Charlotte's Web Blog

It’s My Party and I’ll Crash If I Want To

Michaele and Tareq Salahi crashed more than a White House state dinner. Like other publicity stunt architects before them, they crashed through the barricade that mainstream media erected long ago to keep out common folks like you and me. With the advent of the Internet and reality TV, these barricades have been re-examined and reconfigured so that ordinary people can more easily get their 15 minutes of fame. With luck, perseverance and a crafty publicist, this can be parlayed into 15 years or more.
 
I am pleased that the media who once hoarded the most valuable commodities in America—information and ideas—have been forced to pull extra chairs to the table and share some of the bounty with the potato peelers in the kitchen. The backdoor has been unbolted, giving America’s “seemingly unremarkable” masses a chance to bypass the golden plated guest list and join the party.
 
After all, if William Hung—the kid who gained fame in 2004 for his painfully bad American Idol audition—can end up with a Wikipedia page, a fan site and a record deal, anyone can do it. Our “Reality TV-Internet” age means new career opportunities for those who might otherwise feel hopeless about a chance of fame and success.   
 
Apparently, my car is the only one exhibiting the “Go Salahi” bumper sticker. In online articles and blogs, seething anger lashes out like flames from a pissed-off fire pit. Words like “narcissistic” and “superficial” are used to describe ordinary people who seek fame or reality show careers. One comment reads, “I’m tired of these stupid celebrities with no talent. I hear they get six figure incomes on Reality TV. That money could feed an entire village.” Maybe but that does not explain his anger because he has no problem with the executives or actors who make seven or eight figure incomes which could feed 100 villages.

I contend it takes a “je ne sais quoi” quality to be watchable, entertaining and catapult to stardom for merely “being you.” Appearing on reality TV is much like acting or hosting a show because the medium is highly scripted, despite appearances to the contrary. And it is a talent in itself to drum up a million followers on Youtube or amass a swarm of fans while competing on Survivor, Project Runway or Top Chef.
 
Capturing the attention of the media with relatively harmless publicity stunts is a highly paid skill. Every major corporation and celebrity utilizes the services of a public relations firm. The Rose Bowl, the Miss America Pageant and the Academy Awards all began as publicity stunts.
 
The Balloon Boy ploy wasn’t harmless. It wasted law enforcement’s time and taxpayer dollars but the verdict is out on the whether it will end like the Jerry Lewis movie, King of Comedy. In this flick--which solidifies the age-old message that “any publicity is good publicity”--an aspiring comic kidnaps a talk show host in order to get a few minutes of TV airtime so he can perform his act. The stunt lands the comic in jail for a short time, a small price to pay for the stardom and wealth he finds upon release.
 
The gate-crashing Salahis with their panache and chutzpah weren’t the first to maneuver past Secret Service. I have done the same thing. Twice.
 
In addition to gate-crashing numerous events and award shows in my late teens and early 20’s, and writing a “how to” book in 1988 called Meet the Stars, I crashed two “Secret Service-guarded” events.  
 
The first time was to meet and interview President Reagan at an elite Walter Annenberg party in Palm Springs in the 1980’s.  Like the Salahis, I went through a metal detector and my purse was checked. I got into the event by making friends with a White House employee a couple of days earlier and finagling an “invitation” to the affair. I say “invitation” because my name was never placed on the guest list. At the entrance to the event, the employee somehow convinced a Secret Service agent to give me entrance.  
 
My second Secret Service encounter took place at a 2004 Senator John Kerry fundraiser in Los Angeles when he was the Democratic candidate for president. Some attendees had paid as much as $25,000 for the dinner and star-studded show. A few lucky ones including me were able to attend a very private party afterwards. Present were: Senator Kerry, Robert De Niro, Barbra Streisand, Ben Affleck, Neil Diamond, Billy Crystal, Ben Stiller, Jamie Foxx and Leonard Dicaprio, among others. Of the 50 or so people in the room all were well-known figures and their spouses or Secret Service agents. And me.
  
Like the Salahis who in the words of Secret Service director Mark Sullivan, went through “magnetometers and other levels of screening,” I underwent a rigorous check confirming I was weapon-free. But no one asked to see my ticket. I had escaped detection in the excitement of the moment and the collage of colorful party gowns. True, I had intentionally shimmied into the center of a group of the wealthiest donors who all seemed to be thinking, “Darn it, I paid big bucks for this shindig, and I’m not about to wait in line.”   During the past few years the Secret Service has protected the President and other officials at more than 10,000 events with 100% success. Apart from initial screenings, the organization has multiple security procedures in place, and I do not believe for one minute that someone with nefarious intent could gain entrance or cause harm.
 
According to studies conducted between 1998 and 2009, 30% of Americans (and 51% of 18- to 25- year olds) wish to be famous as do the same percentage of English, Germans and Chinese. But only 1 to 2 percent of these people seek fame for its own sake. Most are looking for fame to lead to a stable career, wealth, power, influence, social distinction, good works or a place in history.
 
Fame-seekers are not pathetic, shallow, self-centered souls as many would have you believe. Fame-seekers are your neighbors, your friends, your business associates. They are people who hope to feed their families, live the good life, benefit their communities and effect positive change. With fame one can be a positive influence. Feeding a hungry child as a private citizen is good but feeding a hungry child as a public figure is better because it can induce others to do the same.   
 
Whatever you may think of it, finagling your way into a VIP event can be an effective stepping-stone and a means to a positive end. And regardless of security changes, the Salahis will not be the last inductees into the Party-Crashers Hall of Fame.

Religion vs. the Sprinkler Police

Does your Rain Bird no longer fly? Are your PVC pipes feeling neglected? Has your city hung your lawn out to dry and given your timer a time-out? If so, you probably live in a place that restricts landscaping watering. Due to devastating dry spells, dozens of cities have implemented ordinances aimed at water conservation.  

When I grew up in Atlanta, it was so rainy a fish could survive on land; but when I visited last year, I found straw-like lawns and a total watering ban. InLos Angeles, where I now reside, the City Council has implemented a partial ban: residents are restricted to two days per week for outdoor irrigation and no more than 15 minutes per watering station.

I understand the need to conserve and have always been a “waste not, water not” woman, whipping the faucet on and off while teeth cleaning as if water were pricey champagne. In my college dorm, I won the coveted “Snappy Shower Award,” and I treat my dishwasher like a roller-coaster ride: it doesn’t leave the station unless it’s full.

However, when it comes to my yard, a middle ground is unachievable if it means a dead ground. My religion and moral value system require healthy greenery; which in turn, benefit the animals and insects who depend on my yard for sustenance.  I live in a fire hazard zone in Woodland Hills—the most sweltering part of LA--where watering two days per week is as effective as healing third degree burns with a Band-aid and where dead foliage is an invitation for flames to “come up and see me sometime.”    

My lot—which abuts undeveloped acreage--may appear fully suburbanized, but it serves as an oasis for rabbits, bees, skunks, raccoons, coyotes, gophers, snakes, bees, owls, and birds of every kind. Saint Francis of Assisi would not want for feathered friends.  

I am not a Christian like Assisi, but practice Jainism, which is often described as the world’s oldest living religion, originating in India around 500 BC. Adherents follow the principal of “ahimsa” or non-injury to all living beings. Although practically-speaking it is impossible to be perfect, a Jain does her best to make sure no living being is injured by her action or inaction. Compassion is extended to mammals and reptiles as well as flowers, grass, insects and trees. As a Jain, I have a duty to protect the life forms on my property, and any ordinance which interferes with this is at odds with my First Amendment rights under the US Constitution.   

How interesting it would be for this water-related dispute to percolate into court. Santeria--a religion with Afro-Cuban roots which has approximately one million followers in the US—condones killing animals in ritual. In 1993, Santeria adherents in Hialeah, Florida won a “free exercise of religion” case: the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the religion and against a local ordinance, which sought to ban animal sacrifice. Although the case had an unfortunate outcome for nonhuman victims, it illustrates the power of the First Amendment. One must assume the Supreme Court would protect the critters in my yard under the same rationale used to deny them protection in Florida.

Apart from religion, my moral value system dictates that I maintain a verdant yard. I hold that all living beings have interests, as evidenced by their efforts to flourish and survive, and to disregard these interests would be arrogant, self-serving and speciesist. Speciesism is a form of prejudice, much like racism or sexism, in which humans deem themselves superior to other species. To adequately recognize the innate value of nonhumans—which policy-makers rarely do--and shake off speciesism, our democracy would need to be more like an omniocracy or government with representation and consideration for all living beings. An omniocratic system would, at the very least, be mindful of the needs of other species before intercepting their lifeline with an overly restrictive water ordinance.

Some LA City Councilmembers--as well as misguided environmentalists—suggest homeowners rip out their grass and lay synthetic turf in order to save H2O, despite the exorbitant cost. It is $7000 for 600 square feet. This would, of course, solidify Tinseltown’s image: plastic surgeons could have plastic yards, and every street could look like a movie set. But real grass is essential because it serves as a carbon offset, absorbing 13.2 million pounds of CO2 per year. One would have to plant and maintain 1861 trees for a decade to compensate for a football field of fake turf.

Artificial grass is not what I would call “environmental” or “animal friendly” with its lead-content problems, the extensive energy and raw materials needed to produce it, and the risk that synthetic materials may leak into the water table and that rubber infill crumbs may become airborne and inhaled. Installing make-believe grass is akin to moving your home office onto the driveway in order to save a lightbulb. In addition, horrifying images come to mind: rabbits ingesting green shag fibers and tiny life forms roasting under an airless blanket of toxins. Turf temperatures can climb to 160 degrees on summer days.

As a vegan, I could maintain a lush, English garden at my home and still use less water than a meat-eater in a condo, a fact the ordinance fails to take into account. It takes 300 gallons per day to produce vegetarian food, while it takes 13 times more--4,000 gallons--for a carnivore, the difference between night and day or a bathtub and a pool. This is because it is so costly water-wise to raise and feed each of the 55 billion farm animals slaughtered for food.

Apparently, not many sprinkler scofflaws or hose hogs exist; officials in both Los Angeles and Atlanta have revealed significant declines in water usage since their ordinances were put into place. There has been an 11% reduction in LA since June, and residents consume the same amount of water today as they did 25 years ago, despite a population increase of over one million people. Atlanta has realized a 20% reduction over the past eight years despite a population boom of 30%.

It is hoped Los Angeles, Atlanta and other cities will continue to explore and implement conservation alternatives, when viable, such as desalinization processes, smart irrigation systems, recycled water programs, urine diversion toilets, groundwater replenishment systems and rainwater capture plans.

In the meantime, I hope you will conserve when you can. But don’t let the water ordinance rain on your parade or kill your “living yard.” Lots of creatures count on you.

Michael Jackson and Medical Paternalism

Since Michael Jackson’s death, there has been a push to use the long arm of the law to ransack pharmacy shelves and pluck out a killer. Law enforcement and the public seem thirsty for the arrest of one or more ofJackson’s doctors on charges of homicide, or more specifically manslaughter. A physician can be legally responsible if he is found negligent or reckless in the death of a patient.

Dr. Conrad Murray was present during Jackson's last moments, and if he physically administered a lethal drug, it would, of course, place him directly in the firing line. But what about the dozens of physicians who have written prescriptions for the singer over the years and who are now being tracked down and investigated? The indirect act of prescribing medications can legally expose an MD, but should it? Should the law be changed to shift a greater degree of responsibility to the patient?

Medical paternalism is interference in a person’s health by a doctor, the FDA or another “authority” because the “authority” is assumed to know what is best for that person. It is imposed against a patient’s will, results in a limitation of autonomy and can spiral into a “you can’t handle the truth” philosophy in which pertinent information is withheld from the sick.

Michael Jackson used aliases and “doctor shopped,” which means he went from one physician to another until he acquired the medications he desired or needed; and a tremendous amount of evidence suggests he required drugs to function. Debilitating insomnia had plagued him for years, just as it did Elvis Presley and Heath Ledger, both of whom also died from prescription drug overdoses.  

Michael Jackson’s nurse, Cherilyn Lee, says the singer begged for a powerful sedative, even though he knew it could be deadly, because he was desperate to sleep; and publicist Rob Goldstein says Jackson would dance for eight hours straight in his hotel room hoping it would make him tired. Two months prior to his death, Heath Ledger revealed his agony in getting only two hours of sleep per night; and Elvis Presley’s doctor, George Nichopoulos--whose medical license was suspended when the singer died—says Presley got no more than three hours of sleep at a time. Presley was caught in demanding cycle of needing energy at showtime, then seeking sleep so he could feel refreshed the next day. Perhaps medication was the only solution if he wanted to remain an international star rather than an infirm recluse. Jackson had just left a more secluded life to jump into a grueling rehearsal and concert schedule when he overdosed.

It is all too easy for those who are free from pain and from crippling insomnia to mount their moral high horse and preach about willpower and alternative remedies. Most insomniacs have tried everything, still suffer and turn to heavier and heavier medications. Check the Internet blogs and sleep disorder forums; talk of suicide is as routine as brushing ones teeth.

“I’ve had insomnia for 14 years,” one person writes. “What is the value in a life with chronic unrelenting insomnia night after night?” Someone replies, “I am at 13 years, contemplating suicide.”  

A lawyer comments, “If I get off meds, I can’t do my job,” and a teacher says, “I’m literally fighting to stay awake as soon as the day begins. I feel like death. I am only 25, and I look like I am 35-40.”

An unemployed woman writes, “My $200 per hour doctor is no help. He won’t prescribe sleeping pills because he is worried I will deliberately overdose. But life is not worth living. All I do is cry.”

Is this how Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger and Elvis Presley felt? If so, one can understand their desire to try hardcore medications, even at the risk of addiction, injury or death. Plus, life in show biz is demanding: a person must be at his best regularly and at exact times, a Herculean feat for someone with chronic insomnia.

Michael Jackson’s doctors have been described as greedy, selfish enablers with “blood on their hands,” but isn’t it just as likely they are caring individuals who are willing to risk personal liability to help the suffering? Dr. William Hurwitz has been described as such a person. He was a Virginia pain management physician, but now sits in jail for prescribing drugs that some of his patients abused. His property was seized by authorities, and after his practice closed, two patients reportedly killed themselves because of untreated pain. 

Mentalist Uri Geller and one of Michael Jackson’s bodyguards claim they confiscated anesthesia injection equipment from the singer and screamed at him to get off drugs, but he ignored their warnings. Jackson was clearly willing to assume the risk, so why can’t his fans and family respect his decision? He would certainly want to be held personally responsible for his health-related choices rather than witness what could be described as a modern-day witch hunt against physicians who were arguably just trying to help.

Personal responsibility is unfortunately out-of-style. Today’s society is like a game of dodge ball: there is a tendency to skirt responsibility, shoving a scapegoat out in front to be struck and blaming the team’s loss on him. History teaches us that sins are symbolically washed away when a scapegoat is punished; it’s a ritual that seems to provide psychological satisfaction for a mourning nation that needs an answer to failure and loss. I believe this explains why doctors are routinely and overzealously pursued when a celebrity dies of a prescription overdose and why there is public outrage towards the doctors in Michael Jackson’s life.   

Perhaps my libertarian tan lines are showing, but I think doctors, the FDA and other “authorities” should be advisors rather than powerful patriarchs who can shove their mighty pen in their pocket, depriving patients of medications which may be their only hope for a pain-free life. Centralized prescription databases—which are being launched throughout the nation--are risky, “big brother” enterprises that should be discontinued until such time as patients are given greater control over their own health.

In general, people assume a passive role in their medical lives, mindlessly trusting doctors. Instead they should be legally entitled to take greater responsibility for their own wellbeing and encouraged to research the pros and cons of their medications, in addition to pondering—rather than robotically accepting--the advice offered by health professionals. It is simple to log onto Internet forums and read about drug side effects and benefits, as well as clinical studies.  

To assure patients are properly advised of side effects, signed disclosures could be required along with impartially produced Internet videos outlining the disadvantages and advantages of a particular drug. The goal would be threefold: proper disclosure, input from a doctor and tools that help individuals make decisions that are right for them.     

Regulating medicine through criminal law enforcement is misguided and counterproductive, and could lead to fewer physicians, especially in the chronic pain management field. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, there is already likely to be a shortage of 124,400 doctors by 2025. There are medical professionals today who specialize in “self-defense,” by putting their own desire to stay out of criminal court above the interest of the patient. Some flat-out refuse to treat those with chronic pain due to the ever-present oppression and intimidation by law enforcement. The Hippocratic Oath should not be at war with the Drug Enforcement Administration. 

Individualism and self-determination are fundamental values that most of us cherish; however, in medicine, they rest on the pharmacy’s dusty back shelf. Medical paternalism is outdated and not a panacea.

America needs a new prescription; and frankly, I think Michael Jackson would agree.   

Clueless at City Hall: Foreclosures and Tenants

You may have noticed the cascade of articles about foreclosure-related evictions that have streamed through mainstream media and the blogosphere with the common theme that tenants are drowning and need a legislative life vest. But you may not know that the Los Angeles City Council, in an ill-advised and shortsighted move, voted to give them more than that vest; it handed them an ocean liner, sinking everyone around them.  

I am talking about the ordinance 180441 or Article 14.1 of Chapter IV of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, known as the “Eviction of Tenants from Foreclosed Residential Rental Properties.” It essentially bars evictions from foreclosed properties and places foreclosed single-family residences under the rent stabilization ordinance (RSO). Listed as an emergency measure, the ordinance barreled scrutiny-free through city hall in 12 days, leaving the public and neighborhood councils little time to respond. 

This ordinance states a tenant cannot be evicted from a foreclosed house, condominium or post-1978 apartment building—all which would normally be exempt from the RSO--unless one of two conditions are met: 1) the tenant fails to pay the rent or breaches the lease in a significant way (residing in the country illegally or getting roommates in violation of the contract do not qualify as eviction-worthy offenses), or 2) the landlord plans to occupy the property or demolish the premises, which triggers payment of pricey relocation fees. In other words, a renter must be allowed to live in a foreclosed home until the new buyer takes possession, gives proper notice for him to move, and pays him thousands.    

The ordinance was established to safeguard tenants from getting a mere 60-day notice, as state law provided, when they had fully complied with their lease. Although some tenant protections are sensible, this ordinance goes radically overboard, proving disastrous for buyers, financially strapped homeowners, property maintenance crews, real estate agents, banks, neighbors and the community as a whole.

The ordinance encourages fraud. According to local Realtors, it is common these days for a property owner, who is losing his home in foreclosure, to sign a bogus lease agreement with a friend or relative (pretending to be a “tenant”) at a below-market value. The owner can then continue to live in the property for pennies on the dollar, and can, upon eviction, collect $7300 - $18,300 in relocation fees. Real estate agents say they frequently find utility bills listed in the name of the property owner rather than the “tenant,” indicating a scam rather than a valid lease. Sometimes two property owners facing foreclosure will switch houses and sign bogus lease agreements for each other. A new cottage industry has emerged: owners facing foreclosure are contacted and told that for a fee they can stay in their homes. The above scheme is explained. 

When foreclosing on houses, banks do not have rental schedules in their files like they do with large apartment buildings; this makes it easy to pretend a low lease amount is fair market value. High-end properties—which may have a view, a large lot or elaborate upgrades--are ideal for this purpose. A “tenant” can convincingly argue that $2000 per month is all that can be collected for a house that would really bring in $5000 due to amenities.

The new ordinance also hurts buyers, especially those who have slender bank accounts and lack experience in the real estate market. Let’s assume a first-time buyer wants to purchase a tenant-occupied foreclosure. First, he must get a loan on the property. The bank may charge him a higher interest rate and the insurance company may charge him an excessive premium due to the fact that the property cannot be owner-occupied at the close of escrow.

Even though the buyer plans to reside in the home, he cannot ask the tenant to leave until 60-days after the close of escrow, at which time the buyer will be responsible for thousands of dollars in relocation fees. If the renter refuses to vacate, the buyer will have to hire an attorney and go through costly and time-consuming eviction process. In the meantime, the tenant could stop paying rent, destroy the house and steal appliances. Unless the insurance company chips in, repairs and replacements will come out of the buyer’s pocket as will the unsubsidized mortgage payments.    

Why would anyone purchase a tenant-occupied foreclosure? Apart from a naïve buyer who is unaware of the ramifications, these properties sell to savvy investors who require deep price discounts in order to accept the tenant-related risks. Realtors tell me that they must regularly mark down these properties by 20-40% in order to get them sold, thereby devastating neighborhood values. Nearby homeowners may not be able to refinance or sell their homes for their true worth. When property values tumble, tax revenues decrease, and the overall economy suffers.

The ordinance means an increase in foreclosures as tenants learn it is in their interest to undermine short sales. A short sale occurs when a homeowner, who wants to avoid foreclosure and has a property worth less than the mortgage, asks the bank to take a reduction on the note so he can sell. The bank agrees.

However, when a tenant learns about the ordinance, he is usually unwilling to cooperate with a short sale. He knows that if he refuses to leave, he can force the property into foreclosure, and can probably avoid paying rent for a number of months, stay in the home until 60 days after it is sold and receive thousands in relocation fees. It is a windfall for the tenant, but quite painful for the property owner, who was hoping to maintain a semblance of creditworthiness and sell for the highest price so as not to be damaged by exorbitant taxes. Neighbors prefer short sales because they sell for more than foreclosures and usually mean a smoother transfer of ownership. Short sales are also better for a bank’s bottom line, thus making wiser use of taxpayer “bailout” funds.

LA Council President Eric Garcetti says the new ordinance saves communities from “the nuisances that can accompany empty, boarded-up homes.” It is true that some vacant foreclosures are an eye-sore, but hanging onto a tenant is not the answer. Tenant-occupied properties tend to look worse than vacant foreclosures, especially on the interior, and they are a much tougher sell. It would be preferable to mandate banks to keep the exterior of foreclosure properties tidy, watered and free from vagrants.

Real estate agents usually recommend evicting tenants prior to putting a home on the market. Tenants who do not want to leave often intentionally sabotage sales; they may whisper to potential buyers that the house is falling apart or that the neighborhood is undesirable. They rarely allow a lockbox for easy access and even though they agree to appointments (as required by law), they may repeatedly “stand up” buyers, agents, repairmen and maintenance crews, wasting everyone’s time. They may refuse to let the pool man and gardener into the backyard; these low paid workers are rarely compensated for lost hours. A tenant-occupied property, on average, sells for less than a vacant home, again impairing neighborhood values.

LA’s ordinance is wholly unnecessary now that President Obama and Congress have passed a measure called “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009,” which provides a 90-day eviction notice for month-to-month renters and gives those with a bona fide lease the ability to remain in a property until the end of the agreed-upon term. “Bona fide” means the contract is the result of an arm’s length transaction and the rent is not substantially under fair market value. This law is unlikely to fall prey to scams and does not provide for outrageous tenant paydays.

Although the federal law puts banks in the landlord business, it provides the necessary protections for renters and communities. It is a vast improvement over the local ordinance, which currently trumps federal law.  

When society has floated too far to the east, there is a tendency for politicians to make a wide and radical swing to the west rather than guide the sail to a sane middle-ground. This is what the LA City Council has done. Tell them to revoke the local ordinance so the waters can be calm again.

_________

Note:

The Greater Valley Glen Council recently passed a motion, which was forwarded to the LA City Council, suggesting the new ordinance be revoked entirely, or revised to apply only to (five units or greater) apartment buildings, since these properties tend to be sold with renters intact.

Hold the MSG: It’s Not Risk-Free

I always assumed monosodium glutamate was like a snowstorm in Los Angeles: easy to avoid. I simply needed to sidestep Chinese restaurants and eyeball product labels for those conspicuous three letters: MSG.

At the same time I asked myself, why even go to the trouble? What’s the harm in ingesting this salty filler? If it were a culinary “evil doer” surely Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would pierce it with its mighty sword or at least put it in the stockades for all see and taunt. Since the FDA had no ban and no serious disclosure requirement, I figured all was fine in kitchenville, grocerville and restaurantville. I was wrong.

I suffered from migraines before I was old enough to say the word, “eye ache,” my childhood name for the excruciating pain that pulverized one side of my face eight days out of every month. While my school friends enjoyed recess between classes, I’d lie in my usual spot: on the cot in the nurse’s office.

While my classmates whizzed through standardized tests, I held a cold pack to my forehead and struggled to discern the fuzzy print. While my buddies hoofed it up at the prom, I lay in a hatchback of pain in the parking lot in my date’s Saab. This was my life until 2003 when things took a turn for the worse. 

I started getting migraines every day, and the one prescription medicine that had decreased the pain on occasion, no longer worked. I pushed through weeks, months and years, experimenting with allopathic medicines as well as alternative remedies, such as acupuncture, homeopathy, massage and hypnosis. Nothing helped.

Thursday’s child may have far to go, but on a Thursday in December 2008, I got closer to relief when my husband said, “Maybe your migraines will go away if you stop eating monosodium glutamate.”

“What are you talking about? I hardly ever eat anything with MSG.”

Turns out I was wrong. This substance, which was discovered in 1908 by Tokyo University professor Kikunae Ikeda, is now as ubiquitous as blue jeans.   

After more than 40 years of misery, I have learned the truth about MSG. I have learned it is 15 times more prevalent in food than it was in 1969 and that some people, like myself, are super sensitive to it, despite the fact that the FDA says it is safe at normal levels for most people. I have discovered it is a secret saboteur of health; the food industry tricks consumers into buying products with free glutamic acid (or MSG) by listing it under any one of 43 innocent-sounding names, such as natural flavoring, seasonings, yeast extract, spices, pectin or citric acid. A pesticide company called Emerald BioAgriculture uses an MSG type of “growth enhancer” which they have been spraying onto selected vegetables and nuts since 1999; the company is currently looking to get government permission to use the substance on organic produce.   

Meats, seafood and poultry can be rinsed or injected with MSG before reaching your plate, and restaurant salad bars can get an MSG spritz, giving lettuce that perky look. This toxic additive can be found in vitamins, soaps, cosmetics, chewing gum and intravenous hospital fluids. It can be found in children’s medications, and it might lurk inside your migraine prescription. 

In short, MSG acts as cheap filler, a flavor enhancer and a cosmetic surgeon, fooling unsuspecting consumers into thinking aged, withered foods are fresh. It can hide unpleasant tastes. It has an addictive component much like nicotine, and recent studies in Spain have conclusively linked it with obesity. MSG means profits for the food industry and its powerful Washington lobbyists; and it is no surprise that proper labeling legislation remains elusive. 

If any additive containing the essential active ingredient of MSG, glutamic acid or free glutamate, is an amount that is less than 78%, the government does not require it to be labeled MSG. This is deceptive because MSG itself contains over 78% free glutamates. Some products will even say “No MSG” when they have glutamic acid in another form.

There are epidemiological studies, such as those brought to light by Dr. Adrienne Samuels, suggesting that up to 40% of the US population suffer from adverse reactions to MSG with drowsiness, numbness, chest pains, nausea, facial pressure, difficulty in breathing or headaches. The FDA claims only 2% of the population experience a bad reaction, but even if this is right, it amounts to whopping 6 million Americans, more than the 3 million who are allergic to peanuts.

It has been six months since I decided to eat, drink and be MSG free. I consume carefully scrutinized items from a health food store because Dr. Russell Blaylock--author of a book about the toxicity of MSG called Excitotoxins: the Taste that Kills--claims 75% - 90% of the foods sold at traditional grocers are laced with the unhealthy additive. I try to avoid restaurants and “brown bag it” to dinner parties. Miraculously the daily migraines have disappeared.

I am not goof-proof and have had seven consumption mishaps. Three resulted in four-day migraines which appeared exactly 18 hours after I ate the questionable foods. Only three migraines in six months or 12 days of sickness is better than Christmas when you are accustomed to a life as an invalid.    

If migraines are your curse, limit yourself to healthy food. Eat only organic fruits, vegetables, nuts and whole grains. Read every package. Ask every question. Petition every politician for better labeling laws.  

President Obama has described current procedures for regulating food safety as a “hazard to human health” and plans to overhaul the system for the first time in more than 70 years. Yet, the toxicity of monosodium glutamate is not on his radar. Tell him it should be.

Tell him MSG is not risk-free.

_______

Charlotte Laws is a member of the Greater Valley Glen Council in Southern California. Her council recently passed a motion which states, “For any new product or recipe change, food manufacturers must measure for free glutamic acid and disclose it as MSG on the label with levels present in milligrams.”   

The motion has been forwarded to the Los Angeles City Council and to Sacramento Legislators for further consideration.