Accurate information can make a real difference to pet health and wellbeing. This page explains our fact-checking process — how we verify claims before publication and how we handle information that may be outdated or incorrect.
Verification Standards
Every factual claim in our articles is cross-referenced against at least two independent, authoritative sources before publication. This applies to health information, nutritional guidance, safety claims, product specifications, and any other statements presented as fact. If a claim cannot be verified through multiple reliable sources, we either exclude it or clearly label it as unverified.
We distinguish between established facts (supported by broad consensus among veterinary bodies), emerging information (supported by recent research but not yet widely adopted), and opinion or anecdotal evidence (clearly labelled as such).
Source Hierarchy
We evaluate sources using a clear hierarchy of authority:
- UK veterinary bodies and government guidelines — British Veterinary Association (BVA), British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), Animal Welfare Act codes of practice, DEFRA guidance
- Peer-reviewed veterinary journals and research — Published studies in recognised journals such as the Veterinary Record, Journal of Small Animal Practice, and similar publications
- Established pet welfare organisations — RSPCA, PDSA, International Cat Care, Rabbit Welfare Association & Fund (RWAF), Kennel Club, and similar bodies with demonstrated expertise
- Manufacturer data and product specifications — Used for product-specific claims (ingredients, dimensions, materials) but not relied upon for health or safety claims without independent verification
When sources conflict, we default to the highest-tier source and note the disagreement where it is relevant to the reader.
Red Flag Process
During research and review, certain types of claims trigger additional scrutiny. These include health claims that contradict established veterinary guidance, product safety claims not backed by recognised testing standards, nutritional advice that conflicts with BVA or PFMA (Pet Food Manufacturers’ Association) guidelines, and any claim that could lead to harm if incorrect.
Flagged claims are either verified against additional sources, rewritten to accurately reflect the evidence, or removed from the article entirely. We would rather publish less content than publish information we cannot verify.
Reader Feedback
We actively encourage readers to report any information they believe may be inaccurate. If you spot something in one of our articles that you think is wrong, outdated, or misleading, please contact us through our website with details of the specific claim and, if possible, a link to a source that contradicts it.
Every report is investigated. If we determine that a correction is needed, we update the article promptly and acknowledge the reader’s contribution (with their permission). If we determine the original information is accurate, we respond to the reader explaining our reasoning and the sources we relied upon.
Update Triggers
Published articles are re-verified when any of the following occur:
- A referenced organisation (BVA, RSPCA, PDSA, etc.) updates its guidance on the topic
- New peer-reviewed research is published that may affect our conclusions
- A product featured in a review is recalled, reformulated, or discontinued
- A reader reports a potential inaccuracy that we can confirm
- UK regulations affecting pet products or animal welfare change
- More than six months have passed since the last review of a health-related article
Our commitment: We aim to be a trustworthy source of pet care information. That means being honest about what we know, transparent about our process, and prompt in correcting mistakes when they occur.