← Back to catalogHow we publish

Editorial standards

LabelLens inclusion criteria, source hierarchy, editorial review, corrections, and commercial-independence standards.

Scope and inclusion criteria

LabelLens currently covers narrow product categories where label declarations can be normalized without pretending that unlike quantities are equivalent. A product is eligible when it is sold in the selected market, has a legible manufacturer or retailer label source, declares the category’s required active fields, and has a current offer that can be checked.

We exclude or withhold products when the identity is ambiguous, the label cannot support the displayed figures, the offer is stale, mandatory fields are missing, or a comparison would require an unsupported health inference. Inclusion is not an endorsement, and payment cannot buy inclusion.

Source hierarchy

  1. Law and regulators: current regulations, regulator guidance, safety communications, and official fact sheets.
  2. Primary product evidence: the manufacturer’s current Supplement Facts panel, packaging, technical sheet, and official product page.
  3. Independent scientific evidence: systematic reviews, consensus statements, and peer-reviewed research indexed by recognized databases.
  4. Retailer records: used mainly for price, availability, pack size, and as a secondary label cross-check.
  5. Other secondary material: used only for orientation, never as the sole support for a material scientific or product claim.

When sources disagree, we prefer the source closest to the underlying fact and the most recent applicable version. Unresolved conflicts are disclosed or the field is withheld.

Product-data workflow

  1. Capture the label and source URL with its verification date.
  2. Transcribe declared values without converting a compound into an active amount unless the label itself provides that amount.
  3. Normalize units and calculate only documented comparison metrics.
  4. Run completeness checks and retain source provenance.
  5. Require explicit owner approval before public activation.

Prices are snapshots, not guarantees. Label servings describe manufacturer directions, not individualized advice.

Guide review workflow

  1. Define a narrow reader question and a list of claims that need support.
  2. Research against the source hierarchy, recording direct links and review dates.
  3. Draft in plain language, separating label facts from scientific context and avoiding personal medical advice.
  4. Check citations, calculations, commercial references, and potentially misleading omissions.
  5. Complete an owner review and publish only after explicit approval in the CMS.

Each published guide displays an author and last-reviewed date. Review dates describe the editorial check, not a promise that every linked source changed that day.

Corrections and updates

Readers, brands, and retailers can report an error through the contact and corrections page. We ask for the exact page, disputed statement or value, and supporting evidence. We verify material reports against primary sources, correct confirmed errors promptly, and update the displayed review date when a substantive editorial review occurs.

Changes that alter meaning, comparison inputs, or conclusions receive a substantive review. Typographical and formatting fixes may be made without changing the review date. Content that cannot be responsibly corrected is unpublished while it is reassessed.

Commercial independence

Affiliate eligibility, commission rate, and commercial contact do not change product facts, guide conclusions, calculated metrics, or ranking rules. Editorial work may mention retailers or brands when necessary to identify a source, but commercial partners do not receive pre-publication approval rights.

LabelLens may decline a program whose terms conflict with accurate comparison, clear disclosure, or reader privacy. Affiliate links are identified and governed by the affiliate disclosure.

Medical and evidence boundaries

LabelLens explains declarations and evidence; it does not determine whether a supplement is appropriate for a particular person. We avoid disease-treatment promises, distinguish manufacturer claims from independent evidence, and direct readers to qualified healthcare professionals for decisions involving symptoms, pregnancy, medication, medical conditions, or adverse effects.