Once the International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC) was established, IGTC chairman Andrew Ebert assembled a cadre of scientists who conducted research for the IGTC and/or spoke publicly about the safety of MSG. Their first research stronghold was the University of Iowa, where, in cooperation with W. Ann Reynolds (who was elsewhere) Lloyd Filer, Lewis Stegink, and others poured out badly flawed studies that they alleged demonstrated that MSG and aspartame were "safe."  Those who identified their funding sources in their publications or in communications with the FDA are listed with their funding sources in Table 1 of "The Toxicity/Safety of Processed Free Glutamic Acid (MSG): A Study in Suppression of Information."

Steve Taylor, Ph.D., of the University of Nebraska, a prominent representative of the glutamate industry, has done little or no basic research related to monosodium glutamate safety/toxicity, but is respected for his knowledge about food allergy, having served, for example as an officer of the Toxicology and Safety Evaluation Division, a member of the Expert Panel on Food Safety and Nutrition, and president of the Institute of Food Technologists. His name appears prominently on advisory boards such as the Food Allergy Network and editorial boards such as the Encyclopedia of Food Science, Food Technology, and Nutrition. On at least one occassion, he has acknowledged being a paid, glutamate industry spokesman. Yet, when he introduces himself, he typically refers to his University of Nebraska affiliation, but not to the fact that he is an agent of The Glutamate Association, the IGTC, or Ajinomoto.

The focus of researchers who represent the glutamate industry has been to demonstrate that various food additives are "safe." Scrutiny of the literature will demonstrate that for some of these scientists, early research relevant to the safety/toxicity of glutamic acid suggested that glutamic acid might have toxic potential; while subsequent studies and/or public statements made by those same scientists proclaimed that MSG is safe. By and large, those who represent the glutamate industry have produced research relative to the safety/toxicity of MSG only in response to encouragement from the glutamate industry to do so; and the only research that they have published has been research from which they have concluded that MSG is safe. Only two of the glutamate-industry researchers or speakers have been neuroscientists: Richard J. Wurtman, M.D., and Roland Auer, M.D., Ph.D. Wurtman was inventor of Redux, a weight loss drug approved by the FDA, but withdrawn from the market after users were found to be developing heart valve disease.

A special role has been played by Ronald Simon, M.D. and Donald D. Stevenson, M.D. of Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation, LaJolla, California. Their exploits as researchers, spokesmen, and expert witness for the IGTC are covered elsewhere in some detail.

Depending on the roles they play, researchers might be considered agents of the glutamate industry. In addition, there are those who promote the products of those they work for, just as public relations firms do, but these organizations highlight the fact that they are nonprofit corporations, while minimizing the fact that they promote the products of those who financially support them. The International Food Information Council (IFIC) and the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) are examples of such glutamate-industry agents.

In 1990, faced with the threat of a "60 Minutes" segment (scheduled to appear on CBS television) that might expose the toxic potential of monosodium glutamate, IFIC became actively involved in representing the interests of the glutamate industry. The IFIC represents itself as an "independent" organization. It sends attractive brochures to dietitians, nutritionists, hospitals, schools, the media, and politicians, proclaiming the safety of monosodium glutamate. In 1990, an anonymous person sent us a copy of a "Communication Plan" dated July-December, 1991, that detailed methods for scuttling the "60 Minutes" segment on MSG, or, failing, that, provided for crisis management. IFIC's paid relationship to the glutamate industry is documented in the 1996 Encyclopedia of Associations. Yet on Internet, we see IFIC listed as "independent." Last time we saw one, IFIC's MSG-packet included names of speakers who would attest to the safety of MSG. Named were Steve Taylor, Ph.D., Darly Altman, M.D., S. Allan Bock, M.D., Susan S. Schiffman, Ph.D., John D. Fernstrom, Ph.D., Jonathan H. Pincus, M.D., L. Jack Filer, M.D., Ph.D., Fergus M. Clydesdale, Ph.D., Richard J. Wurtman, M.D., and Dr. Sanford A. Miller.

The American Academy of Allergy and Immunology has developed materials jointly with IFIC or IFIC's foundation. Their brochure entitled "Understanding Food Allergy" includes such false information as "Whenever MSG is added to food, it is listed on the label as monosodium glutamate." The IFIC brochure, "What You Should Know about Monosodium Glutamate," which has been reviewed favorably by the American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation, states not only that MSG is safe, but that MSG is safe for children. The FDA has also developed a brochure jointly with IFIC that states, in part, "Whenever MSG is added to food, it is listed on the label as monosodium glutamate."

Support of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), an association sponsored by companies within the food, pharmaceutical, chemical, toxicology, and related industries, has also been observed. The ILSI has provided funding for The Food Allergy Network.  The Food Allergy Network is a nonprofit organization that claims as members both the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Dean D. Metcalfe, M.D., of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who has spoken out publicly on the safety of MSG, and Sheldon Cohen, M.D., who evaluated possibly MSG-sensitive subjects at NIH with Metcalfe, are, or were, ILSI Allergy and Immunology Institute Scientific Advisors. So were Taylor and Sampson. Sampson was recommended by The Glutamate Association as one who might be interviewed by "60 Minutes" about the safety of MSG. ILSI has also funded the work of Jonathan H. Pincus, M.D., who, at the request of IFIC, reviewed the book Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills by Russell L. Blaylock, M.D. Blaylock had warned that MSG probably contributes to neurodegenerative disease such as ALS, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease. Of the Pincus review, Blaylock wrote, "From your ‘review' I have come to several conclusions. First, you did not read the book carefully, if at all....Your review is full of errors and unfair characterizations..." (Blaylock is still engaged in primary research in the area of excitotoxins and his work has been, and continues to be, published in highly respected scientific journals.)

Some individuals and some organizations with alleged interest in food safety have reviewed the safety of MSG favorably. Others have prepared brochures either stating that there is no evidence that ingestion of monosodium glutamate or other MSG-containing food additives should cause consumers concern; or listing food additives that might cause consumers concern while omitting mention of MSG-containing ingredients. The American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation, for example, allowed IFIC to claim "Favorable Review by the American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation" on a 1991 brochure. The American Medical Association refused to implement a Resolution passed by its membership at its 1991 annual meeting calling for the AMA to "...encourage all appropriate regulatory agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, to mandate labeling of all foods containing even small amounts of additive L-glutamic acid so that individuals wanting to avoid this substance may do so".

Whether or not these people and/or organizations are literally agents of the glutamate industry or simply influenced by them is irrelevant. Either way, they publish material that is read by others who respect their opinions; and that material is uncritical of anything said or done by the glutamate industry. Characteristic of those referenced here is their unwillingness to print any addition, correction, or retraction after errors or omissions in published material are pointed out to them.

Influence of the IGTC can be felt at every level. Ebert has served the Grocery Manufacturers of America; the National Food Processors Association; the Institute of Food Technology; the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences Assembly of Life Sciences; the American Medical Association; the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Food Standards Program as an Industry Observer; and the International Food Additives Council as Executive Director. In 1992, FDA appointed both Andrew G. Ebert, Ph.D., IGTC chairman, and Kristin McNutt, Ph.D., paid spokesperson for the IGTC, to the FDA Food Advisory Committee.

As a food-industry pharmacologist and toxicologist, Ebert has provided scientific and technical expertise for programs of many associations managed by The Kellen Company. His nomination to the FDA Food Advisory Committee did not refer to his affiliation with the IGTC, but listed him only as Senior Vice President of The Kellen Company.

Ebert is also an active member of the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT). Daryl Altman, M.D., a spokesperson for the glutamate industry, worked for former IFT president Al Clausi, Vice Chairman of Allerx, Inc. and its medical affiliate, The Food Allergy Center. Altman has spoken publicly about the safety of monosodium glutamate, often with Taylor. The IFIC promotes them as speakers without mention of the fact that they represent the glutamate industry. L.T. Chiaramonte, M.D., who has co-authored work for the IGTC with Altman, has served on the medical advisory board of The Food Allergy Center.

Ebert continued (or continues) to play a major role for the IGTC. However, following exposure of the fact that research protocols used by IGTC sponsored researchers were flawed to the point of being fraudulent, including, for example, use of MSG and other reactive materials in placebos provided to researchers by the IGTC, Ebert was replaced as IGTC chairman. He continued, however, as an officer of the Robert H. Kellen Company.

Glutamate industry representatives and friends sit on boards of "independent" organizations. Glutamate industry researcher and spokesman Simon has been a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). Monsanto's Robert Shapiro sits on the board of the Tufts University School of Nutrition. Allergy support groups often include industry-friendly allergists on their medical advisory boards. Taylor has served on the Medical Advisory Board of The Food Allergy Network. "Independent organizations" whose medical advisory board members have ties to the glutamate industry have not provided information to their members about MSG-containing ingredients.

Glutamate industry influence is also seen in peer review journals that publish their badly flawed studies. An argument is made in "The Toxicity/Safety of Processed Free Glutamic Acid (MSG): A Study in Suppression of Information" that published glutamate-industry sponsored studies are badly flawed. If that is the case, then their publication in peer review journals is difficult to justify. Consider, however, that if the peers who review the work of glutamate-industry representatives are themselves glutamate-industry representatives, or very close friends, the work of glutamate industry representatives may very well be published. Consider, also, that journals such as the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology take advertising, and journals such as The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition acknowledge the generous support of members of the food and/or drug industries. Both of those journals publish glutamate-industry sponsored studies.

The potential for glutamate industry influence over the media is obvious. Radio, TV, and newspapers all carry food, drug, and cosmetic advertisements; and members of boards of directors may also be directors of food and/or pharmaceutical companies.

Mention of MSG by major media sources has been virtually nonexistent since "60 Minutes" aired a story about the toxic effects of MSG in 1991. Some time after the "60 Minutes" program aired, Nancy Millman, writing for the Chicago Tribune, did an article focusing on the activities of J. Samuels and his fight to have MSG labeled. According to Millman, prior to beginning her work, Millman had cleared the story with her editor; but the article was never published. Similarly, the Baltimore Sun accepted and then refused to print an article on MSG by Linda Bonvie; and an editor at the New York Times told Bonvie that she wouldn't take a story that even mentioned MSG. According to Bonvie, the editor had said she was unwilling to face the pressure that she knew she would face if she did. In 1991, Don Hewett of "60 Minutes" said, on television, that he had never had so much pressure applied to him by industry as he had prior to the airing of the MSG segment. Although rated by TV guide as one of the two most watched segments of the 1991 year, "60 Minutes" won't now touch a story about MSG.

Since 1991, little if any coverage outside of CNN and CBN has said anything other than that MSG-containing food is safe. The only coverage of a law suit filed by consumers against the FDA for failure to require labeling where labeling was needed to protect the public from excitotoxic MSG hidden in food was carried by CNN, CBN, and the St. Louis Post Dispatch when the suit was filed, and by CBN and the Post Dispatch when the court's decision was handed down.

Glutamate-industry involvement is rarely obvious. That's what makes it so effective. An InHealth article ran next to an advertisement from McCormick, a member of The Glutamate Association. Had the McCormick ad not been placed so close to the article, the possibility that McCormick might have commissioned the article might not have been considered. (Magazines often do stories about, or on behalf of, companies that purchase advertising.)

Over the last two decades, the glutamate industry has distributed material designed to convince the public that MSG is safe. Their influence has been so great that as recently as 1989, when consumers raised questions about the safety of free glutamic acid, the FDA commonly referred consumers directly to The Glutamate Association or sent them material prepared by The Glutamate Association. Present FDA practice includes distributing unsolicited copies of an FDA Medical Bulletin that assures physicians that MSG is safe; and distributing similar material to food service people. In the January-February, 2003 FDA Consumer magazine, the FDA's Michelle Meadows, in an article titled: MSG: A Common Flavor Enhancer, spewed out paragraphs that look like they came right off The Glutamate Association or the International Glutamate Information Service Web pages. Trying to convince us that MSG is "safe" while saying nothing.

The active role of the FDA in support of the glutamate industry is discussed in a number of places on this Web site.

The scientific community has been given information by the IGTC and The Glutamate Association, and through intermediaries such as IFIC and ILSI; and members of the scientific community have been encouraged to pass that information on to the public. Allergists, dietitians, and nutritionists appear to have been particularly targeted. Further, the media appear to have been well supplied with glutamate industry materials and to be under tremendous pressure from food and drug advertisers to comment only positively about the value of monosodium glutamate, or not comment at all. IFIC claims that some three out of four journalists surveyed said they use [the IFIC newsletter] Food Insight as background for news stories.

It would appear from records of his correspondence and meetings with the FDA, that IGTC chairman Ebert has been designing, or has been instrumental in designing, glutamate-industry sponsored double-blind studies for years with the blessings of the FDA.

Today, the thrust of the glutamate industry appears to be to ensure the use of their product in fertilizers, plant growth enhancers, pesticides, and fungicides.  A product called AuxiGro has been approved for use throughout the United States and elsewhere. Their only setback has been the failure of the State of California to unilaterally approve the product.  Yet although their progress in California may be slow, it would appear to be sure.  Why sure?  Because researchers throughout California's colleges, universities, and medical schools who advise the State on fertilizer and pesticide approvals have benefited from generous research grants given by Ajinomoto over the years. Because major media outlets in California, as elsewhere, are owned and/or operated by those who sit on boards of food and/or drug companies, or are run by those who seem to value advertising dollars over human welfare. Because California legislators, as those elsewhere, consider the wishes of their rich and powerful donors -- sometimes, it would seem, over the welfare of their constituents.  Because consumers overcome with MSG-sensitivities don't write, and call, and write, and call their legislators again and again, insisting that processed free glutamic acid (MSG) be identified on product labels.

The Toxicity/Safety of Processed Free Glutamic Acid (MSG): A Study in Suppression of Information is a 52 page article, published in a peer reviewed journal, that demonstrates how the glutamate industry has showered the public with deceptive and misleading information about the purported safety of MSG, and underwritten a many-faceted campaign to con the American public into buying their toxic product. Much of the above was taken from that publication.
 

adandjack@aol.com 858/481-9333 http://www.truthinlabeling.org

This page was last updated on June 16, 2004.

IF MSG ISN'T HARMFUL, WHY IS IT HIDDEN?