Beyond "Studies Say So": Why I Choose to Avoid MSG

Last week, I overheard a friend confidently telling another friend that monosodium glutamate (MSG) is perfectly safe to eat. "There's research that supports it," he said with the kind of certainty that immediately raised my hackles. Not because of his stance on MSG specifically, but because of how he arrived at that conclusion.

This conversation sparked a deeper reflection on how we make decisions about what we put in our bodies, and why I've chosen to be more cautious about food additives like MSG.

The Problem with "Studies Say So"

Here's what bothers me about the "studies say" argument: unless you've actually read the research, understood the methodology, examined the sample sizes, considered the funding sources, and reviewed the counter-studies, you're essentially quoting a TikTok influencer with a lab coat.

The scientific process is messy, nuanced, and often contradictory. One study might show safety, another might raise concerns, and a third might reveal limitations in both. Cherry-picking conclusions without understanding the full landscape isn't scientific literacy—it's intellectual laziness dressed up in academic language.

The Nutrition Paradox

This connects to something that has long puzzled me about modern nutrition science. How is it possible that one expert insists humans evolved to be vegan while another argues we're built for ketogenic diets? I've tried both, by the way, but this is a topic for another post. If there are merits to different dietary approaches, this post isn't trying to compare one diet over another but to find an approach we could all agree upon—a fundamental principle for how to think about nutrition.

Rather than getting lost in these dietary debates, I've found common ground in a simple principle: when in doubt, choose foods that have been part of human diets for thousands of years.

An Evolutionary Perspective

As someone who thinks about systems and architecture professionally, I approach food through a similar lens. Evolution has spent millions of years fine-tuning our digestive systems, metabolic pathways, and cellular processes around specific inputs. This biological architecture wasn't designed in a lab—it was refined through countless generations of trial and error.

When we introduce novel chemical compounds into this ancient system, we're essentially running beta software on production hardware. Maybe it works perfectly. Maybe it doesn't. But the testing period for evolutionary "updates" is measured in millennia, not decades.

This isn't anti-science rhetoric. Modern medicine has given us incredible tools for treating disease and extending life. But there's a crucial difference between crisis intervention and daily optimization. My family member, currently in his final year of medical school, confirmed something I suspected: doctors receive surprisingly little training in using nutrition for preventive health. The system is designed to treat problems, not prevent them.

The Cigarette Lesson

Consider our relationship with cigarettes. For decades, tobacco companies funded studies showing cigarettes were harmless—even beneficial. Advertisements in the 1950s featured doctors recommending specific brands for "throat protection." It wasn't until the 1960s that we began to understand the devastating health consequences, and even longer before this knowledge translated into widespread behavioral change.

I'm not suggesting MSG is as dangerous as tobacco. What I am suggesting is that our track record for immediately recognizing the long-term effects of novel substances isn't perfect. Sometimes caution is wisdom.

My Approach

I'm not a radical. I don't avoid all processed foods or reject modern medicine. What I do is maintain a healthy skepticism about substances that bypass millions of years of evolutionary testing. When I encounter ingredients like MSG, I ask myself: "Is this worth the unknown risk?"

For me, the answer is usually no—not because I'm certain MSG is harmful, but because I can create delicious, satisfying meals without it. I'd rather err on the side of caution when it comes to my long-term health.

The Bottom Line

Your body is the only one you get. While we wait for nutrition science to mature and provide clearer answers, we each have to make our own risk assessments. Some people will look at the available research and decide MSG is fine. Others will choose to avoid it based on the precautionary principle.

Both choices are valid. What's not valid is making either choice based on superficial interpretations of complex research or blind faith in any single source of information.

The most honest answer to most nutrition questions is still "we don't know enough yet." In the face of that uncertainty, I choose the foods that have sustained human health for millennia. It might not be the most convenient approach, but it helps me sleep better at night—and that's worth more than any single ingredient.