Editorial Principles

Health information directly affects the decisions people make every day. That is why we prioritise accuracy, transparency, timeliness and source quality.

How we prepare our content

Every piece is written to answer a real question a reader has, as clearly and impartially as possible. Many articles open with a short, direct answer, then cover the topic in more detail through scientific sources, possible benefits, possible risks and points to watch for.

Use of sources

We rely as much as possible on reliable, up-to-date sources. Among those we prioritise: the World Health Organization (WHO), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the CDC, the NHS, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), peer-reviewed academic studies indexed in PubMed, universities and university hospitals, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

If there is no scientific consensus on a topic, we say so. Where the evidence is limited, we state that clearly.

How we interpret scientific information

We do not turn studies into exaggerated or alarming headlines, and we do not present a single study's result as a certain fact for everyone. When assessing research we consider its scope, participant numbers, method, consistency with other studies and the degree of scientific consensus.

Expressions we avoid — and prefer

• Avoid: “definitely harmful”, “definitely beneficial”, “prevents this disease”, “this food cures”.
• Prefer: “current research suggests…”, “some studies…”, “for most healthy adults…”, “depending on the amount consumed…”, “depending on a person's health status…”.

Expert review

We aim to develop an expert-review system. When a piece has been reviewed by a doctor, dietitian or qualified health professional, this is stated clearly on the content. We never present unreviewed content as reviewed.

Use of artificial intelligence

We may use AI tools for research, planning, language editing or technical steps. Information produced by AI is not automatically accepted as correct; important health information is verified against reliable sources. AI speeds up production but does not remove our responsibility for accuracy and quality.

Keeping content current

Scientific knowledge changes over time. When new research appears or official health bodies change their recommendations, we update the relevant content and show a last-updated date where possible.

Errors and corrections

Despite our efforts, content can be wrong or out of date. When an error is identified we aim to correct it as quickly as possible, and readers can report mistakes through our contact page. For us, reliability means being open to correction — not claiming we never make mistakes.

Independence and impartiality

Health information on Green Living is not steered by advertisers, sponsors or commercial partnerships. Where sponsored content or commercial relationships exist, this is disclosed clearly. A brand working with us does not mean its products will be recommended or rated more favourably.

Affiliate and commercial links

Some content may contain affiliate links, and Green Living may earn income from purchases made through them. A commercial relationship does not change the accuracy or impartiality of the information, and content containing commercial links is disclosed.

Our limits on health topics

Green Living is not a health institution. Our content does not diagnose disease, does not recommend treatment, does not advise changing medication use, and does not replace examination by a doctor or dietitian. Consult a qualified professional about your health status, medications or personal nutrition needs — especially during pregnancy, chronic illness, childhood, eating disorders or medically prescribed diets.