From what I've noticed as an outsider, it is very difficult for a layperson, especially one untrained in statistical methods, without full journal subscriptions, or without an understanding of the politics involved in grant applications, to be able to judge the accuracy of reports, which are often based, it seems on press releases (not even abstracts).

In 2013, a story made the front page of HN about high lead levels in imported rice (covered by some credible sources). For a few weeks, as a precaution, I avoided giving my children rice to eat (and I'm sure I wasn't the only one) and getting into a fairly heated argument with my spouse about it, who thought I was crazy. It later transpired that the entire story was based on miscalibrated equipment. Till today, there are news sources that haven't corrected the story (Google "lead in rice"). This was an extreme example, but I don't doubt that a lot of health stories suffer from real flaws, but are tougher to debunk.

Science is important, but science reporting (especially medical reporting) seems awful. No parent wants their child to be harmed, indeed, I've read comments on HN where people say they give their kids glass bottles because of the putative risks of phthalates. While I don't blame them for being careful, imagine what happens when the glass bottles shatter? It is very tempting for parents to panic and to "parent by headline", and it is obviously profitable for researchers and their institutions to generate maximal alarm. However, HN is my primary source of tech news, and I would prefer it if it wasn't clogged with possibly dubious health stories which perpetuate this cycle.