Editorial standards

How we assess evidence

Every factual claim on a Vegalab Knowledge page is traceable to a named source, and every source is labelled so you can weigh it yourself. This page sets out the standard we hold ourselves to, so that you can check whether we have met it.

What counts as a source

We cite peer-reviewed literature, university extension research, and documents from regulators such as the EPA, WHO and FDA. Where a compound has been assessed by a body like the Cosmetic Ingredient Review or IARC, we cite that assessment directly.

We do not cite brand blogs, consumer magazines, retailer pages or ingredient-supplier marketing as evidence for a scientific claim — including in the cases where that material is the only thing available. When we reached that point during this work, we recorded the topic as unsourced rather than filling the gap with something weaker.

How we label what we cite

Next to each reference we state the study type and, where we can determine it, who funded it.

Independent means no industry funding or authorship that we could identify. Industry-funded means the study was funded by, or authored by employees of, a company with a commercial interest in the ingredient — including, where applicable, Vegalab. Regulatory source means a government or intergovernmental document. Funding not determined means we could not establish it from the published record, and you should treat it as unknown rather than assume either way.

We apply this labelling to studies that support our own products as rigorously as to those that do not. Several ingredients in our range rest substantially on supplier-generated evidence, and the pages say so.

Study type matters as much as conclusion

An in vitro result, an ex vivo measurement, an animal model and a randomised controlled trial in humans are not interchangeable, and a page that presents them as though they were is misleading regardless of what it cites. We name the study type and the scale — sample size, duration, number of donors — next to every reference, so that the weight of the evidence is visible without clicking through.

What we do when the evidence is weak

We say so. Some of our pages conclude that a mechanism is plausible but unproven, that an effect appears only in industry-funded studies, or that a widely repeated claim has no primary source behind it at all.

We also state the limits of ingredients we sell. Where a compound does not do something it is popularly believed to do, or carries a risk to a particular species, or is present at a level below which it is unlikely to act, the page states that plainly. A reference layer that only reported favourable findings would not be worth citing, and would not deserve to be.

Corrections

When we find that something we published is wrong, we change it and note the change. During the research behind these pages we contradicted several of our own draft claims and corrected them before publication — including removing a widely repeated explanation of how humectants behave in dry air, for which we could find no primary support and some evidence to the contrary.

If you believe something here is inaccurate, tell us and cite what you are relying on. We will read it.

What these pages are not

They are reference material, not advice for your specific situation. Product claims, registrations and permitted uses vary by jurisdiction, and the label on the product you hold is the governing document, not this website.

Nothing here is veterinary or medical advice. Where a page discusses risk to an animal or a person, it will direct you to a veterinarian, clinician or poison-control service, and that is the right course rather than relying on a web page.