Monosodium glutamate is there as a flavoring, just like any number of seasonings. Nobody says that thyme or oregano shouldn't be in food unless they help preserve it longer. There's no evidence whatsoever that it's harmful to anyone, and it's a common part of Asian cooking. The furor over MSG is that it has kind of a funny name and people are still in a tizzy about the racist panic over "Chinese restaurant syndrome" from a few decades ago.[1]

1) https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/may/21/chinese...

Yes and no. MSG is what gives food that amazing umami flavor. It's in more foods than we realize. It's the same as adding any other spice. It's important to revert to a scientific approach to understanding why something shouldn't be in food.

A guy at work thought msg was a neurotoxin. I'm like, "uh, no, it's an amino acid,a normal constituent of every protein you eat..." This is a guy with a master's in a technical field. I honestly don't know how we got here.

I've learned that being an expert in any field does not shield you from being very very stupid in many other fields. Critical thinking skills are hard to learn and maintain. It's a constant battle against our own biases and misinformation we are ingesting. Especially when you consider the memories that are strongest are the ones we tie to emotions. That particular fact alone makes it easy to feed misinformation based on things they might fear.

Does he like Doritos?

https://www.seriouseats.com/2012/06/science-of-chips-ingredi...

> On the other hand, if there is a good reason (e.g. the food lasts longer), then I see no reason why not let the market decide what they prefer.

There is a good reason for it to be in food, and a good reason for it to not be in food. As it happens, the reason for it to be in food is that it makes food taste better, and the reason for it to not be in food is because people were falsely told it was unhealthy. So the market is deciding, but as a result of fear-mongering and racism, not based on what makes for better food. That’s still the market deciding, and that’s just how the market works sometimes.

I agree and I think professionals in most industries are frustrated with their customers as customers are becoming more educated and discerning. This seems reasonable and inevitable. From freelancers to fortune 500s like General Mills they're basically saying, "Why won't people just take what we give them?"

I think the answer is actually pretty simple, the producer (be it food, software, hardware, home goods, etc) often compromises quality, security, health, etc for the sake of a little more profit.

To some degree, they're right... they are usually the expert and what they make will be better than what the customer wants in some ways (ex. longer shelf life). But of course consumers are more aware of this dynamic, and they're pushing back for more of the quality, health, etc.

So ya, I agree... the market should decide a lot of where that line will be drawn. Many of these ingredients may not be proven to be unhealthy, but I think people are starting to realize how much we also don't know. While sensitivity to a certain ingredient may not have been found in a 2,000 candidate study, maybe it does affect 1 in 2001. If there are better alternatives, then that might be a worthy exploration. The producer who finds a better alternative will have a market advantage.

Of course, where it is discovered that an ingredient or a process is high risk (such as trans fats) then I think it's reasonable for the FDA to regulate it.