NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
This story and its sidebar raise important concerns about the potentially toxic effects of too much zinc, but provides insufficient detail to allow consumers to accurately gauge the risks. It fails to discuss the limitations of animal studies and a small case series suggesting neurological impairment from excessive zinc, and makes vague references to studies suggesting links between zinc and health problems. Finally, in a story whose main point was to discuss the harm that can result from too much zinc, it was strange to see no mention of a strongly worded FDA advisory warning consumers not to take the zinc-based nasal spray Zicam.
Why This Matters
We often hear the claim that we consume too little or too much of certain foods and nutrients, and that changing our habits may lead to better health. Good reporting can help consumers focus on changes that are most likely to be beneficial. Articles such as this pointing out potential for harm are also critically important for consumers.
While it probably can be assumed that the zinc-containing products discussed in the story are relatively inexpensive, the story contained no direct discussion of costs. Readers would have benefited from this information, for example, when evaluating the value of zinc-based cold remedies. The story mentions that zinc lozenges "may help and probably won’t hurt" when it comes to colds, but how much will the reader have to pay for a shot at this benefit? Readers’ perceptions would no doubt differ if the product costs $2 vs. $20.
The sidebar to this story notes that zinc lozenges have been tested in patients with colds or the flu in 14 studies over 25 years. It noted that benefits were seen in about half of the studies, but no benefits and potential harms were observed in other studies. It quantified the benefits found in one study, where colds, coughs and runny noses were of shorter duration in the zinc group compared with the group that received a placebo lozenge. While it would have been nice to see a description of the studies that found no benefit and/or harm (Were they more or less rigorous than the studies reporting benefits?), the story does enough to fulfill this criterion.
While the story suggests a number of potential harms associated with zinc, it makes no mention of the recent FDA warning on the zinc-based nasal spray, Zicam. In June, agency warned in no uncertain terms that consumers should stop taking and discard any Zicam nasal spray or gel that they have in their medicine cabinets. The agency had received more than 130 reports of consumers losing their sense of smell after taking Zicam. The story says merely that "researchers recommend avoiding nasal sprays containing zinc." This message is insufficient to convey the serious known risks associated with the use of this product.
The story does not adequately describe the design and limitations of many of the studies discussed. For example:
Rodent studies are cited as evidence that too much zinc can cause cognitive impairment, but the author does not caution readers about the difficulty of applying these data to the human brain.
The author refers vaguely to "data" which suggest that "removing zinc from the brain slows mental decline." But no details are provided regarding where these "data" come from, so it is impossible to make any kind of assessment as to the importance of this finding.
The story cites a case series involving four patients who used excessive amounts of denture cream containing zinc and who developed neurologic problems. The story did not explicitly state that the zinc caused the neurologic problems, but it implied that this was the case. The story should have noted that a small case series such as this could never definitively prove that zinc was the cause of these individuals’ neurologic problems.
The story makes a reference to a possible link between zinc and prostate cancer. However, no details are provided regarding the evidence that supports such a link.
For the most part, the story struck a reasonable tone in discussing the risks of excessive zinc consumption. It stated that adverse effects were found among certain small groups and noted that too little zinc also could cause problems. When discussing the potential adverse effects of denture creams that contain zinc, the author was careful to include a reassuring quote that puts the risks in an appropriate context.
The story quotes four sources who are knowledgeable about zinc. However, it did not disclose that a key source, Dr. Imre Lengyel, receives funding from PRANA Biotechnology, a company which is developing a zinc chelation therapy for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Given that the extent of this relationship is unknown and the article does not appear overtly biased, we’ll give the benefit of the doubt and award a satisfactory for this criterion–but barely.
Since the primary thrust of the story was the potential toxic effects of zinc (not the benefits), it would be inappropriate to criticize the reporting for not discussing alternatives to zinc.
The story states that consumers are receiving zinc through supplements, cold medicines that contain zinc, and in fortified foods. It also mentions foods that are naturally rich in zinc such as oysters and beef, as well as unintentional sources of intake such as denture cream.
The story suggests that a recent paper by Flinn and colleagues was "one of the first pointing to zinc’s potential dangers," but research as far back as the 1930s has suggested that zinc applied to the nose was associated with loss of the sense of smell. Papers in the 1960s and 70s demonstrated other negative effects, such as induction of copper deficiency. It is inaccurate to suggest that excessive zinc intake is a relatively new concern.
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
If you’re covering COVID-19, you need a robust understanding of how to report on health and science news (and when you're in over your head). Get a leg up with these insights from @garyschwitzer.
Tech sites @MacRumors & @TechCrunch hype #AppleWatch’s ability to predict #COVID19 without providing the evidence. @mtmdphd was keen observer. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/tech-sites-hype-apple-watch-for-covid-19-prediction-without-providing-the-evidence/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like