Editorial Standards

Every site promises to be trustworthy. Here's what that actually means on ThatCleanChef.

Sourcing

Every factual health claim on this site is cited to at least one of the following:

• A peer-reviewed paper (PubMed-indexed or equivalent)
• A regulatory document (FDA, EPA, EU REACH, CDC, NIH)
• A manufacturer's official disclosure (ingredient list, safety data sheet)
• A well-established database (EWG, ToxNet, Open Food Facts)

For any significant health claim, we require two independent sources, one peer-reviewed study and one regulatory or industry reference. When the science is genuinely mixed, we say so in the text. We don't pretend to have certainty we don't have.

Testing vs. researching

When we recommend a product:

• “We tested this”, we physically bought or received the product and used it for long enough to form a real opinion. We disclose the length of test and what we evaluated.
• “We evaluated this from research”, we didn't physically test it, but we read the manufacturer documentation, third-party lab results, and user reports carefully. We label this clearly.

We never blur the line.

Rankings

Every comparison page on this site commits to a #1 pick. When we update a page, quarterly, at minimum, and our pick changes, we note the change at the top of the post and keep an archive of the previous ranking.

Corrections

If we're wrong, we want to know.

When we fix a factual error, we:

1. Correct the text
2. Add a dated correction note at the bottom of the post
3. Don't silently edit, the history stays visible

Email corrections to: hello@thatcleanchef.com. We respond within 5 business days.

Affiliate relationships

ThatCleanChef earns a commission on some (not all) of the products we link to. When we do, we disclose it clearly on the page, above the product list, in plain English.

Affiliate commissions never influence our rankings. We've turned down placements that paid better to keep a lower-paying product as the #1 pick because it was genuinely better. Trust is the only thing on this site that compounds. We don't trade it.

AI and our editorial process

We use AI tools, including large language models, in parts of our editorial workflow: research synthesis, draft generation, grammar checks, and formatting. Every post on this site is reviewed, fact-checked, and edited by a human before publication. No post is published that hasn't been through that human review.

When AI tooling is used in a way that materially shapes a post's conclusions, we say so explicitly.

What we don't do

• We don't accept payment for editorial placement
• We don't publish content written by brands
• We don't pretend research we didn't do
• We don't write fake reviews, fake urgency, or fake scarcity
• We don't link between our sites, each site stands on its own editorial merit

Reviewing our work

Our methodology, sources, and tooling are visible on every post. If you spot something that looks wrong, tell us. That feedback is how the site gets better.

Last updated: April 2026.