The Power of Citizen Journalism
Post News ($)»     Post Blog»     Upload Image»     Groups»     Events»     Alerts»     User Benefits»
Email Print Share

Email this article

Recipient email:
Your email:
optional
Message:
optional

article imageMSG: Are You Slowly Poisoning Yourself?

Posted Jun 6, 2007 by  Bart B. Van Bockstaele in Health | 25 comments | 2857 views
Advertising
A message warns against the poisonous effects of MSG. It talks about how MSG is the direct cause of obesity and it uncovers an unholy cover-up by the government (including the Bush administration) to protect the food industry.
A few hours ago, I received the e-mail pasted below. I know that Digital Journal does not want us to copy and paste, and I wholeheartedly agree. However, I believe that making an exception to this rule is warranted in this case because the e-mail is the subject of my article, and I feel it is important to include the entire text. Therefore, the text of the e-mail should not be seen as part of the article, but as an illustration, just as a picture. I also feel that my pasting this message does not go against the spirit of the Digital Journal rules, only against the letter.

I received this message from a friend who understood this to be a hoax. Unfortunately, it did not seem to be documented in any meaningful way on the Internet.

Therefore, I thought I should discuss the message myself.

I paste the unchanged message below, and I will discuss its contents after that.

MSG - Are You Slowly Poisoning Yourself?

Another interesting read! MSG has been banned in Europe for over 40 years, but its still in wide use here!!!,

ARE YOU SLOWLY POISONING YOURSELF?

MSG - used in Coffee - (read this for sure) please read this. It is startling!!

Food additive "MSG" is a Slow Poison. Slow Poisoning MSG hides behind 25 or more names, such as "Natural Flavouring".

MSG is also in your favourite Tim Horton's and other brand coffee shops! Pass this on to those who still may be unaware or disbelieving of the dangers of MSG. I wondered if there could be an actual chemical causing the massive obesity epidemic, so did a friend of mine, John Erb. He was a research assistant at the University of Waterloo in Ontario , Canada , and spent years working for the government.

He made an amazing discovery while going through scientific journals for a book he was writing called "The Slow Poisoning of America ". In hundreds of studies around the world, scientists were creating obese mice and rats to use in diet or diabetes test studies.

No strain of rat or mice is naturally obese, so the scientists have to create them. They make these morbidly obese creatures by injecting them with MSG when they are first born. The MSG triples the amount of insulin the pancreas creates; causing rats (and humans?) to become obese. They even have a title for the fat rodents they create: "MSG-Treated Rats".

I was shocked too. I went to my kitchen, checking the cupboards and the fridge. MSG was in everything! The Campbell 's soups, the Hostess Doritos, the Lays flavoured potato chips, Top Ramen, Betty Crocker Hamburger Helper, Heinz canned gravy, Swanson frozen prepared meals, Kraft salad dressings, especially the 'healthy low fat' ones.

The items that didn't have MSG marked on the product label had
something called ''Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein'', which is just another name for Monosodium Glutamate. It was shocking to see just how many of the foods we feed our children everyday are filled with this stuff. They hide MSG under many different names in order to fool those who carefully read the ingredient list, so they don't catch on. (Other names for MSG:
'Accent' - 'Aginomoto' - 'Natural Meet Tenderizer' etc) But it didn't stop there.

When our family went out to eat, we started asking at the restaurants what menu items had MSG. Many employees, even the managers, swore they didn't use MSG. But when we ask for the ingredient list, which they grudgingly provided, sure enough MSG and Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein were everywhere. Burger King, McDonald's, Wendy's, Taco Bell , every restaurant, even the sit down ones like TGIF, Chilis', Applebees and Denny's use MSG in abundance. Kentucky Fried Chicken seemed to be the WORST offender: MSG was in every chicken dish, salad dressing and gravy. No wonder I loved to eat that coating on the skin, their secret spice was MSG!

So why is MSG in so may of the foods we eat? Is it a preservative or a vitamin?

Not according to my friend John. In the book he wrote, an expose of the food additive industry called "The Slow Poisoning of America " he said that MSG is added to food for the addictive effect it has on the human body.

http://www.spofamerica.com/
Even the propaganda website sponsored by the food manufacturers lobby group supporting MSG explains that the reason they add it to food is to make people eat more. A study of the elderly showed that people eat more of the foods that it is added to. The Glutamate Association lobby group says eating more benefits the elderly, but what does it do to the rest of us? 'Betcha can't eat just one', takes on a whole new meaning where MSG is concerned! And we wonder why the nation is overweight?

The MSG manufacturers themselves admit that it addicts people to their products. It makes people choose their product over others, and makes people eat more of it than they would if MSG wasn't
added.

Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an addictive substance! Since its introduction into the American food supply fifty years ago, MSG has been added in larger and larger doses to the pre-packaged meals, soups, snacks and fast foods we are tempted to eat everyday. The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food.

They claim it's safe to eat in any amount. How can they claim it safe when there are hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these? :- The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of exercise in obesity'. Gobatto CA, Mello MA, Souza CT, Ribeiro IA.Res Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002.

Adrenalectomy abolishes the food-induced hypothalamic serotonin release in both normal and monosodium glutamate-obese rats'. Guimaraes RB, Telles MM, Coelho VB, Mori C, Nascimento CM, Ribeiro Brain Res Bull. 2002 Aug.

Obesity induced by neonatal monosodium glutamate treatment in spontaneously hypertensive rats: an animal model of multiple risk factors'.

Iwase M, Yamamoto M, Iino K, Ichikawa K, Shinohara N, Yoshinari Fujishima Hypertens Res. 1998 Mar.

Hypothalamic lesion induced by injection of monosodium glutamate in suckling period and subsequent development of obesity'. Tanaka K, Shimada M, Nakao K, Kusunoki Exp Neurol. 1978 Oct.

Yes, that last study was not a typo, it WAS written in 1978. Both the "medical research community" and "food manufacturers" have known about MSG's side effects for decades! Many more studies mentioned in John Erb's book link MSG to Diabetes, Migraines and headaches, Autism, ADHD and even Alzheimer's. But what can we do to stop the food manufactures from dumping fattening and addictive MSG into our food supply and causing the obesity epidemic we now see?

Even as you read this, G. W. Bush and his corporate supporters are pushing a Bill through Congress called the "Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act" also known as the "Cheeseburger Bill", this sweeping law bans anyone from suing food manufacturers, sellers and distributors. Even if it comes out that they purposely added an addictive chemical to their foods. Read about it for yourself at: http://www.yahoo.com/.

The Bill has already been rushed through the House of Representatives, and is due for the same rubber stamp at Senate level. It is important that Bush and his corporate supporters get it through before the media lets everyone know about 'MSG, the intentional Nicotine for food'.

Several months ago, John Erb took his book and his concerns to one of the highest government health officials in Canada .

While sitting in the Government office, the official told him "Sure I know how bad MSG is, I wouldn't touch the stuff!" But this top level government official refused to tell the public what he knew.

The big media doesn't want to tell the public either, fearing legal issues with their advertisers. It seems that the fallout on fast food industry may hurt their profit margin. The food producers and restaurants have been addicting us to their products for years, and now we are paying the price for it. Our children should not be cursed with obesity caused by an addictive food additive. But what can I do about it?... I'm just one voice!

What can I do to stop the poisoning of our children, while our governments are insuring financial protection for the industry that is poisoning us!

This e-mail is going out to everyone I know in an attempt to tell you the truth that the corporate owned politicians and media won't tell you.

The best way you can help to save yourself and your children from this drug-induced epidemic, is to forward this email to everyone. With any luck, it will circle the globe before politicians can pass the legislation protecting those who are poisoning us. The food industry learned a lot from the tobacco industry. Imagine if big tobacco had a bill like this in place before someone blew the whistle on Nicotine?

If you are one of the few who can still believe that MSG is good for us, and you don't believe what John Erb has to say, see for yourself. Go to the National Library of Medicine, at http://www.pubmed.com/. Type in the words "MSG Obese" and read a few of the 115 medical studies that appear.

We the public, do not want to be rats in one giant experiment and we do not approve of food that makes us into a nation of obese, lethargic, addicted sheep, feeding the food industry's bottom line, while waiting for the heart transplant, diabetic induced amputation, blindness or other obesity induced, life threatening disorders. With your help we can put an end to this poison. Do your part in sending this message out by word of mouth, e-mail or by distribution of this print-out to all your friends all over the world and stop this 'Slow Poisoning of Mankind' by the packaged food industry.

Blowing the whistle on MSG is our responsibility, get the word out.


Message Review
Please note that I use the abbreviation of MSG for all forms. While not scientifically correct, this has become the norm in popular literature because non-scientists usually lack sufficient knowledge to understand the distinctions between the different forms and also because these distinctions are essentially irrelevant in the context of this message.

MSG has been banned in Europe for over 40 years, but its still in wide use here!!!
This is manifestly untrue. MSG has most definitely not been banned in Europe. According to the European Food Information Council (EUFIC), MSG is one of the most extensively researched food ingredients, and numerous tests have shown that it is a safe and useful taste enhancer for foods. They even advise to partly replace salt with MSG because it will help to reduce the total sodium intake. Furthermore, the acceptable daily intake in Europe is "not specified", the most favourable status possible. Europe has also determined that children metabolize MSG as efficiently as adults and that they do not display any special susceptibility to elevated oral intakes of glutamate (EC Scientific Committee for Foods).

MSG - used in Coffee - (read this for sure) please read this. It is startling!!
To date, no one has been able to demonstrate the presence of MSG as an additive in coffee. For good reason. People love coffee as it is. There is no reason whatsoever to use MSG.

Food additive "MSG" is a Slow Poison.
No one has ever been able to show that MSG is a poison.

Slow Poisoning MSG hides behind 25 or more names, such as "Natural Flavouring".
Is MSG “hiding” behind other names? No. However, it is true that some ingredients used in food will contain MSG. Why? Because glutamate is a component of protein. It is essentially not possible to eat animal protein that does not contain glutamate. Parmesan and Roquefort cheeses are amongst the highest sources of MSG in the food chain. Furthermore, in humans, it is a non-essential amino-acid. This means that the human body manufactures glutamate all by itself. Also, MSG is present in high concentrations in certain fruits and vegetables, broccoli being one of the best examples.

MSG is also in your favourite Tim Horton's and other brand coffee shops!
This is a very strange sentence. We can only assume that the author means that MSG is present in Tim Hortons (without apostrophe!) and other coffees. It is not. Not only has no-one has ever been able to demonstrate the presence of MSG in any coffee, but Tim Hortons has officially denied (Acrobat file) the presence of any additives whatsoever in its coffee. It has done so when the CBC made a television program (Real Media) about the rumour of Tim Hortons using nicotine in its coffee (it does not).
Pass this on to those who still may be unaware or disbelieving of the dangers of MSG.
Please don’t. It will only serve to cause panic among less informed and more gullible people, and there is no reason whatsoever for it.
They even have a title for the fat rodents they create: "MSG-Treated Rats".
This is true. The obese rats are created by injecting them subcutaneously (under the skin) with 4 mg of MSG per gram of body weight every other day from the first day they are born until they are two weeks old. The rats that do not die, nearly all become obese. Proof that MSG truly is one of the most horrible products on the planet, right? No.

First of all, products that you inject, usually have a totally different effect than when you eat them.

For example, we all know that broccoli is one of the most healthful vegetables we can eat, but not a single doctor on the planet would ever advise you to inject broccoli juice under the skin. Not in adults, and not in newborn babies.

Second, 4 mg per gram of body weight doesn’t sound like much, but the quantity is truly gigantic. To show how much this is, imagine a fairly average human newborn baby of 3 kg. 4 mg per gram of body weight would amount to 12 grams of MSG. In a normal adult of 72 kg, it would amount to a whopping 288 grams.

MSG-obese rats are purposely created to study obesity. Not a single rat has ever become obese by eating this amount of MSG. It would simply be digested, just as any other product.
I was shocked too. I went to my kitchen, checking the cupboards and the fridge. MSG was in everything! The Campbell 's soups, the Hostess Doritos, the Lays flavoured potato chips, Top Ramen, Betty Crocker Hamburger Helper, Heinz canned gravy, Swanson frozen prepared meals, Kraft salad dressings, especially the 'healthy low fat' ones.
No one will dispute that. As said before, MSG is a natural product that is part of many, if not most of our foods. It would, for example, not be possible to eat broccoli without MSG as broccoli is naturally rich in MSG. MSG enhances the taste, just as salt enhances the taste, and salt is also present in all these foods.
The items that didn't have MSG marked on the product label had something called ''Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein'', which is just another name for Monosodium Glutamate.
This is not true. In this context, hydrolysis is a process in which water is used to make protein decompose in its constituents. MSG is one of the 20 amino acids that make up protein. When you hydrolyse protein, MSG will naturally be released. Hydrolysed protein is not MSG, MSG is simply one of the many substances that can be found in hydrolysed protein.
It was shocking to see just how many of the foods we feed our children everyday are filled with this stuff.
There is nothing shocking about it. The foods we feed our children are nowhere near filled with MSG. MSG is virtually always less than 1% of our food, the most notable exceptions being Parmesan and Roquefort cheese and their MSG is naturally present, it is not added to the food.
They hide MSG under many different names in order to fool those who carefully read the ingredient list, so they don't catch on. (Other names for MSG:
'Accent' - 'Aginomoto' - 'Natural Meet Tenderizer' etc) But it didn't stop there.
That is ridiculous. Accent and Ajinomoto (not Aginomoto!) are simply brand names under which MSG is sold, and the FDA regulations clearly state that foods which contain added MSG and even ingredients containing substantial amounts of MSG must clearly be labelled as containing MSG. "Hiding" behind other names is absolutely not an option.

I can only assume that the Meet Tenderizer is a meat tenderizer. MSG can sometimes be used as a flavour enhancer in seasoned meat tenderizers but it is itself not used as a tenderizer.
When our family went out to eat, we started asking at the restaurants what menu items had MSG. Many employees, even the managers, swore they didn't use MSG.
Can you reasonably expect every person working at a restaurant to know the chemical composition of all menu items? As a matter of fact, do *you* know the chemical composition of all the foods you prepare yourself?
But when we ask for the ingredient list, which they grudgingly provided, sure enough MSG and Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein were everywhere. Burger King, McDonald's, Wendy's, Taco Bell , every restaurant, even the sit down ones like TGIF, Chilis', Applebees and Denny's use MSG in abundance. Kentucky Fried Chicken seemed to be the WORST offender: MSG was in every chicken dish, salad dressing and gravy. No wonder I loved to eat that coating on the skin, their secret spice was MSG!
Sure, the same is true for salt. Can you truly accuse a restaurant of trying to create a delicious recipe? Be serious, especially given the safety record of MSG. But as far as MSG being a secret? It most definitely is not.
So why is MSG in so may of the foods we eat?.. Is it a preservative or a vitamin??
Not according to my friend John. In the book he wrote, an expose of the food additive industry called "The Slow Poisoning of America " he said that MSG is added to food for the addictive effect it has on the human body. http://www.spofamerica.com
This is untrue. MSG is a flavour enhancer, no more. MSG is also one of the 20 amino acids contained in our bodies. Without MSG, we would be very different creatures, or we would not exist at all.

What seems to be true however, is that the author of this book is desperately trying to get the word out about his book. He clearly sees this as a nice advertisement to incite people to buy it.
Even the propaganda website sponsored by the food manufacturers lobby group supporting MSG at: http://www.msgfactscom/facts/msgfact12.html explains that the reason they add it to food is to make people eat more. A study of the elderly showed that people eat more of the foods that it is added to. The Glutamate Association lobby group says eating more benefits the elderly, but what does it do to the rest of us? 'Betcha can't eat just one', takes on a whole new meaning where MSG is concerned! And we wonder why the nation is overweight?
First of all, this website does not exist. There needs to be a dot between msgfacts and com: http://www.msgfacts.com/facts/msgfact12.html .

Second, MSG is a flavour enhancer, just like salt, sugar, vinegar, cilantro and any number of other flavour enhancers or spice. If we accuse the users of MSG of our obesity, we have to be consistent and also accuse the users of salt and the users of every single product that has a good taste.
The MSG manufacturers themselves admit that it addicts people to their products.
They don’t and it doesn’t. I have been unable to find a single study that proves that MSG is an addictive substance.
It makes people choose their product over others, and makes people eat more of it than they would if MSG wasn't added.
The same is true for any other flavour enhancer.
Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an addictive substance!
MSG only causes obesity when injected in enormous amounts in newborns. No, it is not an addictive substance.

Furthermore, MSG is one of the oldest flavour enhancers on the planet. It has been used for countless hundreds of years in Asia and Asians happen to be among the skinniest people on earth.
Since its introduction into the American food supply fifty years ago, MSG has been added in larger and larger doses to the prepackaged meals, soups, snacks and fast foods we are tempted to eat everyday.
Those larger and larger doses don't seem to be all that large. Usually less than 1% of our food is MSG.
The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food. They claim it's safe to eat in any amount. How can they claim it safe when there are hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these? :- The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of exercise in obesity'. Gobatto CA, Mello MA, Souza CT, Ribeiro IA.Res Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002…
How can they claim it is safe? Because no one has ever succeeded in proving that it is not. The fact that MSG has some dramatic effects when injected in newborns, does not show in any way that it is a dangerous product.
Both the "medical research community" and "food manufacturers" have known about MSG's side effects for decades!
MSG does not have side effects. At least, no one, including its fiercest detractors, has ever been able to show that it does.
Many more studies mentioned in John Erb's book link MSG to Diabetes, Migraines and headaches, Autism, ADHD and even Alzheimer's.
Of course, we have to buy the book before we can even find out his references, whereas we can find out about real scientific studies for free and none of those have ever been able to substantiate any of these accusations. This is a sickening part of the mail, because it preys on the most vulnerable people of our society, people with real and debilitating diseases and conditions.
But what can we do to stop the food manufactures from dumping fattening and addictive MSG into our food supply and causing the obesity epidemic we now see?
Food manufacturers are by no means dumping MSG in our food supply. This is a minor ingredient in foods. Moreover, MSG is neither fattening nor addictive.
Even as you read this, G. W. Bush and his corporate supporters are pushing a Bill through Congress called the "Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act" also known as the "Cheeseburger Bill", this sweeping law bans anyone from suing food manufacturers, sellers and distributors. Even if it comes out that they purposely added an addictive chemical to their foods. Read about it for yourself at: http://www.yahoo.com/.
The Bill has already been rushed through the House of Representatives, and is due for the same rubber stamp at Senate level. It is important that Bush and his corporate supporters
get it through before the media lets everyone know about 'MSG, the
intentional Nicotine for food'.
This act exists. It is meant “To prevent legislative and regulatory functions from being usurped by civil liability actions brought or continued against food manufacturers, marketers, distributors, advertisers, sellers, and trade associations for claims of injury relating to a person's weight gain, obesity, or any health condition associated with weight gain or obesity.”

The reasons for this act are obvious. It is not the fault of the manufacturer of a food that we eat too much and become obese in exactly the same way as it is not the fault of the manufacturer of a vehicle that we are caught speeding. This act should protect the food and restaurant industries against clearly frivolous litigation. To date, June 6th 2007, it has not yet passed the senate and as such, it is not an official legislation.

Also, labelling MSG as the intentional nicotine for food is highly misleading. Nicotine is one of the strongest plant toxins known to man. MSG is one of the safest. It is so safe that it is not considered a toxin at all.
Several months ago, John Erb took his book and his concerns to one of the highest government health officials in Canada. While sitting in the Government office, the official told him "Sure I know how bad MSG is, I wouldn't touch the stuff!" But this top level government official refused to tell the public what he knew.
How convenient. If John Erb is this certain of his case, he could take it to court. His “top level government official” will be required to testify, if he/she exists at all, of course.
The big media doesn't want to tell the public either, fearing legal issues with their advertisers.
The big media often do tell the public of this type of issue, they love sensational news, it brings them market share. However, when you have often announced this type of thing and have been shown wrong every single time, it loses its appeal real fast.
It seems that the fallout on fast food industry may hurt their profit margin.
Indeed, would you really return willingly to a restaurant or would you really willingly buy food that is bland and tasteless? If I understand it properly, you accuse restaurants of using top chefs? From now on, they should only be allowed to use people with a proven inability to cook?
The food producers and restaurants have been addicting us to their products for years, and now we are paying the price for it.
They haven’t and we aren’t.
Our children should not be cursed with obesity caused by an addictive food additive.
They shouldn’t and they aren’t.
But what can I do about it?... I'm just one voice!
No one is forcing you in any way to eat MSG. If you really hate it that much, don't eat it.
What can I do to stop the poisoning of our children, while our governments are insuring financial protection for the industry that is poisoning us!
If you poison your children or not is entirely up to you. You don’t like MSG? That is your right. Don’t eat it, don’t give it to your children. However, MSG is not poison. Avoiding MSG will not protect them against any poisoning.
This e-mail is going out to everyone I know in an attempt to tell you the truth that the corporate owned politicians and media won't tell you. The best way you can help to save yourself and your children from this drug-induced epidemic, is to forward this email to everyone.
This a campaign of disinformation that will only cause panic amongst the scientifically ignorant and the gullible.
With any luck, it will circle the globe before politicians can pass the legislation protecting those who are poisoning us. The food industry learned a lot from the tobacco industry. Imagine if big tobacco had a bill like this in place before someone blew the whistle on Nicotine?
A bill like this would by no means have protected“big tobacco”against someone blowing the whistle on nicotine. The poisonous effects of nicotine are a very old and well-documented knowledge.
If you are one of the few who can still believe that MSG is good for us, and you don't believe what John Erb has to say, see for yourself. Go to the National Library of Medicine, at
http://www.pubmed.com/. Type in the words "MSG Obese" and read a few of the 115 medical studies that appear.
How deliciously contradictory. If the government doesn’t want us to know, why does it make this information freely available if it is really so devastating? Because the government does not want us to poison ourselves, and because this information is not devastating at all, at least not to people with enough intelligence and education to understand what is going on.
We the public, do not want to be rats in one giant experiment and we do not approve of food that makes us into a nation of obese, lethargic, addicted sheep, feeding the food industry's bottom line, while waiting for the heart transplant, diabetic induced amputation, blindness or other obesity induced, life threatening disorders.
Nobody wants to. That is precisely why the government does its best to publish information on how not to become obese and how to lose weight. This is not a gigantic experiment, and we are not rats in it.
With your help we can put an end to this poison.
MSG is not a poison. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Putting an end to it is not necessary.
Do your part in sending this message out by word of mouth, e-mail or by distribution of this print-out to all your friends all over the world and stop this 'Slow Poisoning of Mankind' by the packaged food industry. Blowing the whistle on MSG is our responsibility, get the word out.
Don’t send this message out. All you will be doing is cause panic among the gullible, and advertise a book full of disinformation about one of the oldest and safest food additives on the planet. This mail is clearly only intended to advertise this ridiculous book.

Conclusion
MSG is a safe substance. The e-mail in question is clearly not about a genuine warning of the public against a dangerous substance. It is probably nothing more than an advertisement for a book that is presumably filled with disinformation. This mail shows marketing at its ugliest.
article:192321:21::0

3 subscribers
Subscribe To This Thread[?] :
  • unusualsuspect Posted Jun 6, 2007 by  unusualsuspect
    #1
    Copy and paste is against the rules of DJ, against the spirit, and it is also plagiarism. You could have done the analysis with pertinent quotes. If you can justify it, then anybody can justify it. Plagiarism isn't an area where anybody can make up their own rules.
  • avatar Posted Jun 6, 2007 by  Chris Hogg
    #2
    @ unusualsuspect:
    Copy and paste is against the rules of DJ, against the spirit, and it is also plagiarism. You could have done the analysis with pertinent quotes. If you can justify it, then anybody can justify it. Plagiarism isn't an area where anybody can make up their own rules.

    I appreciate your careful eye unusualsuspect, but I don't see how this is different than the mainstream media using a document or letter with which to base an article -- 60 Minutes, The Smoking Gun, even newspapers print letters to promote a discussion.

    As far as I can tell everything is in "quotes", and while I wouldn't expect writers to quote entire articles from other sources, I personally don't see anything wrong with citing an email to start a discussion.

    It looks to me as though there was a lot of work put into this, and copy+pasting was not a quick way to make a buck. Bart really spent time on this.

    I appreciate your concern and really value your monitoring, but do you guys really think this is a breach of our rules? I'm not trying to divert from the topic of MSG, but I would appreciate feedback, as I did not see this as a problem. I really thought it added to the discussion.
  • avatar Posted Jun 6, 2007 by  Bart B. Van Bockstaele
    #3
    @ unusualsuspect:
    Copy and paste is against the rules of DJ, against the spirit, and it is also plagiarism. You could have done the analysis with pertinent quotes. If you can justify it, then anybody can justify it. Plagiarism isn't an area where anybody can make up their own rules.

    According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
    to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
    intransitive verb : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

    I do not believe this is the case. I have not mentioned the original author, because there an original author was not mentioned. I have most definitely not tried to pass the text as my own words.

    I have copied the entire message because I believe it is important to do so. I could have posted the text somewhere and then provide a link. I do believe this would hypocritical.

    Nevertheless, if Digital Journal believes that I overstepped the limits, I will erase it. In that case, I will simply mention that this is an article about an e-mail message that I am not allowed to show.

    Let's be clear and explicit: I am doing my best to provide meaningful content. I am not trying to usurp anything.
  • avatar Posted Jun 6, 2007 by  Bart B. Van Bockstaele
    #4
    @ Chris Hogg:
    I appreciate your concern and really value your monitoring, but do you guys really think this is a breach of our rules? I'm not trying to divert from the topic of MSG, but I would appreciate feedback, as I did not see this as a problem. I really thought it added to the discussion.

    Thank you, Chris. I did indeed spend a lot of time on this. I started yesterday, and I cancelled an afternoon appointment to be able to finish it today. In all, it took me about 15 hours to research the thing and to write it.

    I believe that not posting the mail would make it less clear why I wrote the article in the first place. My goal is to inform, not to harm in any way. Except for the author of the mail. (S)He should be harmed because (s)he is clearly preying on a vulnerable part of our society.

    Although I cannot prove it and therefore not claim it to be a fact, it seems very likely that this mail is a distasteful attempt at marketing a questionable book.

    But my previous comment stands: should Digital Journal decide that what I did is not acceptable, I will -somewhat reluctantly- remove the text of the message.
  • avatar Posted Jun 6, 2007 by  Chris Hogg
    #5
    @ Bart B. Van Bockstaele:
    Thank you, Chris. I did indeed spend a lot of time on this. I started yesterday, and I cancelled an afternoon appointment to be able to finish it today. In all, it took me about 15 hours to research the thing and to write it.

    I believe that not posting the mail would make it less clear why I wrote the article in the first place. My goal is to inform, not to harm in any way. Except for the author of the mail. (S)He should be harmed because (s)he is clearly preying on a vulnerable part of our society.

    Although I cannot prove it and therefore not claim it to be a fact, it seems very likely that this mail is a distasteful attempt at marketing a questionable book.

    I see that, but unusualsuspect is great in trying to protect the DJ name. It's devoted users like this that we really appreciate and perhaps unusualsuspect mis-read your intentions? Either way it does promote a good discussion.

    Without the email, to me this would be like talking about something you once saw or heard 10 years ago -- without the physical evidence it doesn't exist or have weight. Citing an email, in my opinion, adds validity and weight to your claims and arguments.

    The validity of emails is so important in this day and age, as there is a lot of garbage that funnels around the Internet. When it comes to bank scams, drug misinformation, etc., our inboxes are full of claims made by invisible people. I think analysis and cross-examination is important.
  • avatar Posted Jun 6, 2007 by  Bart B. Van Bockstaele
    #6
    @ Bart B. Van Bockstaele:
    I have not mentioned the original author, because there an original author was not mentioned.

    Wow! Be more careful, Bart!

    I obviously meant:

    I have not mentioned the original author, because the name of the original author was not mentioned.
  • avatar Posted Jun 6, 2007 by  Bart B. Van Bockstaele
    #7
    @ Chris Hogg:
    I see that, but unusualsuspect is great in trying to protect the DJ name. It's devoted users like this that we really appreciate and perhaps unusualsuspect mis-read your intentions? Either way it does promote a good discussion.

    Without the email, to me this would be like talking about something you once saw or heard 10 years ago -- without the physical evidence it doesn't exist or have weight. Citing an email, in my opinion, adds validity and weight to your claims and arguments.

    Thank you, Chris! That is indeed what I was trying to do.

    I think that unusualsuspect stated his honest opinion and he should be entitled to do that. That is also why avoided saying "you" in my reaction to his comment. I believe the opinion is wrong (in the context of my article), but that does not make his opinion less valuable in any way.
  • avatar Posted Jun 7, 2007 by  Paul Wallis (Wanderlaugh)
    #8
    The Cheeseburger Bill is going to hit a few rocks if it tries to remove the civil right to sue. Can't be done. Even if it could, the next stage up from consumer law, in the case of actual poisoning, is criminal law.

    I honestly do not see why the US would try to enforce much lower standards for food than those of other developed countries. Surely there's enough problems in America without statutorily enforced toxic food, too.

    One item of possible interest, Bart-

    Recent clinical trials indicated that people's brains actually develop receptors for fast food. I wouldn't be at all surprised if glutamate, being an analog of glutamine, was involved.

    An irony, there- if that's the case, a lot of trauma could be saved for people with conditions requiring invasive surgical procedures or treatements for the brain. The receptors could be used to take up medicine, attached to the glutamine.

    That sort of thing would never make it through the hysteria.

    Irritating, isn't it?
  • avatar Posted Jun 7, 2007 by  Bart B. Van Bockstaele
    #9
    @ Paul Wallis (Wanderlaugh):
    The Cheeseburger Bill is going to hit a few rocks if it tries to remove the civil right to sue. Can't be done. Even if it could, the next stage up from consumer law, in the case of actual poisoning, is criminal law.

    I honestly do not see why the US would try to enforce much lower standards for food than those of other developed countries. Surely there's enough problems in America without statutorily enforced toxic food, too.

    I entirely agree!

    The US is not trying to remove the right to sue per se, and they are most certainly not trying to enforce low quality. The proposal is just meant to make it clear that we also have personal responsibilities and to protect people in the food industry from frivolous litigation. If someone eats too much, that is not the fault of the cook, the restaurant chain or the food manufacturer except if it could indeed be proven that the chain puts special ingredients in its food with no other function than to create an addiction in its customers. This seems incredibly unlikely.

    However, if the food would prove to be harmful in some unusual way, litigation has to remain possible, obviously. This act is not meant to protect the food industry in case it would knowingly and willingly put, say, nicotin or heroin in its food.

    It all seems very unlikely. While we all know that mistakes are made, sometimes even by negligence, I think that we can be reasonably sure that not too many people in the mainstream food industry want to make their customers sick. It is simply not good for business.

    @ Paul Wallis (Wanderlaugh):
    One item of possible interest, Bart-

    Recent clinical trials indicated that people's brains actually develop receptors for fast food. I wouldn't be at all surprised if glutamate, being an analog of glutamine, was involved.

    An irony, there- if that's the case, a lot of trauma could be saved for people with conditions requiring invasive surgical procedures or treatements for the brain. The receptors could be used to take up medicine, attached to the glutamine.

    That sort of thing would never make it through the hysteria.

    Irritating, isn't it?

    It would not particularly amaze me that this would be confirmed. After all, our brains do react to the environment. One example that is even more striking than the fast food one, is raw fish. It isn't so long ago that merely mentioning the fact that some people eat raw fish was enough to send most Westerners vomiting to the bathroom. In no more than a few years however, these same Westerners have learned to crave it. The brain is an adaptive organ.

    As such, I do not think that glutamate would necessarily be involved, but it is not entirely impossible. It has been shown that glutamate (with difficulty) is able to cross the blood-brain barrier. Nevertheless, the use of glutamine as a carrier for drugs could indeed be a great solution.

    As you say, the company creating such drugs would have to be extremely diplomatic about its products or all types of prophets of doom would have the time of their lives causing panic and extorting money from their victims by selling them all types of special meditation courses, blessed olive oil, protective amulets and whatever.
  • avatar Posted Jun 7, 2007 by  Paul Wallis (Wanderlaugh)
    #10
    We just had a situation in Australia where we had to redo the insurance laws for personal responsibility because the courts were getting clogged up to an impossible degree. We were the litigation capital of Asia, if you can believe that.

    I dread to think what the food-based version of that would be like.
  • avatar Posted Jun 7, 2007 by  Bart B. Van Bockstaele
    #11
    @ Paul Wallis (Wanderlaugh):
    I dread to think what the food-based version of that would be like.

    That's exactly what this so-called Chees-Burger bill is supposed to avoid, but it may still be a while before it becomes law.
  • avatar Posted Jun 7, 2007 by  Posthappy
    #12
    Excellent article and analysis.
    The thing is, MSG does have negative affects on people and although it may be harmless to the masses, for others is does cause concern. In some it can cause headaches, dizziness and even vomiting. That is why a lot of Chinese food restaurants now advertise "No MSG" on their menus.
    MSG has been used for years, by many cultures during the cooking process, without major side effects, but like everything thing else we eat, if you have a concern, then moderation is the key.

    Is there any really good news about food these days? Seems everything we eat, is cause for concern.
  • avatar Posted Jun 7, 2007 by  Bart B. Van Bockstaele
    #13
    @ Posthappy:
    Excellent article and analysis.
    The thing is, MSG does have negative affects on people and although it may be harmless to the masses, for others is does cause concern. In some it can cause headaches, dizziness and even vomiting. That is why a lot of Chinese food restaurants now advertise "No MSG" on their menus.
    MSG has been used for years, by many cultures during the cooking process, without major side effects, but like everything thing else we eat, if you have a concern, then moderation is the key.

    Is there any really good news about food these days? Seems everything we eat, is cause for concern.

    Thank you, Posthappy.

    Actually, when tested, even people claiming to be highly sensitive to MSG turn out to be completely insensitive to it. The American FDA has nevertheless included warnings about it, in spite of the opposition of the scientists that advised against these warnings. The FDA, influenced by the non-scientists on its expert panel, wanted to err on the side of safety.

    The Chinese restaurant syndrome is virtually certainly never caused by MSG.

    The "No MSG" sign in restaurants is a joke, even if they do not use MSG. Why? Because they don't refrain from using MSG containing foods such as broccoli....

    In Canada it is forbidden to mention "No MSG" on containers with tomato spaghetti sauce. Why? Because tomatoes contain quite a bit of MSG.

    You are right, food related news is nearly never positive these days. We have become too sensitive. Food has never ever been safer than precisely now.
  • avatar Posted Jun 7, 2007 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #14
    Christopher Hogg
    I appreciate your concern and really value your monitoring, but do you guys really think this is a breach of our rules? I'm not trying to divert from the topic of MSG, but I would appreciate feedback, as I did not see this as a problem. I really thought it added to the discussion.


    I think that Bart did a good job with making sure that this wasn't a case of total copy and paste. I think that the way he did use the email, the quotes, and then stating his own comments and information was done very well. My thought is that on a rare occassion something like this would be exceptable as long as it's stated clearly in the beginning of the post, what the intent is.

    Good job, Bart!
  • avatar Posted Jun 7, 2007 by  Carolyn E. Price (gohomelaker)
    #15
    Bart, I do not think that people object to eating foods that naturally contain MSG, I believe that people are objecting to foods that contain chemically manufacturered MSG. Do I really need to have my mouth tricked into eating crap because it has a "flavor enhancer" in it? Why not just eat natural foods that naturally taste good? Look, do I need to eat "Noodles In A Bowl With Chicken" that tastes really good, just like chicken, but the chicken is God knows what because it's been enhanced by MSG? All in an effort to save money. The adding of MSG just allows the producer of that particular product to add a little less real stuff thereby the production of that product costs less. Bottom line, baby, that's what makes the world go round.
  • avatar Posted Jun 7, 2007 by  Carolyn E. Price (gohomelaker)
    #16
    BTW, great post, very thought provoking. I for one have no objection to the fact that you allegedly "copied and pasted" the e-mail. It is really only being used as a reference point for your article and as has been mentioned here, it might detract from the overall message if it wasn't displayed in its entirety..
  • avatar Posted Jun 7, 2007 by  Bart B. Van Bockstaele
    #17
    @ Carolyn E. Price (gohomelaker):
    Bart, I do not think that people object to eating foods that naturally contain MSG, I believe that people are objecting to foods that contain chemically manufactured MSG. Do I really need to have my mouth tricked into eating crap because it has a "flavor enhancer" in it? Why not just eat natural foods that naturally taste good? Look, do I need to eat "Noodles In A Bowl With Chicken" that tastes really good, just like chicken, but the chicken is God knows what because it's been enhanced by MSG? All in an effort to save money. The adding of MSG just allows the producer of that particular product to add a little less real stuff thereby the production of that product costs less. Bottom line, baby, that's what makes the world go round.

    Well-argumented! Unfortunately, what people who do object to manufactured MSG don't (want to?) realize is that this manufactured MSG is itself a completely natural product, the result of a fermentation process of grain, very much similar to the way alcohol is produced. Much more importantly however, is that this manufactured MSG is chemically and physically identical to the supposedly natural one. People who object to the use of this manufactured MSG should also object to the addition of, say, maple syrup to their pancakes, or the use of tabasco in their spaghetti sauce.

    MSG is not, and cannot be used to replace other ingredients with the exception of salt and sometimes sugar (in very specific circumstances, MSG is not particularly convincing on pancakes or in ice-cream...), since it plays the same role as these two: namely as flavour enhancer.

    Flavour enhancers are very necessary in industrially prepared foods. Not to mask the absence of ingredients, but simply because the whole process of making these foods, in combination with the draconic hygiene requirements, results in an unpalatable blandness.

    MSG is a very interesting molecule, because it has hardly any taste of its own, even less than salt, but it does a great job of enhancing the flavour of other foods.

    Until recently, we had four different types of tastebuds. They were specialized in tasting sweet, bitter, salt and sour. Now, although they have never been identified, we have five. The fifth one is called umami, a Japanese word for "deliciousness". MSG is the main direct cause of this change. Not only is this one of the most studied food molecules on earth, it is also one of the oldest flavour enhancers known to man with a past that is probably just as rich and as old as that of salt.

    There has been a conflict between the EPA (the American Environment Protection Agency) and a consumer organization that advocated against what they called the dangers of "processed free glutamate" while claiming that they had nothing against natural free glutamate. They even claimed to have tests. Unfortunately for them, they have never been able to show any difference between "processed free glutamate" and the "natural" stuff, for the very reason that there isn't one.

    This case, and some others, are extremely important to me because I have seen and still see, that some people are being deprived of certain foods "for their health" because of an irrational fear for non-existing dangers supposedly caused by "dangerous chemicals" that are perfectly natural and safe.
  • avatar Posted Jun 7, 2007 by  Bob Ewing
    #18
    the use of tabasco in their spaghetti sauce. this I would object to as it has no place in a good tomato sauce, however, if others want to use it then that is ok. Good article, I avoid most fast foods for many reasons and do not even believe that Tim's actually makes coffee but a warm brown coffee like substance. :-)
  • avatar Posted Jun 7, 2007 by  Bart B. Van Bockstaele
    #19
    @ Bob Ewing :
    the use of tabasco in their spaghetti sauce. this I would object to as it has no place in a good tomato sauce, however, if others want to use it then that is ok. Good article, I avoid most fast foods for many reasons and do not even believe that Tim's actually makes coffee but a warm brown coffee like substance. :-)

    Well said!

    I'm no fan of Tabasco either. It contains vinegar, and for me, vinegar is a cleaning product, not a food ^_^.

    What I mean is that I think we all have the right to like or to dislike something and any "-like" in between. Liking or disliking something does not need to be rational. As the saying goes, "de gustibus et coloribus non disputandum".

    It becomes problematic however when a reason is given and the reason doesn't hold up. Yes, I know, common courtesy dictates that when I say that I don't like pink combs because they make my hair fall out, you should quietly accept that, even if you would in reality rather be rolling on the floor, laughing.

    But, if I am confronted with objective proof that my hair does not fall out when I comb it with a pink comb, then I should not harrass the scientists/medics/... providing the proof into admitting the manifest non-truth that pink combs do make my hair fall out.

    That is not because common courtesy would be involved, but simply because denying objective proof can harm others. I will still have the choice of not liking pink combs... until someone is able to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that I am not able to perceive the difference between the hated pink combs and the beloved green ones...

    If I then still continue to claim that I hate pink combs but I love green combs, I should no longer be able to walk freely around. I should be locked up behind bars as a danger to society... or maybe I should become a Belgian politician ^_^

    Oh, and I'm no great fan of Tim Hortons coffee either, although I love coffee, a lot. I am convinced that I am able to taste the difference... until someone is able to prove otherwise, beyond the shadow of a doubt ^_^.
  • avatar Posted Jun 8, 2007 by  Bob Ewing
    #20
    Liking or disliking something does not need to be rational.
    This is an important point to remember when trying to tell someone not to use . eat/ do something. It is wrong to say that something is harmful unless you have proof that it is and often this proof is difficult to come by.
  • avatar Posted Jun 8, 2007 by  Carolyn E. Price (gohomelaker)
    #21
    @ Bart B. Van Bockstaele:
    Unfortunately, what people who do object to manufactured MSG don't (want to?) realize is that this manufactured MSG is itself a completely natural product, the result of a fermentation process of grain, very much similar to the way alcohol is produced.

    Bart, now I do believe that you are being very simplistic and naive in your beliefs. When you say it is a "natural product", I'm betting that the world's supplier of MSG is China, land of the cheap labor and God knows what they put in the fertilizer they are fertilizing their plants with, what they put in the pots that are fermenting the beets to speed up the process or whatever.

    @ Bart B. Van Bockstaele:
    Flavour enhancers are very necessary in industrially prepared foods. Not to mask the absence of ingredients, but simply because the whole process of making these foods, in combination with the draconic hygiene requirements, results in an unpalatable blandness.

    "Not to mask the absence of ingredients" ... how can you say this? I have read labels on many noodle and soup products that have the word "chicken" in thier title and nowhere on the ingredient label is the word "chicken" even mentioned, just things like monosodiumglutamate, propylene glycol, silicon dioxide or hydrolyzed soy protein, all wonderfully "natural" and "clean" products that really, I don't want to put into my body, thanks very much.

    'd much rather buy a chicken for dinner, eat it, throw the chicken bones and bits into a pot of water with some garlic, onions, carrots, potatoes and/or pasta and make my own soup/noodles, without the hydolyzed propylene "products".
  • avatar Posted Jun 8, 2007 by  Bart B. Van Bockstaele
    #22
    @ Carolyn E. Price (gohomelaker):
    Bart, now I do believe that you are being very simplistic and naive in your beliefs. When you say it is a "natural product", I'm betting that the world's supplier of MSG is China, land of the cheap labor and God knows what they put in the fertilizer they are fertilizing their plants with, what they put in the pots that are fermenting the beets to speed up the process or whatever.

    There are several suppliers, and the truth is that the MSG is essentially chemically pure when it is sold. To use the example of the chicken: there would be far more "chemicals" in a store-bought chicken than in a bag of MSG.

    Think about it: why would a company make a natural process more complicated and more expensive, just to be able to make it less healthful and more problem-creating? It does not make sense. That is not naieveté, that is harsh and cold reality. Of course, there is always room for conspiracy theorists. They could speculate that the Chinese are trying to kill us off, with the silent co-operation of our governments...

    MSG is a natural product, just as much as alcohol is a natural product. And yes, people *do* get headaches and all types of ailments from ingesting alcohol. That has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt by the same agencies that are being accused of covering up the dangers of MSG. Which, by the way, also does not make any sense, for the market for alcohol is far bigger business than the one for MSG will ever be.

    Originally, the Japanese used konbu (a type of seaweed) to make tast-enhancing broths. In the beginning of last century, a Japanese inventor managed to extract the MSG-molecule and later found out that it is very easy to make from the fermentation of grain or molasses. He is revered in Japan as one of the ten most important inventors ever.

    Eating is out of the question for people who want to avoid MSG. It is naturally present in nearly any food we can think of.

    Truth is that the only way to avoid horrible MSG is to commit suicide. Our own bodies create about 40 grams of the stuff a day, it is a non-essential aminoacid.

    @ Carolyn E. Price (gohomelaker):
    "Not to mask the absence of ingredients" ... how can you say this? I have read labels on many noodle and soup products that have the word "chicken" in thier title and nowhere on the ingredient label is the word "chicken" even mentioned, just things like monosodiumglutamate, propylene glycol, silicon dioxide or hydrolyzed soy protein, all wonderfully "natural" and "clean" products that really, I don't want to put into my body, thanks very much.

    It is actually very simple, gohomelaker. If you mention on the front that there is chicken in your product, and there isn't, you'll be sued, you'll lose the case, you'll be required to pay huge fines, and your brand will be tarnished forever. Imagine, people are shunning MSG for fear of non-existing dangers, will they be so happy to continue buying your product after a scandal like this?

    Now, if you mention that your product is chicken-flavoured, that becomes another issue, just as you can buy blue-raspberry flavoured candy. Nobody really expects any raspberry in such a product, nor is there any attempt to mask the absence of raspberry, it is a simple fact.

    That said, I am not only a label-reader, I never buy anything in a bag or a can or some other type of packaging that has no label, and I can't really remember having seen too many non-chicken-containing chicken-flavoured products. At the very least, they usually contain chicken fat. Let's face it, the fast-food industry (KFC, Swiss Chalet, Popeye...) sells so many breasts, legs and wings, that they leave unsurmountable mountains of chicken products that anyone would be happy to use in their chicken-flavoured products.

    @ Carolyn E. Price (gohomelaker):
    'd much rather buy a chicken for dinner, eat it, throw the chicken bones and bits into a pot of water with some garlic, onions, carrots, potatoes and/or pasta and make my own soup/noodles, without the hydolyzed propylene "products".

    So would I, and so would most people, but given our busy lifestyles, we would become underweight really fast, just for lack of time. Industrial food has become a near-necessity, whether we like it or not. And industrial foods do have their own tremendous advantages. I remember the times when I little, not a week passed by in our family without at least one food-poisoning of some type. That no longer happens.
  • avatar Posted Jun 8, 2007 by  Bart B. Van Bockstaele
    #23
    @ Bob Ewing :
    This is an important point to remember when trying to tell someone not to use . eat/ do something. It is wrong to say that something is harmful unless you have proof that it is and often this proof is difficult to come by.

    It goes both ways. It is wrong to say that something is healthful when it isn't and it is wrong to say that something is harmful when it isn't.

    Proof is indeed very often difficult to come by. There are literally tens of thousands of substances, and there is only so much research capacity. Millions of dollars of research money have been spent into trying to find harmful effects caused by MSG. None have been found. Scientists have grown tired of re-re-re-researching a proven harmless molecule. It is time to look for something more exciting, and there is no shortage of that.

    The hate for MSG and the irrational belief in its harmful effects has become a cult, a belief, a religion. There is no fighting that, but it is no longer the responsibility of the governments and the scientists that are supposed to protect us. They have done their bit.
  • avatar Posted Jun 10, 2007 by  Ringwraith
    #24
    The food industry should be forced to list the actual chemicals that they use, instead of hiding it under names like 'natural flavour' or 'filtered water'
  • avatar Posted Jun 10, 2007 by  Bart B. Van Bockstaele
    #25
    @ Ringwraith:
    The food industry should be forced to list the actual chemicals that they use, instead of hiding it under names like 'natural flavour' or 'filtered water'

    Unfortunately, that is not possible. The truth is that science isn't nearly far enough. We simply do not know the chemical composition of what we eat. Not because we cannot find out, but simply because there aren't enough people on the planet to do the work necessary to gain that knowledge. Therefore, we do the next best thing. When a new molecule is introduced, the company who wants to use it has to demonstrate in convincing way that the molecule is safe. At the same time, anecdotal reports from the public are used as a safeguard. When enough reports hinting at negative effects are received, the FDA, NIH, EPA, whatever will do or order its own rigorous tests. This may or may not lead to the product being banned.

    In spite of the claims of conspiracy theorists, it does happen. Even and especially when big business is concerned. The best known case in human history is no doubt the Thalidomide scandal.

    If enough adverse reports are received, the organisations that are supposed to protect us will reopen the case and order more studies. With MSG, this has happened an incredible three times. In the US, the FDA has even decided to go against the scientific community (which said that MSG is perfectly safe) to include warnings that eating large doses of MSG of an empty stomach could lead to some unpleasant side-effects. In other words, they are being so overly protective that they even warn for unproven dangers. And yet... they are still being accused of protecting big business. That is completely irrational.

Add a Comment

emptyAdd a Comment or Login/Register empty