Editorial policy

How products are selected

Products are chosen because their formulation raises a question worth answering — an unusual concentration, a claim that the ingredient list can test, a category where labelling conventions mislead. They are not chosen by search volume, and never by a brand’s request.

How products are obtained

Every product analysed here is bought at ordinary retail price. No gifted samples, no press kits, no brand-supplied units.

This is a practical position more than a moral one. A gifted unit is an untracked favour, and the cumulative effect of untracked favours on coverage is well documented across consumer journalism.

How ingredient data is sourced

Ingredient lists are transcribed from the manufacturer’s own product page, and the URL and access date are published with every analysis.

Where a manufacturer’s site and the physical packaging disagree, the discrepancy is stated rather than resolved silently — reformulation between production runs is common and the difference is itself information.

Where a concentration is not published, the analysis says “not published”. No figure is estimated, inferred from list position, or carried over from a similar product.

How claims are assessed

Each marketing claim is quoted as the brand words it, then assessed against the ingredient list and the published evidence. Assessments use plain language — well supported, plausible, weakly supported, not verifiable from the ingredient list — and the reasoning is given, so a reader who disagrees can see exactly where.

“Not verifiable from the ingredient list” is not an accusation of dishonesty. It means a buyer has no way to check the claim, which is a separate and more common problem than a false one.

Review

Analyses are written and reviewed by Dr. med. Lena Hoffmann, a specialist in dermatology and venereology. Where an analysis relies on evidence outside her stated areas of expertise, the limitation is noted in the text.

Updates and freshness

Every analysis carries a publication date and an ingredients-verified date. Reformulation is common and silent; an analysis whose verified date is old should be read as a snapshot of that date.

Disputes

A manufacturer who believes an analysis is factually wrong can write to editorial@lenahoffmann.com. Demonstrated errors of fact are corrected and logged. Disagreement with an assessment is not an error of fact, and results in the objection being published alongside the assessment rather than the assessment being withdrawn.

AI use

Drafting and research assistance may involve automated tools. Every factual claim, ingredient list and source link is verified by a human against the primary source before publication. Responsibility for what appears here rests with the named author, not with a tool.