant foods. We're a mishmash of adaptations and can eat almost anything. That doesn't mean we should, just that it's possible.

 

If this is the case, why would B12, a vitamin we apparently need, not be found in any plant sources? Why would our natural diet of thousands of years be lacking an essential vitamin for us?

That's actually a great question. AFAIK, nobody is sure. McDougall has an interesting theory that it's environmental, that we've essentially wiped out most of the beneficial bacteria we would normally be in contact with every day. http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/nov/b12.htm So by his theory, the bacteria used to be more abundant (and we certainly were consuming more dirt and fecal matter). And once we started eating meat, it became moot. Until we wised up and went vegan, that is.

 

You say scientists tampering with our foods on molecular levels has been a good thing? I suppose you are going to turn around & say there is nothing wrong with GM food? Because there is no evidence that it is harmful yet? You dont need evidence to tell its going to be bad.Anyone who can think for themselves can see it is a bad idea.

People think lots of things are bad ideas, and are frequently wrong. This could be one of those times. In some cases, GM is just speeding up what nature would end up doing anyway. It's ignorant to lump all GM together and label it "bad." The real danger is with the companies performing the GM.