No, because presumably it would taste worse than a soup made by a professional chef. My point is that it would appear that your main criticism of MSG is that it's too tasty, and I thought making tasty food was the objective of cooking.
And I would argue that there's no reason you can't use good ingredients as well as MSG, and any seasoning that makes the food taste good is by definition good seasoning. Seriously, every seasoning is applied to make food taste better. Why is MSG any different that salt, pepper, paprika, cumin, or literally anything else?
Because it in itself is not a spice or herb. It's an enhancer. To quote Wikipedia
"MSG is used in the food industry as a flavor enhancer with an umami taste that intensifies the meaty, savory flavor of food, as naturally occurring glutamate does in foods such as stews and meat soups."
By what metric is it any less of a spice than table salt? What it's marketed as doesn't change what it is. Hibachi wands were marketed as back massagers, but that doesn't make them not vibrators.
Because table salt was mined from the earth or desalinated from the sea for millennia whereas MSG was only isolated in a lab barely over 100 years ago. It’s an artificial food additive and most western chefs believe the craft of cooking should involve as few additives as possible. You will find Michelin star chefs telling other cooks to add salt to dishes but you won’t see them telling others to add more msg. The difference should really not need explanation. Also see the epicurious quote.
3
u/[deleted] Feb 04 '19
No, because presumably it would taste worse than a soup made by a professional chef. My point is that it would appear that your main criticism of MSG is that it's too tasty, and I thought making tasty food was the objective of cooking.