Fact-Checking Policy

Why This Policy Exists

Herbal tea sits at the intersection of tradition, culture, culinary practice and emerging science. That intersection is interesting — and it is also a space where exaggerated claims and wishful thinking can slip easily into published content.

We want readers to be able to trust what they read here. That means being methodical about how we evaluate claims before publishing them, and honest about the limits of what is currently known. This page explains our process.

Types of Claims We Handle

Content on this site covers several distinct types of claim, and we treat each differently:

Factual brewing information — things like water temperatures, steeping durations and equipment choices — is verified against multiple practical and technical sources and updated when consensus shifts.

Botanical and chemical composition — descriptions of a herb's constituents or its sensory properties — is drawn from established reference works and peer-reviewed literature where possible.

Traditional and historical use — how a herb has been used in folk or traditional medicine contexts — is described as exactly that: tradition and history. We do not present traditional use as proof of efficacy.

Research-based claims — anything describing a scientific finding about a herb's effect — is handled with particular care, as described below.

How We Evaluate Research

When we reference scientific research, we apply the following questions before using a finding in our content:

Was the study published in a peer-reviewed journal? Was the study conducted in humans, or in animals or in vitro (cell cultures)? How large was the sample? Was the study replicated by independent researchers? Is the finding consistent with the wider body of literature, or is it an outlier?

Animal and laboratory studies may be cited as early-stage or preliminary findings. We do not present them as evidence that something works in humans. Single small studies are not presented as settled evidence. We use language like "early research suggests" or "a small pilot study found" to clearly signal the strength of the evidence behind a claim.

Preferred Sources

We prefer primary sources: the original research paper, the official regulatory guidance or the established botanical reference. Secondary sources such as news articles or popular science summaries are only used to point us toward a primary source — they are not cited as authoritative on their own.

Sources we regularly draw on include: PubMed-indexed peer-reviewed journals, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) botanical compendiums, the American Botanical Council's HerbMed database, the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) guidance, and the pharmacopoeia of the relevant country for dosing and quality standards.

Traditional Use Is Not Proven Efficacy

We say this explicitly in our Medical Disclaimer and we repeat it here in our operational policy: the fact that a herb has been used in a traditional healing context for hundreds of years does not, by itself, constitute evidence that it is safe or effective by the standards of modern clinical science.

Traditional knowledge is valuable cultural and historical context, and we document it respectfully. But we clearly distinguish it from clinical evidence, and we never use "it has been used for centuries" as a substitute for "research supports this."

What We Do Before Publishing

Before a guide or article goes live, the responsible writer and at least one editor check all factual claims against the cited sources. Any claim that cannot be verified is either removed, reframed as opinion, or clearly flagged as unverified pending further research.

Content touching on botanical constituents, safety considerations, or the interpretation of research is reviewed by an editor with relevant scientific or botanical background. We do not publish content that overstates the evidence — even when the subject matter is exciting or when readers might like a more definitive answer than the science currently supports.

How to Report an Error

We welcome corrections from readers who believe a factual claim on this site is wrong, outdated or misleading. If you have found an error, please email us at hello@herbalbrewguides.one with the subject line "Fact Check" and include:

• The URL of the page containing the claim
• A quote of the specific sentence or passage you believe is incorrect
• The evidence or source you believe contradicts it

We will investigate every report and respond. If we confirm an error, we will correct it transparently in line with our Editorial Policy.

Ongoing Review

Botanical science is an active field. New research is published regularly, and our understanding of herbal constituents and their effects continues to develop. We commit to reviewing our published content as new evidence emerges and updating claims that the evidence no longer supports.

Readers who subscribe to our newsletter will occasionally receive notes about significant updates to our published guides. You can also check the "Last updated" date on any page to see when it was most recently reviewed.