Submit your Article

Yes, it is back with a vengeance. MSG has sparked a comeback, weathering the storm. After enduring an undeserved bad rap for over five long decades as an unhealthy food additive that made you sick, it looks like it has finally resurrected itself. So, what’s MSG?

MSG, or monosodium glutamate, is a food enhancer additive produced by fermenting plant-based ingredients such as sugar cane, sugar beets, tapioca, cassava, or corn.

During the fermentation process, the protein containing glutamic acid turns into glutamate. This glutamate triggers our taste receptors, resulting in that quintessential savory taste called umami. You won’t believe it: a mother’s breast milk contains amino acid molecules—not just one but all nine essential amino acids! In addition to proteins, human milk contains free amino acids, glutamate, and glutamine, which are the most abundant.

Created in Japan by Ajinomoto Co Inc in 1908, MSG took the culinary world by storm for its inimitable umami kick, enhancing endless delectable dishes. MSG was the brainchild of a Japanese scientist, Professor Kikunae Ikeda. Over the past century, Oriental cuisine has used the wonder flavor enhancer for its umami zing.

MSG, a flavor enhancer, is frequently added to restaurant dishes, canned vegetables, soups, deli meats, and fried chicken to enhance their flavors. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has classified MSG as a food ingredient ‘generally recognized as safe’. However, the issue still faces a barrage of debates.

Ironically, in the late 1960s, MSG came on a hit list for allegedly being a toxic inclusion to a horde of favorite foods, from Chinese takeouts to soups and salad dressings, not sparing even the most cherished snack like French fries. It looked like the flavor enhancer used for centuries was doomed. MSG became so heavily stigmatized that scores of restaurants resorted to pitching that they’d removed it from their entire menu.

Next followed the ‘Chinese Restaurant Syndrome’ panic, fueling the fire. It demonized MSG as dangerous to humans, and evidently, Chinese dishes had to bear the brunt. The syndrome claimed that MSG causes ‘numbness of the neck, arms, and back with headache, dizziness, and palpitations’. However, further investigations uncovered it as a hoax, but the myth remained; the fallacious hype had already done the damage; the bullet had already left the barrel. People remained uncertain and suspicious. However, with this knowledge, righteous people felt informed and enlightened, understanding the truth about MSG.

Today, most of those myths and adverse anecdotal reports about MSG stand dispelled, and the US FDA and global food-regulating bodies like the Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have pronounced MSG ‘generally recognized as safe’. This reassurance should instill confidence in your food choices. Even fast-food chains like McDonald’s, Chick-fil-A, and KFC use MSG to season their hot-selling items, such as fried chicken, chicken nuggets, chicken sandwiches, and French fries.

MSG’s flavor-enriching effects are due to its umami taste, which induces salivary secretion. In other words, umami flavors make your mouth water, making the food taste better.

The bottom line

MSG is a flavor-enhancing seasoning that naturally occurs in many protein-rich foods, such as poultry, meat, cheese, fresh or hydrolyzed vegetable protein, and soy extracts.

‘The reality? You’re consuming far more glutamate from proteins than you ever could in added MSG. An average adult consumes approximately 13 grams of glutamate daily from protein in foods. In comparison, consumption of added MSG comes to about 0.55 grams per day,” writes Dr Andrea Love for the Genetic Literacy Project, an immunologist and microbiologist with over a decade of experience in basic sciences, translational medicine, and clinical research.

Further, “While 1 teaspoon of MSG contains 500 mg of sodium, 1 teaspoon of salt contains 2300 mg,” Kelsy Arndt, a credited dietician, said. “Using MSG can help decrease the total amount of sodium intake in our diet, which should be between 1,500 to 2,000 mg per day. And it can help aid in improving the overall nutritional status of the elderly.” (Source: bannerhealth.com).

Despite its past misplaced notoriety, current studies and evidence have debunked the myth that MSG is toxic. You can now feel secure and at ease, knowing that moderation is the key when enjoying food flavored with MSG. Remember, the US FDA and global food-regulating bodies like the Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have pronounced MSG ‘generally recognized as safe’. This knowledge empowers you to make informed and enjoyable food choices.

Those allergic to MSG may well avoid foods seasoned with the flavor enhancer. Some people may experience adverse effects from consuming MSG due to a condition called MSG symptom complex (MSC), which can cause symptoms such as headache, sweating, and numbness. However, it's estimated to affect people only skin-deep—less than one percent of the general population.

For those who love their food, remember that the small amounts of MSG in your favorite Chick-fil-A’s spicy chicken sandwich and waffle fries or a bowl of Chinese chicken noodle soup are safe. So, relish your meal, knowing that these popular dishes are not only toothsome but safe to consume. Bon appétit!

Disclaimer: The views expressed in the above text are solely research-based and intended for informative and educational purposes only: the author solicits reader discretion and cross-references or consulting a healthcare practitioner.

[email protected]

The recently concluded Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) Summit in Thailand saw several important sideline meetings between heads of state and government.  Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli held a bilateral meeting with Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra. The two leaders discussed a wide range of issues:  economic cooperation, trade, aviation, tourism, culture, and development partnerships. 

During the visit, eight Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) were signed—two at the government level and six between non-governmental entities. Among them, Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba and Thailand’s Minister for Culture Sudawan Wangsuphakijkosol signed an MoU to foster cultural collaboration. Deuba also signed an agreement on tourism cooperation with Thai Minister for Tourism and Sports Sorawong Thienthong.

Other MoUs were inked between Nepal Netra Jyoti Sangh and Mahidol University, Janata Agro and Forestry Nepal and Kasetsart University, the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI) and the Board of Trade of Thailand, and Kathmandu University and Siam University. The Confederation of Nepalese Industries (CNI) also reached an agreement with the Federation of Thai Industries, and the Nepal Chamber of Commerce signed one with the Tourism Council of Thailand. These commitment partnerships are expected to enhance cooperation across various sectors.

 Prime Minister Shinawatra announced Thailand’s intention to increase investments in Nepal’s aviation and tourism sectors. She expressed interest in expanding Thai Airlines' flights to Kathmandu and launching direct flights to Lumbini. She further emphasized Thailand’s plans to prioritize investments in Nepal’s energy, hospitality, and aviation industries. Calling the visit historic, she highlighted the shared goal of deepening connectivity and trade relations.

PM Oli said the visit strengthened Nepal-Thailand relations. He voiced confidence in future collaboration in areas such as culture, tourism, education, and energy. Reflecting on six decades of diplomatic ties, he called for greater engagement, including stronger people-to-people connections. He also encouraged Thai investors to explore opportunities in Nepal’s hospitality and aviation sectors.

Overall, Prime Minister Oli’s visit to Thailand proved to be highly significant. One of the most notable events on the sidelines was his  one-on-one meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The two leaders met privately for 45 minutes, and Oli appeared pleased and content afterward—indicating the success of his visit.

Foreign policy must remain dynamic and responsive, as global geopolitics continues to evolve. It is crucial that Nepal reaches a national consensus on its foreign policy framework. Such a policy should transcend individual leaders or political parties. Whether led by Oli, Sher Bahadur Deuba, or Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Nepal’s foreign policy should remain consistent, reflecting the nation’s long-term interests rather than shifting with changes in leadership.

There are fundamental bases for foreign policy, and these should be discussed among all stakeholders to reach a consensus. This is a crucial time for such dialogue. While formulating our foreign policy, we must consider factors such as our geography, social norms, cultural and religious aspects, political system, international affiliations, and commitments under the United Nations Charter. If this approach is taken, the policy will be more broadly accepted.

Foreign policy may vary depending on the nature of a country’s relationship—whether we share borders, cultural and social ties, or strategic interests with major powers and donor nations.

Our foreign policy should be firmly aligned with the principles of Panchsheel and the Non-Aligned Movement. At this juncture, Nepal must prioritize sustainable development, peace and security, democratic governance by the people’s representatives, and overall national progress—guided by our geography, social structure, political system, and economic aspirations. As society advances, with improvements in education, healthcare, and global competitiveness, it is essential that our foreign policy reflects these changes. 

In Nepal, the perception of health remains narrowly confined to physical well-being, while mental health continues to be dismissed as an afterthought. Despite the growing global emphasis on psychological well-being, the discourse on mental health in Nepal remains largely overshadowed by stigma, misinformation, and systemic negligence. The repercussions of this neglect are severe, affecting individuals across all age groups, particularly in underprivileged communities and remote areas where mental health resources are virtually nonexistent. The lack of awareness and accessibility, coupled with deeply ingrained cultural misconceptions, has exacerbated the crisis, rendering mental health care a privilege rather than an essential component of public health.

The mental health crisis manifests itself across different life stages. Children, often burdened with academic pressure and familial expectations, are rarely given the emotional support necessary for their psychological development. Many struggle with anxiety and depression from a young age, yet their distress is either trivialized or attributed to laziness. Adolescents and young adults, grappling with career uncertainties, societal expectations, and the growing influence of social media, face increasing mental health challenges, yet they are often met with dismissive responses such as being told to ‘toughen up’. The situation becomes more complicated for adults who deal with financial burdens, workplace stress, and family responsibilities, with limited avenues to seek professional help. 

Among the elderly, mental health issues such as depression and dementia are either misunderstood as a natural part of aging or completely ignored, leaving them in a state of isolation and neglect. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that nearly 15 percent of the global elderly population suffers from a mental disorder, a figure that is likely to be higher in Nepal due to the absence of proper mental health interventions.

The situation is even more dire in Nepal’s remote and underprivileged communities, where mental health remains a subject of myth and superstition. Many rural areas lack professional mental health practitioners, forcing those in distress to rely on traditional healers or shamans, whose methods often involve spiritual rituals rather than evidence-based interventions. 

A 2021 study published in the Journal of Global Health Reports indicated that over 80 percent of mental health patients in rural Nepal first consult a faith healer before considering medical help, if at all. The lack of accessible mental health services, coupled with a deep-rooted belief that mental health disorders are caused by supernatural forces, discourages individuals from seeking professional care, further entrenching the cycle of suffering and silence.

Despite the increasing prevalence of mental health issues, Nepal’s healthcare infrastructure continues to marginalize psychological well-being. Hospitals and clinics are largely focused on treating physical ailments, while mental health remains a neglected domain within the broader healthcare system. According to the Nepal Health Research Council (NHRC), mental health services account for less than one percent of the total healthcare budget, a stark contrast to the country’s rising burden of mental illness. Unlike physical health checkups, which individuals proactively schedule, mental health concerns are consistently postponed or ignored altogether. Seeking therapy is still widely considered an indulgence rather than a necessity, with many perceiving it as a service reserved for the wealthy or those who are ‘weak.’

One of the primary barriers to mental health care in Nepal is the prohibitive cost of therapy. While a general physician’s consultation may cost a nominal fee, psychotherapy sessions remain expensive and largely out of reach for the average Nepali citizen. A 2022 report by the Nepal Mental Health Foundation found that the cost of a single therapy session in Kathmandu ranges between Rs 1,500 to Rs 3,500, a significant expense for families struggling with daily financial constraints. Given this economic reality, individuals are more likely to allocate their limited resources to immediate physical health concerns, leaving mental health at the bottom of their priority list.

The path forward requires a multifaceted approach that integrates mental health into Nepal’s overall healthcare system and societal framework. Greater investment in mental health infrastructure is imperative, ensuring that psychological services are available at primary healthcare centers across the country. Nationwide awareness campaigns must be implemented to challenge the prevailing stigma and educate individuals on the importance of mental well-being. Moreover, mental health services must be made affordable through government subsidies and the inclusion of mental health coverage in insurance policies. Educational institutions and workplaces should incorporate mental health discussions into their curricula and professional environments, fostering a culture where seeking help is normalized rather than ridiculed.

Nepal cannot afford to continue neglecting mental health. The consequences of untreated psychological distress extend beyond individual suffering, affecting families, communities, and the nation as a whole. To build a healthier and more resilient society, it’s crucial to recognize that mental health is just as vital as physical health. Therapy should not be seen as a luxury but as a fundamental right, accessible to all regardless of socioeconomic status or geographical location. Only through systemic reforms, awareness, and cultural shifts can we dismantle the barriers that prevent individuals from seeking the help they deserve.

March 27, a family trip from Kathmandu to Dang became a grim metaphor for Nepal’s institutional decay. What should have been a 10-hour journey stretched into a 21-hour nightmare, with a single 14-kilometer stretch Daunee consuming ten agonizing hours, an indictment of criminally neglected infrastructure. The exhaustion of travelers—sleep-deprived, hungry, and choking in dust—mirrors the nation’s broader dysfunction: structurally intact yet crippled by systemic rot. The collapse is not limited to roads. Just days earlier, a devastating fire at a Dang plywood factory destroyed nearly Rs 400m in assets and left over 500 workers jobless. 

Chief District Officer Krishna Prasad Lamsal’s desperate pleas for firefighting support from neighboring districts and municipalities laid bare the shocking lack of emergency preparedness. These are not isolated incidents. In Kathmandu, Janamorcha and Rastriya Prajatantra Party cadres blockaded Ratnapark and other areas, paralyzing the capital’s transit, while Prime Minister KP Oli squandered a high-level economic forum on rustic analogies of buffalo - ticks and political jibes rather than substantive policy. Together, they expose a governance trifecta: crumbling infrastructure, unchecked political obstructionism, and executive unseriousness.

Federalism’s broken promise

The 2015 Constitution of Nepal, informed by seminal federalism theories, promised transformative decentralization. Yet nine years into implementation, subnational governments remain systematically disempowered—chronically under-resourced, understaffed, and stripped of meaningful autonomy, while political elites (KP Oli, Deuba, Dahal, MK Nepal, BR Bhattarai, JN Khanal) engage in perpetual factionalism at the expense of federal governance.

This institutional failure manifests in alarming macroeconomic indicators: public debt now stands at 47 percent of GDP (Rs 27trn), exceeding the 35.43 percent sustainability threshold identified by NRB seasoned economist Laxmi Prasad Prasai (2024), with annual debt servicing consuming Rs 402bn. Concurrently, Nepal’s recent grey-listing by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for failing to combat sophisticated financial crimes including systemic tax evasion and fraud further underscores institutional decay. Compounding this crisis is a perverse bureaucratic culture where civil servants demand additional ‘facilitation fees’ from citizens for routine services, despite receiving full salaries and allowances. This rent-seeking behavior, institutionalized at all levels of government, epitomizes how Nepal’s federal transition has been hijacked—not by constitutional design, but by entrenched interests that perpetuate centralized predation under the guise of federalism.

Critical infrastructure—Narayanghat-Butwal Highway, Nagdhunga Tunnel, Melamchi Water, Mugline–Pokhara Highway—remains mired in delays. Meanwhile, 6,200 youths leave the country daily for foreign employment, a stark exodus underscoring Nepal’s failure to secure its own future. The Local Government Operation Act (2018) remains a paper tiger, with provincial postings treated as bureaucratic exile. Subnational governments face chronic 23 percent budget shortfalls, while resources are allocated based on electoral patronage rather than developmental need.

The path forward

Nepal stands at an inflection point. Federalism’s promise has been hijacked by a new mind set of centralism, where even hiring school teachers requires Kathmandu’s approval. Three urgent reforms are critical:

• Administrative federalism: Devolve personnel and fiscal authority to subnational governments, ending Singhdurbar’s suffocating control,
• Fiscal federalism with teeth: Guarantee provincial revenue autonomy and performance-based funding, and
• Enforced accountability: Implement independent audits of federal spending, as long demanded by the Financial Comptroller’s Office.

Without immediate corrective action, Nepal risks transforming its federal experiment from a beacon of post-conflict hope into yet another case study in constitutional failure. The stranded travelers, the jobless workers, and the millions trapped in this institutional purgatory deserve more than a government that mistakes inertia for governance. The time for reform is now—before the paralysis becomes permanent.