How we approach botanical knowledge
Plants sit at an unusual intersection of science, medicine, food, culture, history and everyday life. Information about them can come from very different sources: laboratory research, clinical studies, historical pharmacopoeias, ethnobotanical records, traditional practice, personal experience and commercial claims.
These sources are not equivalent. Botanicals & Co exists partly to explore those differences rather than obscure them.
Our editorial principles
We aim for our work to be:
Accurate
Factual claims should be supported by reliable sources wherever reasonably possible.
Transparent
Traditional practice, historical evidence and contemporary scientific evidence should be clearly distinguished.
Curious
A lack of conclusive scientific evidence does not make a tradition historically uninteresting. Equally, a long history of use does not establish scientific efficacy.
Proportionate
The strength of our language should reflect the strength of the evidence.
Independent
Editorial conclusions should not be determined by commercial relationships.
How we consider evidence
Evidence should be considered in context rather than reduced automatically to a single score. Depending upon the question being considered, sources may include:
- systematic reviews and meta-analyses;
- controlled human studies;
- observational research;
- laboratory and mechanistic research;
- pharmacological research;
- phytochemical evidence;
- authoritative monographs;
- recognised reference works;
- ethnobotanical research;
- historical primary sources;
- documented traditional practice.
Different questions require different forms of evidence. For example, a historical source may provide excellent evidence that a botanical preparation was used during a particular period while providing very little evidence that the preparation produces a particular clinical effect.
Traditional knowledge
Traditional botanical knowledge forms an important part of human history and remains a valuable subject of study. When discussing traditional use, Botanicals & Co aims to identify it explicitly.
Statements such as “traditionally used for…” describe a historical or cultural practice. They should not automatically be interpreted as claims that contemporary clinical evidence has established that use as safe or effective.
Scientific research
Scientific findings should be presented in proportion to the underlying evidence. Laboratory findings should not be described as though they were demonstrated clinical outcomes. Preliminary studies should not be presented as established conclusions. Association should not be presented as causation. Where research is uncertain, conflicting or incomplete, we aim to say so.
References
Substantial Botanical Library monographs and research-led articles should provide references wherever practical. Preference should generally be given to:
- primary research;
- systematic reviews;
- recognised scientific organisations;
- regulatory bodies;
- authoritative scholarly sources.
References are provided so readers can investigate the evidence themselves.
Safety
Natural does not mean harmless. Plants and their constituents can cause:
- adverse reactions;
- toxicity;
- allergic responses;
- interactions with medicines;
- effects that vary according to preparation, concentration, dose and route of exposure.
Relevant safety information should therefore form part of Botanical Library monographs and other content where appropriate.
Health and medicinal claims
Botanicals & Co does not treat the existence of a traditional use as evidence that a botanical prevents, treats or cures disease. Where medicinal, cosmetic or health-related evidence is discussed, our language should reflect the strength and limitations of the available evidence. Editorial content should also take account of applicable UK requirements concerning health, medicinal and cosmetic claims.
Corrections and updates
Botanical knowledge develops. We may revise articles and monographs when:
- new evidence becomes available;
- errors are identified;
- classifications change;
- additional scientific material becomes available;
- additional historical evidence materially improves an article.
Where appropriate, Botanical Library monographs should display a Last reviewed or Last updated date. If a reader believes we have made a factual error, they may contact us through the Contact page.
Artificial intelligence and digital tools
Botanicals & Co may use digital and AI-assisted tools to support parts of the research and editorial workflow, including research organisation, discovery, transcription, data organisation and production tasks. AI-generated output is not treated as an authoritative source. Published factual and scientific claims should ultimately be grounded in identifiable source material and remain subject to editorial review.
Editorial independence
Any future sponsorship, gifted products, affiliate relationships or other material commercial relationships relevant to particular content should be disclosed clearly. Commercial relationships do not purchase favourable editorial conclusions.
Educational purpose
Botanicals & Co is published for education, reference and general interest. Nothing published on this website constitutes individual medical, veterinary, nutritional or other professional advice.
Last reviewed: August 2026