MSG - Legislation & Information

[Guest guest]

Though this might be of interest to some.

Randy Wattermann

West Point, Nebraska

>

> PLEASE ACT, POST, AND/OR CIRCULATE

>

> From: Truth in Labeling Campaign

> Contact: Adrienne s

> Phone: 858-481-8333

> e-mail: msgfacts@...

>

> July 30, 2001 -- While the U.S. Food and Drug

> Administration (FDA) is

> warning that manufacturers should not hide allergenic

> substances in their

> products, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

> (EPA) is encouraging

> hiding allergenic substances in pesticides, fungicides,

> plant growth

> regulators, and/or fertilizers used on crops.

>

> In so doing, the EPA is placing the fiscal health of

> Emerald BioAgriculture

> (formerly Auxein Corporation) over the physical health

> of consumers.

>

> Emerald BioAgriculture makes a product called AuxiGro

> WP Metabolic

> Primer (AuxiGro) that claims to contain 29.2% processed

> free glutamic

> acid (MSG) in an active ingredient that Emerald

> BioAgriculture refers to as

> " L-glutamic acid. "

>

> AuxiGro contains additional processed free glutamic

> acid (MSG), but it's

> not listed on the label. Why? Because the additional

> processed free

> glutamic acid (MSG) comes from the inert ingredients, and

inert

> ingredients -- even if poisonous or carcinogenic --

> don't have to be

> disclosed.

>

> According to government sources, one of the inert

> ingredients is a

> hydrolyzed casein protein that not only contributes

> undisclosed processed

> free glutamic acid to the pesticide product, but

> contributes hidden

> allergenic milk protein as well-- making the treated

> produce unfit for

> some religious groups, some vegetarians, and anyone

> with a milk or

> lactose allergy.

>

> If the glutamic acid in the active ingredient is made

> by bacterial

> fermentation (which the EPA refuses to tell us),

> there's a good chance that

> it is made using genetically modified bacteria, and

> pork blood, pork, or

> beef products -- making it unfit for some religious

> groups, all vegetarians,

> and people who would choose not to ingest genetically

> modified food. If

> the glutamic acid is made using acid hydrolysis, it

> will contain carcinogens

> -- making it unfit for everyone.

>

> On December 6, 2000, Emerald BioAgriculture petitioned the

EPA to

> remove all restrictions from " L-glutamic acid " and

> gamma aminobutyric

> acid (GABA) when used on any food commodities for any

> uses regulated

> by the EPA. As required by law, that petition was

> published in the Federal

> Register. But the law evidently doesn't require that

> the public be told what

> is being proposed, because when the EPA published Emerald

> BioAgriculture's December 6 petition, it was called a

> " Notice of Filing

> Pesticide Petitions to Establish Tolerances for Certain

> Pesticide Chemicals

> in or on Food, " never mentioning glutamic acid, L-glutamic

acid,

> glutamate, monosodium glutamate, MSG, or GABA.

>

> On June 21, 2001 the EPA published the Final Rule:

> " L-Glutamic Acid and

> Gamma Aminobutyric Acid; Exemptions from the Requirement of

a

> Tolerance. " That rule says that unrestricted amounts of

> processed free

> glutamic acid (MSG) can be sprayed on crops -- all

> crops -- any crops --

> without any restrictions on the amount sprayed, on the

> amount that would

> remain on fruit, grains, seeds, nuts, and vegetables

> when brought to

> market, or any restriction on the amount of processed

> free glutamic acid

> (MSG) that could have been taken up by the treated produce

and be

> contained in those fruits, grains, seeds, nuts, and

> vegetables (especially

> potatoes) when eaten.

>

> The exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance were

> based on a

> series of unproved assumptions, on data from the 1970s

> that have long

> since been refuted, on a number of studies that are

> irrelevant to the

> safety of amino acids, and on short-term acute toxicity

> studies that

> neither reflected the real-world conditions under which

> the amino acids

> would be applied, nor considered their

> endocrine-disrupting potential. In

> sanctioning the unregulated use of L-glutamic acid, the

> EPA used words

> like " expected to be minimal, " " not likely to result in

> potential chronic

> exposure, " and " exposure is anticipated to be

> negligible. " No relevant

> data from non-industry researchers were examined.

>

> In granting the exemptions, the EPA violated Sections

> 408©(2)(A)(i),

> 408©(2)(ii), 408©(2)(, and 408((2)(D) of the

> Federal Food Drug

> and Cosmetic Act.

>

> We have put this information on the Internet because we

> think that

> consumers have the right to know what is in and on

> their food -- and to

> know that the EPA is hiding that information from them.

>

> We are also filing a formal and detailed objection to

> the Final Rule. But

> one objection, no matter how well done, won't turn the

> tide. So we're

> asking all who don't want processed free glutamic acid

(MSG) and

> associated inert ingredients sprayed on fruits, grains,

> nuts, seeds, and

> vegetables to tell that to the EPA.

>

> For additional information, please write, call us, or

> visit www.msgfacts.net

>

> If you are considering filing objections with the EPA,

> please be aware that

> objections must be received by the EPA no later than

> August 20, 2001.

> For information on how to file an objection, go to

> www.msgfacts.net/msg-here's-how-1.html or read the

> instructions that

> follow.

>

> Please share this material with others.

>

> Adrienne s, Ph.D.

> Director

> Truth in Labeling Campaign

> 858-481-9333

> msgfacts@...

>

>

>

> The EPA must receive all objections to spraying

> unregulated amounts of

> processed free glutamic acid (MSG) on crops by August 20,

2001.

>

> Start by sending your comments to the EPA at:

>

> Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900)

> Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

> 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.

> Washington, DC 20460

>

> or e-mail your comments, addressed to the EPA c/o the

> Truth in Labeling

> Campaign, to msgfacts@... and we will forward them

> by mail to the

> Hearing Clerk. The Hearing Clerk won't take e-mail.

>

> To ensure proper receipt by the EPA, you must start

> with the following:

>

> SUBJECT: " L-Glutamic Acid and Gamma Aminobutyric Acid;

Exemptions

> from the Requirement of a Tolerance. " Final Rule.

> Docket Control Number

> OPP-301136

>

> Say that you are objecting to granting L-glutamic acid

> an exemption from

> the requirement of a tolerance.

>

> Say why you are objecting.

>

> Also e-mail copies to:

>

> 1) EPA Docket Control Number OPP-301136 at

opp-docket@...;

>

> 2) to the Truth in Labeling Campaign at msgfacts@...;

and

>

> 3) to Barry Cortez, Branch Chief, California Department

> of Pesticide

> Regulation (Re: EPA Registration No. 70810-1; AuxiGro) at

> bcortez@... The California Department of

> Pesticide Regulation is

> CONSIDERING approving processed free glutamic acid

> (MSG) for use on

> crops in California. But it's not a done deal.

>

> For additional information, please write, call us, or

> visit www.msgfacts.net

>

> Adrienne s, Ph.D.

> Director

> Truth in Labeling Campaign

> 858-481-9333

> msgfacts@...

>

> *******************

>

> Questionable Scientific Study Regarding MSG

> Adverse Reactions Published

>

> In late November 2000 a new scientific study was

> released " Multicenter,

> double-blind, placebo controlled, multiple challenge

evaluation of

> reported reactions to monosodium glutamate " (RS Geha, MD, et

al,

> Journal Of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2000;

105.973-90). The

> industry reporters, in particular the Reuters Health

> wire service, got to

> have another shot at expressing their apparently

> uninformed, slipshod

> points of view which we suspect are sponsored in part by

> the glutamate

> industry.

>

> In response to the D. Thacker's article " Allergies

> to MSG May Not

> Exist " (Reuters Health- December 29, 2000), the National

> Organization

> Mobilized to Stop Glutamate (NoMSG) strongly urges

> readers to view the

> information with caution and proper skepticism. This

> article is consistent

> with some of the irresponsible industry articles

> produced to cover a very

> conscious act of using MSG in food production.

>

> It appears just from reviewing the Geha study abstract

> (an abbreviated

> form of the study), that Mr. Thacker apparently doesn't

> understand the

> physiologic difference between allergy and adverse

> reaction. The most

> commonly reported reactions to monosodium glutamate are

rarely

> " allergic " in nature. Of great importance too is the

> apparent lack of

> control over the test subjects and the food products

> they ate in between

> testing periods. Also in question is the " placebo. " One

> of the last studies

> which concluded adverse reactions to MSG were rare used a

placebo

> partially of aspartame in a gelatin capsule. This

> combination would make

> most of our MSG-sensitive members very ill.

>

> NoMSG will release a more in-depth report of the Geha

> study after we've

> had a chance to review the journal article in detail. At

> this point,

> however, based on preliminary review of the abstract and

> responsive

> news articles, we are not impressed and find the

> protocols and results of

> the study questionable at best.