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

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.