Editorial Standard

How we keep herbal content careful and useful

Our public content is built to educate, not to diagnose, prescribe, or promote unsupported health claims. This standard guides how guides, herb profiles, tools, and downloadable resources should be prepared before publication.

Publishing principles

Claims should be traceable to a named source, established traditional context, recognised regulatory material, or clearly marked editorial explanation.

Traditional use, modern research, regulatory status, and practitioner commentary should not be blended together as if they carry the same weight.

Uncertainty should be visible. Where evidence is early, mixed, limited, or not directly applicable, the wording should say so plainly.

Content should avoid disease treatment, cure, prevention, dosage, or personal suitability claims unless a qualified professional is handling an individual consultation.

AI may assist drafting, summarising, formatting, and research workflows, but public health-related content still needs human review before publication.

Review checklist

These checks are used to tidy content before it is made public or promoted.

  • Does the page stay educational rather than diagnostic or prescriptive?
  • Are safety cautions clear enough for a mainstream UK visitor?
  • Are medicines, pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, surgery, allergies, and long-term conditions handled carefully?
  • Are sources named or signposted where the content relies on research, regulatory material, or established references?
  • Could the wording be mistaken for a guaranteed health outcome or product claim?