How we work
Editorial standards
The way we handle evidence is part of the story. These standards apply to every article, comparison and UK watch entry.
Start with sources
We favour primary research, regulator material, government data and transparent life-cycle assessments. Company statements can help explain a process, but are identified as company claims rather than independent findings.
Numbers and claims
Important figures should link to their source and be presented with the relevant unit, date and context. Protein comparisons use 100 g of protein as a common starting point. We explain system boundaries and do not combine unlike studies into a misleading league table.
If a claim cannot be traced to a reliable source, it does not belong in the published article. Uncertainty and data gaps are stated, not hidden.
Use of AI
AI tools may assist with research and drafting. They are not sources and do not verify their own output. A human editor must check every material claim against the cited evidence; unresolved claims are removed or sent back for further research. Salar has final editorial sign-off.
Balance and independence
We consider livestock and established crop systems alongside novel technologies. We do not accept payment to rank products or suppress inconvenient evidence. Company relationships and relevant interests are disclosed where they affect a story.
Corrections
If you find an error or an unclear claim, email info@thegreensome.com with the article link and the evidence. We will review it, correct material errors and make significant changes clear on the page.