A consequential factual error should be fixed and, where appropriate, disclosed clearly.
Editorial Policy
Corrections Policy
Evidence-led publishing needs a clear way to distinguish factual errors from routine updates, reformulations and changes in the underlying research.
Direct answer: Material factual errors should be corrected transparently. Routine freshness updates, newly published evidence and product reformulations should be identified as updates rather than treated as though the original page was necessarily wrong.
Read our Editorial Standards
New research can change a conclusion without implying that an earlier evidence-based conclusion was improper at the time.
Label, formulation, price or availability changes should be treated as freshness updates when the prior page accurately reflected the earlier product.
Reader submissions matter
Readers should have a clear contact route for flagging factual errors or outdated product information.
Updated dates should mean something
A page's updated date should reflect a material review or revision rather than a cosmetic timestamp change.
Why a corrections policy matters
Supplement content changes for several reasons, and not every change is a correction. A factual error may need to be corrected; a newly published systematic review may change the balance of evidence; a manufacturer may reformulate a product; FDA may issue a new warning; or a page may simply need clearer wording. Treating all of these changes the same makes the editorial history less informative.
Minor edits
Spelling, grammar, formatting, broken-link repairs and clarifications that do not change the substantive meaning can ordinarily be made without a prominent correction note. These edits should not be used to conceal a material factual change. The updated date should also not be refreshed for every trivial edit if the date is meant to signal substantive review.
Material factual corrections
A material correction is appropriate when a factual statement that affects the reader's understanding is found to be wrong. Examples can include misstating a study population, reversing a result, giving the wrong ingredient amount, incorrectly describing FDA status or attributing a claim to the wrong source. The corrected passage should be changed promptly once the error is verified, and a correction note should be considered where the original error was consequential.
New evidence and evolving conclusions
A page may be accurate when published and later become outdated because better evidence appears. That is an update, not necessarily a correction. When a high-quality systematic review, major trial or authoritative guidance materially changes the evidence position, the page should be re-evaluated and the evidence label or conclusion updated where appropriate.
Product formulation and commercial updates
Product labels, serving sizes, ingredients, certification status, prices and availability can change. When a review accurately described an earlier formulation, revising it for a new formula is a freshness update rather than proof that the original review was erroneous. Material reformulations may justify revisiting the entire review conclusion.
Regulatory and safety updates
Safety content deserves especially prompt review when a regulator issues a warning, recall, enforcement action or revised consumer guidance. Updates should identify whether the new information concerns a particular product, batch, manufacturer or ingredient rather than extending a narrow warning to a whole category without support.
How readers can submit a correction
To report a possible factual error or outdated product detail, use the site’s Contact page and include the page URL, the statement in question, and a reliable supporting source where available. A useful submission includes the page URL, the statement in question, the reason it may be incorrect or outdated, and a reliable supporting source where available. Submitting a disagreement does not itself establish an error; the claim should be checked against the underlying evidence.
Submit a correctionReview and disclosure process
Correction requests should be evaluated against the relevant source material. If a material error is confirmed, the content should be corrected and the disclosure proportionate to the significance of the mistake. If the issue is merely a reasonable difference of interpretation, the editorial position can remain while additional context is added if that would improve accuracy.
Relationship to the editorial methodology
The Corrections Policy governs what happens after a potential problem or material update is identified. The Editorial Standards page governs how sources, evidence labels, manufacturer claims, safety information and uncertainty are handled in the first place. The two policies should operate together.
Applying this information
The page should be interpreted within its stated scope and linked to the more specific evidence or governance page where a narrower question is being answered.
How source corrections should be handled
If a citation resolves to the wrong paper, no longer supports the statement, or is superseded by a materially stronger source, the citation and surrounding wording should be reviewed together. Simply swapping the link can be misleading if the replacement source supports a narrower claim. Corrections should preserve the relationship between claim and evidence, not merely repair the bibliography.
Frequently asked questions
Does every edit require a correction notice?
No. Minor formatting or wording changes that do not alter meaning ordinarily do not require a prominent notice.
Is new research always a correction?
No. New evidence may make an earlier accurate page outdated without making its original publication an error.
Should old product formulations remain in a current review?
Only when clearly presented as historical information; otherwise the current formulation should be verified.
Can readers report possible errors?
Yes. Use the Contact page to flag a possible factual error or outdated detail, ideally with the page URL and supporting source.
Sources
Authoritative sources and operational records supporting the page.