Processed free glutamic acid used as a food (drug, dietary supplement, and cosmetic) additive

The food additive, monosodium glutamate, was first used in the United States in any quantity in the late 1940s. According to Dr. George Schwartz, author of In Bad Taste: The MSG Syndrome, although considerable effort had been spent to introduce monosodium glutamate to the USA, little had been accomplished prior to World War II.  However, sometime during the war, the use of monosodium glutamate in Japanese soldiers' rations was noticed.  In 1948, a symposium on monosodium glutamate, presided over by the Chief Quartermaster of the Armed Forces, was held in Chicago for members of the food industry.

By the 1960s, Accent, the leading brand of the flavor enhancer called monosodium glutamate, had become a household word. Simultaneously, other hydrolyzed protein products such as autolyzed yeast, sodium caseinate, and hydrolyzed vegetable protein gained in popularity. Every hydrolyzed protein product, regardless of the name given to it on a label, contains the same processed free glutamic acid as the processed free glutamic acid found in monosodium glutamate.  It is processed free glutamic acid that causes brain lesions, endocrine disorders, adverse reactions and more.  The name of the ingredient that contains the processed free gutamic acid is irrelevant.

Although glutamic acid had been isolated in 1866 by the German chemist Karl Ritthausen, it was not until 1908 that its flavor-enhancing potential was noticed by Kikunae Ikeda of Tokyo, Japan. Prior to that time, the Japanese had used seaweed as a favorite flavor enhancer, without understanding that glutamic acid was its flavor-enhancing component.

From 1910 until 1956, the process underlying production of glutamic acid and monosodium glutamate in Japan was one of extraction, a slow and costly method.(7) Elsewhere, crude gluten or other starting materials were hydrolyzed by heating with hydrochloric acid.(8) In 1956, the Japanese succeeded in producing glutamic acid by means of fermentation; and after considerable research to identify suitable strains of microorganisms for starting the requisite cultures, large-scale production of glutamic acid and monosodium glutamate through fermentation began.(7,8,9)

Even before the Japanese discovered the flavor potential of processed free glutamic acid extracted from sea weed, the potential of freeing glutamic acid from protein using acid hydrolysis was being explored in Europe.  At the time, however, the method was not widely used.  Indeed, it was not until some time later that the flavor industry realized that various of their hydrolyzed protein products contained considerable amounts of processed free glutamic acid  -- the flavor-enhancing component of the food ingredient monosodium glutamate -- and  production of  hydrolyzed protein products for their flavor-enhancing potential escalated.

When monosodium glutamate was brought to the United States in the years following World War II it was still manufactured through extraction. By 1956, after considerable research to identify suitable strains of microorganisms for starting the requisite cultures, Ajinomoto Co., Inc. had succeeded in producing glutamic acid  through a method of  bacterial fermentation wherein bacteria (some, if not all of which are genetically modified)(10) are grown aerobically in a liquid nutrient medium. These bacteria have the ability to synthesize glutamic acid outside of their cell membranes and excrete it into the medium to accumulate there.(11) It was in 1956 that truly large-scale production of glutamic acid and monosodium glutamate through fermentation began.

We find it fascinating that the first published report of a reaction to monosodium glutamate did not appear until monosodium glutamate was being made by bacterial fermentation. The first published report of a reaction to monosodium glutamate appeared in 1968 when Robert Ho Man Kwok, M.D., who had emigrated from China, reported that although he never had the problem in China, about 20 minutes into a meal at certain Chinese restaurants, he suffered numbness, tingling, and tightness of the chest that lasted for approximately 2 hours.

The following year, John W. Olney, M.D. reported that laboratory animals suffered brain lesions and neuroendocrine disorders after being exposed to monosodium glutamate. Scientists studying retinal degeneration in mice treated with free glutamic acid had noted that these mice became grotesquely obese. Olney, who speculated that the obesity might be a sign of damage to the hypothalamus (the area of the brain that regulates a number of endocrine functions, including weight control), found that infant laboratory animals given free glutamic acid suffered brain damage immediately, and assorted neuroendocrine disorders later in life. Pharmaceutical grade L-glutamic acid was often used to produce these disorders until neuroscientists observed that monosodium glutamate, an inexpensive food additive, could be substituted for laboratory-grade free glutamic acid in these studies and produce the same effects.

In the years that followed, neuroscientists replicated the work of Olney, and Olney spoke out repeatedly about the toxic potential of monosodium glutamate. In 1972, for example, Olney testified before the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs that ingestion of monosodium glutamate places humans at risk, with the greatest risk being for the very young; and that a National Academy of Science panel organized to determine whether monosodium glutamate ought to be banned from baby food had produced an "industry arranged whitewash" by a group of scientists with almost no experience in neuropathology. In the early 1970s, manufacturers of baby food voluntarily removed the monosodium glutamate from their products, but replaced the monosodium glutamate with a variety of ingredients that contained ingredients such as autolyzed yeast and hydrolyzed vegetable protein that all contained processed free glutamic acid. In the late 1970s, manufacturers "voluntarily" removed all obvious processed free glutamic acid-containing ingredients from baby food.

Use of processed free glutamic acid in food has grown in the last 30 years and is still growing.  It will be found in most soups, salad dressings, processed meats, frozen entrees, ice cream, and frozen yogurt, in some crackers, bread, canned tuna, and very often in "low fat" and "no fat" foods to make up for flavor lost when fat is reduced or eliminated.  It can be found in cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and dietary supplements.  It is found in enteral feeding products and in infant formula.  It is found in vaccines -- including vaccines used on children.  It is found in hospitals where it is hidden in the jello, chicken soup, and some IV solutions given to very sick patients.

Very often manufacturers use hydrolyzed protein products as flavor enhancers instead of using monosodium glutamate.  In the industry, an ingredient that contains processed free glutamic acid, but is not necessarily recognized as such by consumers, is called a "clean label" ingredient.

Monosodium glutamate used as a component of plant growth enhancers, fertilizers, and fungicides applied to growing crops

On January 7, 1998, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established exemptions for the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the biochemicals "glutamic acid" and "gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA)" in or on all food commodities when applied as a plant growth and crop yield enhancer in accordance with good agricultural practices. On that date, or shortly thereafter, the EPA granted the unconditional registration of AuxiGro WP (EPA File Symbol 70810-R) containing the two new active ingredients "GABA" and "Glutamic Acid" (PC Codes 30802 and 374350, respectively) for use as a growth enhancer for certain food crops and ornamentals. The exemptions and registration were granted to Auxein Corporation, Lansing, Michigan (later to become Emerald BioAgriculture).

We reviewed the "Registration Eligibility Decision (gamma aminobutyric acid [GABA] and L-glutamic acid)" and "Glutamic Acid; Pesticide Tolerance Exemption: Final rule," (henceforth referred to as the "Registration Eligibility Decision" and the "Final Rule," respectively) and  found the exemptions for the requirement of a tolerance for residues of "glutamic acid" and "GABA" in or on all food commodities, and the unconditional registration of "GABA," "glutamic acid" (sometimes referred to as "L-glutamic acid"), and AuxiGro WP (AuxiGro), to be unwarranted. There are three separate and distinct sets of deficiencies, weaknesses, shortcomings, and problems associated with the exemptions and registration.

First, the data supplied to the EPA by the applicant are neither valid, complete, nor reliable. A great deal of relevant information was omitted from Auxein's applications; and Errors, inaccuracies, distortions, and literally false statements permeate the texts of both the Registration Eligibility Decision and the Final Rule.

Second, the applicant alleged, but failed to demonstrate, that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will follow the use of AuxiGro, GABA, or processed free glutamic acid when used as (or in) a plant growth enhancer on crops, lawn, turfgrasses, and ornamentals.

The applicant provided no information on the amount of processed free glutamic acid, GABA, and AuxiGro that would remain as residue on or in each of the fruits, grains, and vegetables brought to market after the first harvest.

The applicant provided no information on the difference in uptake of processed free glutamic acid, GABA, and AuxiGro in leaves (such as lettuce and chard), in fruits (such as grapes and tomatoes), in stems (such as celery), in roots and tubers (such as potatoes and carrots), in nuts and seeds, and in the edible portion of grains.

The applicant provided no information on the amount of processed free glutamic acid, GABA, and AuxiGro that would remain as residue on or in each of the fruits, grains, and vegetables brought to market after subsequent harvests.

The applicant provided no information on the total amount of processed free glutamic acid, GABA, and AuxiGro from residues on or in fruits, grains, and vegetables that might be consumed by individual adults and children consuming more than one AuxiGro treated food during the course of a day.

The applicant provided neither case studies nor data from peer reviewed published literature that addressed the least amount of processed free glutamic acid needed to produce adverse reactions in persons - either adults, infants, or children -- acutely sensitive to processed free glutamic acid.

The applicant provided no credible data on the effects that feeding processed free glutamic acid to infants (either human or other) over a period of years would have on the production of brain lesions and neuroendocrine disorders.

The data that Auxein did submit to the EPA, alleging that it demonstrated that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will follow the use of AuxiGro, GABA, and processed free glutamic acid:

Were irrelevant to the issue;

Used methodology inadequate to the task of identifying brain lesions and neuroendocrine disorders in animals allegedly studied;

Had been refuted years ago by neuroscientists outside of the employ of Ajinomoto Co., Inc. and others in the glutamate industry;

Did not duplicate the real-world conditions under which AuxiGro would be used; and/or did not consider the total amount of processed free glutamic acid, GABA, and AuxiGro that would be ingested daily if AuxiGro were to be successfully marketed.

Third, the applicant failed to show the EPA the volumes of data published in peer reviewed journals that demonstrate that processed free glutamic acid places humans at risk.

Monosodium glutamate used on crops grown in California

In May, 1999, spraying processed free glutamic acid on wine grapes (calling the spray a fertilizer) was approved by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). Steven D. Wong, Branch Chief, Agricultural Commodities and Regulatory Services (916/654-0574) told us that there was no demonstration that use according to label directions would present a significant health hazard to workers, consumers of products grown with the aid of the processed free glutamic acid-containing product, or to the general public. To have a product approved for use as a fertilizer in California, a company need do little more than make application.

In April, 2000, and again in July, 2001, spraying processed free glutamic acid on wine grapes (calling it a fungicide) was approved by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). Barry Cortez, Branch Chief, CDPR, first told us that the CDPR would only turn down a product if it appeared to be ineffective, and AuxiGro didn't appear to be ineffective.  After reading the law, however, we found that according to Section 12825 of the Food and Agricultural Code: "...the director,...may cancel the registration of, or refuse to register, any pesticide:
AuxiGro meets each of those three criteria.  The CDPR appears to have no interest in the toxic potential of AuxiGro.

It was not until the spring of 2001, however, that we found that AuxiGro contained more awful ingredients than the "L-glutamic acid" -- the neurotoxic, endocrine disrupter that can cause adverse reactions such as asthma, migraine headache, heart irregularities, and seizures in people who were sensitive to it.  AuxiGro, we learned from government documents, contains hydrolyzed casein (milk) protein, a substance known to have caused the death of milk-sensitive children who consumed minute quantities of milk protein hidden in processed food.  AuxiGro, we learned from other government documents, also contains carcinogens.

On February 22, 2001, we formally requested that the CDPR not license AuxiGro for use in the State of California as a plant growth regulator (PGR).  We have subsequently made a number of similar requests.  To our knowledge, no application to the State of California for approval of a particular use of AuxiGro has ever been turned down.  At that time, AuxiGro had been approved for use on  ALMONDS, APRICOTS, CANTALOUPES, CHERRIES, GRAPES, GRAPES (ALL OR UNSPECIFIED), GRAPES, WINE, MELONS,  NECTARINES,  ONION (DRY, SPANISH, WHITE, PEACHES, PLUMS (INCLUDES WILD PLUMS), PRUNES, TOMATOES, TOMATOES FOR PROCESSING and WATERMELONS.

On July 9, 2004, California proposed to also allow cole crops to be sprayed with MSG.  Cole crops include BROCCOLI, BRUSSELS SPROUTS, CABBAGE, CAULIFLOWER, KALE, COLLARDS, TURNIPS, RUTABAGA, MUSTARD, WATERCRESS, and KOHLRABI.

Today (2009), California registration of AuxiGro has lapsed.

REFERENCES

7. Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, 6th Edition, (1983.) s.v. "Flavor enhancers and potentiators." pp 1211-1212.
8. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 3rd Edition, Volume 2. New York: Wiley, 1978. pp 410-421.
9. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology Fourth Edition (Wiley, 1992) pp 571-579.
10. U.S. Patent #5,573,945. Mutant and method for producing L-glutamic acid by fermentation. Ajinomoto Co., Inc. (Tokyo, JP). November 12, 1996.
11. Leung, A. and Foster, S. Encyclopedia of Common Natural Ingredients Used in Food, Drugs, and Cosmetics. New York: Wiley, 1996. pp 373-375.
 
 

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

This page was last updated on October 20, 2009