Why Science Often Gets Food Stories Wrong (And What We Should Do About It)

Food is something we all care about, what we eat, what we avoid, what might help us live longer, or what might make us ill. 

So when headlines scream, "Red meat causes cancer!" or "Wine is good for your heart!" it’s no wonder people sit up and pay attention. But how reliable are these scientific-sounding food stories?

The truth? Science often gets food stories wrong, or, more accurately, the way science is communicated to the public often distorts the reality of what was actually studied. 

Let's take a closer look at why this keeps happening, and how we can all become savvier eaters and readers.

1. Nutrition science is incredibly complex

Unlike something like physics, where experiments can be repeated in tightly controlled lab environments, nutrition research often deals with messy, real-life conditions. People eat a huge variety of foods, in different combinations, in different quantities, with varying genetics, lifestyles, and health conditions.

Trying to isolate the effect of one nutrient—like saturated fat or fibre, often relies on observational studies, which can only show associations, not causation. So, if a study shows that people who eat more processed meat have a higher risk of heart disease, it might not be the meat, it might be that they also smoke more, exercise less, or have other dietary factors at play.

2. The media loves a bold headline

Studies are often misrepresented in the media because nuance doesn’t sell. A story like “Small-scale study suggests possible link between compound X and reduced risk of disease Y, but more research is needed” won’t make the front page. But “CHEESE CURES CANCER” just might.

The result? We’re whiplashed by contradictory stories: one week eggs are bad for you, the next week they're a superfood. It creates public confusion and fuels distrust in science, when in fact, it’s often the journalism that’s the problem—not the science itself.

3. Industry funding and biases can play a role

Sometimes the science is skewed from the beginning. A company funding research into its own product can influence study design, publication, and interpretation of results. That doesn’t mean all industry-funded research is invalid, but it does require a critical eye.

Think of studies funded by soda companies that try to downplay the link between sugar and obesity, or food industry-backed research focusing on exercise rather than diet in tackling weight gain. These subtle shifts in focus can have a massive impact on public perception.

4. Science changes—because that’s how science works

We often forget that science is not a fixed truth—it’s a method. When new studies come out that contradict older ones, that doesn’t mean the whole field is unreliable. It means we’re learning more and refining our understanding. But to the public, it can feel like scientists are constantly changing their minds.

This is especially difficult in food and health reporting, where people understandably want clear, simple answers. Unfortunately, science rarely offers certainty, it offers probability, patterns, and evolving insight.

5. What can we do about it?

Don’t rely solely on headlines. Dig deeper or wait for reviews from trusted health sources like the NHS, the British Dietetic Association, or reputable health journalists.

Beware of “miracle” foods or “evil” ingredients. If something sounds too good or too bad to be true, it probably is.

Understand study types. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are stronger than observational studies, but still not perfect. Look for meta-analyses that review many studies on a topic.

Watch out for conflicts of interest. Always ask: who funded the study?

Eat based on overall patterns, not one ingredient. A varied, mostly whole-food, plant-forward diet still holds strong across decades of research.

The relationship between food and health is deeply personal, cultural, and emotional—but it’s also scientific. The problem isn’t with science itself, but how we translate it into public knowledge. If we can learn to question the headlines, understand the limits of research, and think in terms of long-term patterns rather than quick fixes, we’ll all be better off.

So next time you see that catchy article claiming that chocolate, coffee, kale, or ketchup will either kill you or save you, take it with a (moderate) pinch of salt.