GETTING BEYOND THE BUZZ
While a lower risk of Parkinson disease represents a potential boon to coffee drinkers, the news for caffeine addicts isn’t all good. Over the years, epidemiological studies have also linked caffeine consumption to higher rates of various diseases, including osteoporosis, fibrocystic breast disease, and bladder cancer. As with the link to Parkinson disease, however, such correlations do not necessarily prove that caffeine causes any of these diseases. Nevertheless, such studies are often quite influential and newsworthy—like the apparent correlation between coffee and pancreatic cancer that made headlines in 1981. That study was based on a single, small epidemiological study, which was later discounted by further research.
Journalists face unique challenges in covering health news, says Gary Schwitzer of HealthNewsReview.org: “They must cover complex topics, do it quickly, creatively, accurately, completely and with balance—and then be sure they don’t ‘dumb it down’ too much for a general news audience…. If they can’t do it right, they must realize the harm they can do by reporting inaccurately, incompletely, and in an imbalanced way” (INFOGRAPHIC 1.8).
The data as reported in peer-reviewed journals are often very complex. Scientists interpret these data in lengthy discussions, but the public receives them as isolated media headlines.
Journalists and scientists aren’t the only ones who bear the responsibility of determining what information is trustworthy. As consumers and citizens, we can become more knowledgeable about how science is done and which studies deserve to influence our behavior. Whether it’s the latest media report linking cell phones to brain tumors or vaccines to autism, the only way to really judge the value of a study is to sift through the evidence ourselves. Of course, to do that, we might first need a cup of coffee. 
16