There's a big problem with the relationship between science and the news media. Responsible scientific researchers try to answer highly specific, limited questions and are hesitant to make any strong conclusions without an extraordinary amount of testing, which takes a while. But the news media wants juicy headlines, by the end of the day. What ends up happening usually goes like this --
Scientists: So we've found that certain enzymes in cultured milk have an anti-oxidant effect --
Reporters: So what you're saying is that eating cheese is good for you.
Scientists: No, no, we're just saying we found a specific --
Reporters: Here's a headline, "Cheese is now healthy."
Scientists: We're not prepared to make a definitive statement yet, so --
Television news: EATING CHEESE WILL PROTECT YOU FROM DEATH, GET THE FULL STORY AT 11 PM
Seriously -- I read a magazine article about how science journalism had blown a researacher's arsenic-based-life study entirely out of proportion, explaining that no, she wasn't claiming to have found alien life, and the headline for it on the cover was "ET ON EARTH?" Like, way to illustrate the problem with your field, guys.