From Panic to Perspective: How to Make Sense of Health News and Claims

In light of the recent headlines about Girl Scout cookies allegedly containing heavy metals and other toxins, many consumers are left wondering whether these claims are based on legitimate concerns or simply overblown fears. In a time when information spreads rapidly, it’s crucial to know how to distinguish between real health risks and sensationalized claims.

This is especially important in public health, where attention-grabbing headlines—whether about harmful ingredients, disease outbreaks, or new treatments, can provoke confusion or panic. As an expert in public health and science communication, my goal is to offer guidance on how to critically evaluate health claims and navigate headlines. In general, I use three key principles to assess health information, research findings, or news stories:

1. What is the strength of the science? What does the evidence say to date? Evaluating the quality of the research and the broader body of evidence helps place new findings in context and prevents overinterpretation of weak, small, or early-stage studies.

2. What is the global perspective on this issue? This helps us consider how other countries and scientific communities are assessing the same issue, offering a broader, more balanced view.

3. What is the common-sense view? This principle helps us weigh scientific findings alongside practical knowledge and what we know about human health over time.

What are some signs that a health claim may be overblown?

Guiding Principle 1: Strength of science perspective
There are several criteria used to assess scientific rigor. One of the biggest red flags is when claims are solely based on anecdotes, without supporting evidence from well-designed research. For a claim to be considered scientifically credible, there should be supporting data from independent, peer-reviewed studies—not just viral posts, a single lawsuit, or research funded by groups with a vested interest. Be cautious of extreme language like “toxic,” “deadly,” or “poison,” especially when it’s not backed by evidence.

That said, it’s important to recognize that some health concerns—such as breast implant illness—may initially emerge through patient reports, even if they haven’t yet been widely studied. In such cases, the lack of scientific data may reflect a gap in research, not necessarily the absence of a real problem. Science rarely deals in absolutes; credible sources acknowledge uncertainty and evolving knowledge.

Additional red flags include:

• Small or unrepresentative samples – A limited number of participants may not reflect the broader population. If the sample includes only a narrow group (e.g., people with specific health conditions), the findings may not apply widely.
• No control group – Without a comparison group, it’s hard to know whether an observed outcome is linked to the exposure or just coincidental.
• No follow-up – Short-term results may miss long-term health impacts or benefits.
• Not peer-reviewed – If a study hasn’t been evaluated by other experts, it hasn’t undergone standard scientific checks.
• Industry-funded research – Studies sponsored by companies with something to gain may be biased. Check for funding sources and conflicts of interest.
• Emotional or sensational language – Headlines using words like “miracle cure” or “toxic overload” are often designed to provoke, not inform.

Science is about patterns. If multiple, independent, high-quality studies point to the same risk or benefit, then the finding deserves serious consideration.

Guiding Principle 2: Take a global perspective
When a health issue or risk is serious, it’s rarely limited to just one country—it’s usually part of a broader global conversation. A good strategy is to ask: What have other countries done about this health issue, product, or ingredient?

Regulations on health products and procedures vary widely across countries, reflecting different approaches to safety and risk. For example, phenylpropanolamine (PPA)—a compound once commonly found in decongestants and weight loss products—was pulled from the U.S. market in 2000 after studies linked it to an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke. Meanwhile, the U.S. permits melatonin to be sold over the counter as a dietary supplement, while the United Kingdom, European Union (EU), Japan, Australia, and Canada require a prescription due to concerns about health risks and potential long-term effects. The U.S. also recently moved to ban Red Dye No. 3—an artificial color additive already restricted or banned in the EU, Australia, and Japan.

These differences don’t necessarily mean one country is always safer than another—but they do show how definitions of “risk” can vary. What’s considered safe in one country may raise concerns in another. That’s why it’s important for consumers to consult multiple trusted sources when assessing health claims. Cross-checking guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) with reputable global health authorities, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)—can help you determine if a health concern is consistently supported by evidence, or potentially overstated. And, as new research emerges, regulations and personal decisions should evolve accordingly.

Guiding Principle 3: Apply a common-sense health perspective
When evaluating a health claim, it helps to consider whether it aligns with what we know about human health from a historical and practical standpoint. This doesn’t mean dismissing new concerns outright—but it does mean approaching them with healthy skepticism and perspective. For example, before panicking about potentially harmful substances—like heavy metals, toxins, or pesticides—in Girl Scout cookies, a more useful question might be: Are the levels of these contaminants similar to what we typically find in other commonly consumed processed snacks, such as cookies or crackers from different brands?

If concerns about contaminants or additives in foods arise, it can be helpful to acknowledge that it’s always wise to pay attention to what we consume—and then shift the focus toward a common-sense health perspective: What foods align best with how humans are naturally designed to eat? For example, many food dyes are derived from petroleum, which is also used in jet fuel. That raises a simple but powerful question—is this something the human body was meant to consume? Prioritizing whole, minimally-processed foods grown from the earth, rather than those packaged in plastic, remains the simplest path toward good health.

How to Fact-Check Health Claims

You don’t need to be a scientist to think like one. Start by asking: Where is this information coming from? Peer-reviewed studies, independent researchers, and respected science journalists are generally more reliable than headlines or social media posts with no citations. You can learn more strategies for navigating health information online here.

Rather than relying on a single source—including any one government agency—look for patterns across multiple independent experts and scientific bodies. Countries like Canada, the EU, and Australia often conduct their own safety reviews, offering useful points of comparison. In a time when public agencies—both in the U.S. and abroad—can be influenced by political or commercial interests, the key is to look for scientific consensus—not just authority. Consensus builds when multiple high-quality studies, across different settings and researchers, all point in the same direction.

How to Respond to Scientific Skepticism Thoughtfully

People are more open to new or different information when they don’t feel judged or shamed. Rather than leading with confrontation (“That’s wrong”), try curiosity (“That’s interesting—where did you hear that?”). This opens the door to a conversation rather than a debate. People are more likely to listen if they don’t feel attacked. And, you might find that you learn something new as well.

Information—whether true or not—spreads quickly when it taps into strong emotions like fear, surprise, or disgust. Encouraging critical thinking without shaming people helps shift the conversation from debating conclusions to exploring how we arrive at them—focusing on the scientific process itself, not just the results.

Not every alarming headline indicates a crisis, and not every viral claim needs to be debunked aggressively. The key is to stay informed, critical, and open-minded, and to invite others to do the same. Science is about evolving knowledge. When we focus on open, evidence-based dialogue, we’re all better equipped to make sound health decisions.