Fact Checking Policies

At foodfacts.org, we are dedicated to helping consumers make informed decisions by delivering clear, accurate, and reliable information on health and nutrition. Through rigorous and transparent fact-checking, we aim to address misinformation and provide clarity on widely circulated claims. Below, we outline how we select claims to fact-check, our rating system, review process and corrections policy to ensure accuracy and transparency.

How We Select Claims to Fact-Check

We select claims based on reach (measured by social media engagement) and potential harm, not to create artificial balance between viewpoints. When false or misleading claims disproportionately originate from one perspective, we reflect that reality while still applying the same standards of evidence to all claims.

Health and nutrition claims that have gained significant online engagement. Claims that have been widely shared, liked, or commented on—particularly when readers express confusion or ask for clarity in their comments—are likely candidates for our research team’s review. We also plan to examine claims reported directly by our users through the website.

Another key criterion in selecting claims to fact-check is whether the information shared or its implications, if followed, could negatively impact an individual’s health (physical or mental), public or planetary health. For example, nutrition claims might go against established dietary guidelines, or they could fail to differentiate between different populations or backgrounds, potentially placing some individuals at risk. Environmental claims might dismiss or contradict established research.

Our approach covers a diverse range of topics, ensuring that our fact-checking efforts remain broad and inclusive. This helps us maintain a balanced approach that serves consumers with varied dietary preferences and interests.

‍

How We Fact-Check

Our fact-checking process is thorough and built on principles of integrity and transparency. Each claim undergoes the same multi-step review process by at least 2 members from our Research Team, regardless of where the claim comes from:

1. Source Verification and Claimant Engagement: We start by examining any sources cited by the claimant, assessing their relevance and reliability. Additionally, where appropriate and possible, we reach out to the claimant/author to offer them an opportunity to comment or clarify their statement, and to provide sources if none are presented in the post.
2. Cross-Referencing: We then assess each claim within the wider context of nutritional research, checking how it aligns or contrasts with other findings and with dietary guidelines. This includes reviewing related studies, and considering how closely the claim reflects the actual findings of the research cited, or the balance of available evidence on the topic discussed.
3. Expert Input: Where possible, we then invite an expert in a relevant field to provide insights on the claim under review. This often helps to provide readers with a broader understanding of the topic being discussed and how it impacts the consumer.
4. Examining the Logic Behind the Claim: We not only check facts and evidence but also unpack the reasoning and narrative strategies behind claims, to support readers’ media and science literacy. This is an essential part of our process to address the impact of misinformation.
5. Internal Consensus and Expert Review: One fact-checker drafts the fact-check, which is then reviewed by a second member of the Research Team to ensure a consistent rating. Each fact-check on nutritional or medical claims is further reviewed by a Registered Dietitian, or by experts from a relevant field. This step is essential for ensuring accuracy, and minimising any potential bias.‍
6. Transparency and Source Citation: We are committed to full transparency, providing direct links to all research sources used so that readers can retrace the fact-checker’s process. We prioritise primary sources of information—such as peer-reviewed journal articles, official reports, and primary data—over secondary sources to give our readers access to the most reliable information. Additionally, we always provide a full list of sources at the end of our fact-checks. This is to give our readers a comprehensive overview of the evidence we have found and used: where it comes from, how recent the research is, etc.Where sources have commercial, political, or advocacy affiliations relevant to the claim being evaluated, we disclose them explicitly in the fact-check.

‍

At foodfacts.org, we understand the impact that health and nutrition misinformation can have on individual and public well-being. Our goal is to provide consumers with the full picture, offering facts and context without prescribing specific choices. We encourage our community to explore our fact-checks, report claims they come across, and join us in the fight against nutrition misinformation.

‍

How We Rate Our Fact-Checks

To provide clear insights into each claim, we use a rating system designed to convey both factual accuracy and overall credibility. Here’s how it works:

Our Classification System

We categorise individual claims using straightforward symbols to indicate their level of accuracy, similar to systems used by other respected fact-checking sites. We assess each claim based on how well it aligns with established scientific evidence, public health or nutrition guidelines, and the quality and transparency of its supporting sources. Here's how we classify our ratings:

• 🟢 True: The claim is factually accurate, well-supported by high-quality evidence, and consistent with current public health or nutrition guidance. No meaningful context is missing.

• 🟡 Mostly True: The claim is largely accurate, but may contain minor inaccuracies, ambiguous language, or missing nuance. The core message aligns with current evidence but could be misleading without clarification.
• 🟠 Misleading: The claim contains some elements that are accurate, but its presentation, framing, or omissions may lead to misunderstanding.

• 🔺 Mostly False: The claim contains some accurate or verifiable elements, but its overall message misrepresents the available evidence. It may rely on outdated, misapplied, or selectively presented information, and does not align with the broader body of scientific research or public health guidance.

• 🔴 False: The claim is not supported by credible evidence, contradicts well-established scientific consensus, dismisses authoritative health and nutrition guidance, or inaccurately portrays research. Any accurate elements are either taken out of context or used to justify an unsupported conclusion.

This classification system helps readers quickly understand the accuracy of a claim and its place within the broader health and nutrition information landscape.

‍

Fact‑checking for us is not only about rating individual claims, but also about building media and scientific literacy. In each fact‑check, we explicitly explain how a claim might be interpreted by readers, how it fits into wider patterns of misinformation, and which rhetorical strategies (for example, cherry‑picking studies, exaggerating preliminary results, or using emotionally loaded language) make it misleading. Our approach is constantly informed by research into the mechanics of misinformation. This includes research showing that spotting logical fallacies is a reliable way to detect misinformation in contexts like health and nutrition (Musi & Reed, 2022), or work on “reason‑checking” (Visser, Lawrence & Reed, 2020), which highlights the value of teaching people to examine the logic and reasoning behind claims, not just their surface accuracy.

‍

Corrections Policy

‍At foodfacts.org, we are committed to accuracy and transparency. When we make a mistake, we fix it — clearly, promptly, and with full accountability.

We welcome feedback from our readers and subject-matter experts. If you believe we’ve made an error in any of our fact-checks or published content, you can contact us directly through our Send Feedback or Report Misinformation forms.

We have received no correction requests in the past 12 months.

‍

Correction Types

We address errors and feedback in the following ways:

• ‍Minor Corrections: Typos, grammar issues, or clarifications that do not affect the overall verdict are corrected silently or noted at the bottom of the article when appropriate.
• Substantive Corrections: If a factual error affects the accuracy of a claim, rating, or conclusion, we update the article and clearly indicate what was changed, when, and why. These changes will be clearly labelled as “Corrections” and placed prominently within the fact-check.
• Updates: Updates are not related to factual inaccuracies that might affect the verdict of a fact-check. Rather, they are designed to expand the scope of an article or to include feedback from readers or responses from the author of a claim. These changes will be clearly signposted within the fact-check.

‍

How Corrections Are Made

1. Each correction request is reviewed by our research team.

2. If verified, corrections are made within the article text or verdict as appropriate.

3. A correction note is added at the end of the article with the date and explanation.

4. If an error is discovered that affects multiple articles or rating systems, broader updates will be issued across the platform.

‍

Responding to Reader Feedback and Gaps

We sometimes receive reader feedback that suggests a topic or perspective has not been explored deeply enough, even if no factual error is present. As fact-checks are about specific claims, it is not always relevant to include perspectives that go beyond a claim’s scope. However, we take these comments seriously and aim to respond in the following ways:

• If the feedback highlights an oversight or underdeveloped angle, we may update the article to clarify or expand that section.
• In other cases, if the topic requires broader exploration, we may consider producing a separate, in-depth guide or explainer article to address it more fully.

Please note: Decisions to publish expanded content depend on available resources, and such pieces may take additional time to produce.

‍

Contacting Claim Authors

As part of our commitment to fairness, we aim to contact the author, speaker, or organisation responsible for a claim before publication, when possible and appropriate. This gives them an opportunity to provide context, clarify their position, or respond to our findings.

If we receive a response after publication, we will:

• Update the article to reflect their statement
• Clearly label the update, including the date and reason, at the top of our fact-check (dig deeper section)

‍

Guiding Principles

• We correct all verified errors regardless of their source or perceived impact.

• We do not unpublish or delete articles to hide errors — we amend them transparently.

• Repeat errors are reviewed internally to improve editorial processes.

‍

We take our role as a trusted fact-checking resource seriously and strive to uphold the highest standards of accountability.

‍

Contest a Rating

If you wish to contest the rating of a piece of evaluated media, please contact us.

‍