Delicious. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Got a cold? Eat caterpillars

Why medinical zinc is not all it's cracked up to be.

How’s this for impact? At the end of January, a research group in Manchester published a paper on the essential role of zinc in the human immune system. A week later, the price of zinc rose on the international metals markets after its longest slump in 25 years.

Amazing? Of course not. These are two entirely unrelated events. But it’s the ability to separate coincidence from causality that allows us to distinguish old wives’ tales from useful information.

Zinc has been in medical use since at least the 2nd century BC. A set of pills found in the remains of a ship wrecked off the Tuscan coast in 140BC are 75 per cent zinc. They were almost certainly used to treat eye and skin disorders, a practice documented by the Roman polymath Pliny in the 1st century AD.

Zinc is still used for this purpose. It has antiseptic and antiviral properties, which is why it is often embedded in dressings for wounds. What’s more, anecdotal evidence has long suggested that taking zinc supplements helps fight the common cold. But anecdotal evidence isn’t the most trustworthy: sometimes it sees cause and effect where there is none.

Even individual studies haven’t been enough to give us the answer; depending on how they are carried out, they can produce conflicting results. Fortunately, we’ve developed even more sophisticated techniques: dissection, analysis and pooling of the scientific studies themselves. This has allowed us to draw a firm and reliable conclusion. In the case of zinc, it’s this: take at least 75mg a day and “there is a significant reduction in the duration of cold”, according to a gold-standard Cochrane Review, which looks at primary research in health care. Ancient wisdom, in this case, has some validity.

What the ancients didn’t know is the mechanism involved. Zinc deficiency, it turns out, causes more than 3,000 types of protein in the body to function inefficiently or not at all. The body responds to this as stress, causing the immune system to leap into action. Specifically, according to researchers at Manchester University, zinc deficiency unleashes a molecule called interleukin-1-beta. This is part of the armoury of the immune system. The trouble is that, in the absence of any infection to clear, firing the immune response’s weaponry just causes damage.

The zinc deficiency, as the researchers point out, could easily be resolved using dietary supplements. And this increased medical use of zinc could have an economic impact.

Not, it has to be said, in the metals markets, where the rising price of zinc is linked to China’s construction boom. But zinc use for medical purposes could be worth about $25bn a year in the US alone. That is the estimated annual impact of common colds, in terms of lost productivity. The Cochrane Review has found that taking zinc supplements for at least five months can reduce that. It certainly reduces school absences and the prescription of antibiotics for children with the common cold.

Because colds are caused by a virus, antibiotics do nothing for sufferers, yet doctors prescribe them as a placebo to get worried parents out of their surgery. So zinc supplementation also slows the spread of antibiotic resistance. Here’s a final tip in case the price of zinc lozenges skyrockets: a daily 100g of cooked caterpillars contains all the zinc you need.

You’re welcome.
 

Michael Brooks holds a PhD in quantum physics. He writes a weekly science column for the New Statesman, and his most recent book is At the Edge of Uncertainty: 11 Discoveries Taking Science by Surprise.

This article first appeared in the 19 February 2014 issue of the New Statesman, The Space Issue

Show Hide image

Will Euroscepticism prove an unbeatable advantage in the Conservative leadership race?

Conservative members who are eager for Brexit are still searching for a heavyweight champion - and they could yet inherit the earth.

Put your money on Liam Fox? The former Defence Secretary has been given a boost by the news that ConservativeHome’s rolling survey of party members preferences for the next Conservative leader. Jeremy Wilson at BusinessInsider and James Millar at the Sunday Post have both tipped Fox for the top job.

Are they right? The expectation among Conservative MPs is that there will be several candidates from the Tory right: Dominic Raab, Priti Patel and potentially Owen Paterson could all be candidates, while Boris Johnson, in the words of one: “rides both horses – is he the candidate of the left, of the right, or both?”

MPs will whittle down the field of candidates to a top two, who will then be voted on by the membership.  (As Graham Brady, chair of the 1922 Committee, notes in his interview with my colleague George Eaton, Conservative MPs could choose to offer a wider field if they so desired, but would be unlikely to surrender more power to party activists.)

The extreme likelihood is that that contest will be between two candidates: George Osborne and not-George Osborne.  “We know that the Chancellor has a bye to the final,” one minister observes, “But once you’re in the final – well, then it’s anyone’s game.”

Could “not-George Osborne” be Liam Fox? Well, the difficulty, as one MP observes, is we don’t really know what the Conservative leadership election is about:

“We don’t even know what the questions are to which the candidates will attempt to present themselves as the answer. Usually, that question would be: who can win us the election? But now that Labour have Corbyn, that question is taken care of.”

So what’s the question that MPs will be asking? We simply don’t know – and it may be that they come to a very different conclusion to their members, just as in 2001, when Ken Clarke won among MPs – before being defeated in a landslide by Conservative activists.

Much depends not only on the outcome of the European referendum, but also on its conduct. If the contest is particularly bruising, it may be that MPs are looking for a candidate who will “heal and settle”, in the words of one. That would disadvantage Fox, who will likely be a combative presence in the European referendum, and could benefit Boris Johnson, who, as one MP put it, “rides both horses” and will be less intimately linked with the referendum and its outcome than Osborne.

But equally, it could be that Euroscepticism proves to be a less powerful card than we currently expect. Ignoring the not inconsiderable organisational hurdles that have to be cleared to beat Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and potentially any or all of the “next generation” of Sajid Javid, Nicky Morgan or Stephen Crabb, we simply don’t know what the reaction of Conservative members to the In-Out referendum will be.

Firstly, there’s a non-trivial possibility that Leave could still win, despite its difficulties at centre-forward. The incentive to “reward” an Outer will be smaller. But if Britain votes to Remain – and if that vote is seen by Conservative members as the result of “dirty tricks” by the Conservative leadership – it could be that many members, far from sticking around for another three to four years to vote in the election, simply decide to leave. The last time that Cameron went against the dearest instincts of many of his party grassroots, the result was victory for the Prime Minister – and an activist base that, as the result of defections to Ukip and cancelled membership fees, is more socially liberal and more sympathetic to Cameron than it was before. Don’t forget that, for all the worry about “entryism” in the Labour leadership, it was “exitism” – of Labour members who supported David Miliband and liked the New Labour years  - that shifted that party towards Jeremy Corbyn.

It could be that if – as Brady predicts in this week’s New Statesman – the final two is an Inner and an Outer, the Eurosceptic candidate finds that the members who might have backed them are simply no longer around.

It comes back to the biggest known unknown in the race to succeed Cameron: Conservative members. For the first time in British political history, a Prime Minister will be chosen, not by MPs with an electoral mandate of their own or by voters at a general election but by an entirelyself-selecting group: party members. And we simply don't know enough about what they feel - yet. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.