How we decide what belongs in The Food Eaters.

Reporting and sourcing

We prefer primary and authoritative sources when they are available. Depending on the story, that can include official restaurant or hotel information, menus, booking pages operated by the venue, public records, government bodies, recognised research, direct interviews and statements from people responsible for the subject.

Secondary reporting can provide context and help identify a story, but repetition does not turn a claim into a fact. Important details should be traced as close to the original source as practical.

We do not knowingly invent quotations, awards, rankings, prices, opening dates, menu details, statistics, ownership information or other factual claims.

First-hand experience and researched coverage

A reader should never have to guess whether we actually went somewhere. If a writer visited a restaurant, tasted a dish or experienced a service, the article may say so. If the work is based on research, interviews or public information, we should not write as though we were there.

This distinction matters because first-hand observation and desk research answer different questions. Both can be useful; pretending one is the other is not.

Reviews, guides, lists and recommendations

Taste is subjective, but the facts around a dining experience are not. Where we publish opinion or evaluation, we aim to separate the writer’s judgment from verifiable details such as price, location, service format, menu structure or opening information.

Not every list is a ranking. When an article is a selection rather than an ordered judgment, we should make that clear. Recommendations may draw on first-hand experience, reporting, documented recognition, current relevance and editorial judgment; the basis should be understandable from the piece.

Press releases, publicity and brand claims

A press release is a source, not proof. Claims supplied by restaurants, hotels, chefs, brands or PR representatives should be verified where appropriate or attributed to the party making them.

We may edit, contextualise, fact-check or decline material sent to us. Receiving a press release, product, invitation or pitch does not create an obligation to publish.

Complimentary meals, previews, press trips and other support

For coverage presented as an independent dining review, we aim to pay our own way. Media previews, openings and invited events can still be useful for reporting, but an invitation does not guarantee coverage or a favourable conclusion.

If a complimentary meal, hosted stay, press trip, product, significant discount or other material support is relevant to the reader’s understanding of a published piece, we aim to disclose it clearly.

Conflicts of interest

Editors and contributors should disclose relationships that could reasonably call their independence into question, including material personal, financial or professional connections to a subject.

Where a conflict is significant, another writer or editor may handle the coverage, or the relationship may be disclosed to readers.

Advertising, sponsored work and affiliate links

Paid material should be clearly distinguishable from independent editorial coverage. A sponsor may agree to the scope and factual brand information in a commercial project, but payment does not purchase a positive independent review or control over unrelated editorial coverage.

If The Food Eaters uses affiliate links, a disclosure should explain that we may receive a commission from qualifying purchases. Affiliate revenue should not determine factual claims or editorial conclusions.

Health, nutrition and food-safety coverage

When a story makes material claims about health, nutrition or food safety, we aim to rely on appropriately authoritative sources and distinguish established guidance from marketing claims, emerging research and opinion.

Our articles are general editorial information, not personalised medical or dietary advice.

AI-assisted editorial workflows

The Food Eaters may use AI or automated tools to assist with tasks such as organising research, transcription, translation, data extraction, brainstorming, drafting, editing or quality checks. AI output is not treated as an authoritative source.

Human editors remain responsible for what is published. AI must not be used to fabricate first-hand experiences, quotations, sources, restaurant visits, documentary evidence or factual claims that have not been adequately checked.

Images, captions and provenance

Images should have a lawful basis for use — for example ownership, permission, licence, attribution where required, or another applicable right. Captions and alt text should not identify a venue, dish, person or event more specifically than the image has actually been verified.

Illustrative or generated imagery should not be presented in a way that falsely documents a real restaurant, dish, person or event.

Corrections, clarifications and updates

When we confirm a material factual error, we may correct the article, headline, caption, metadata or other affected material. A correction or update note may be added when the nature of the change is important for readers to understand.

Minor spelling, grammar, formatting and house-style fixes may be made without a formal note. Time-sensitive details may also be updated as restaurants, menus, prices, personnel and operating information change.

To request a review, email contact@thefoodeaters.com with the article URL, the statement you believe is wrong and, where possible, a reliable source supporting the correction.

Removal, archiving and the published record

We generally prefer correcting or updating published work to quietly erasing it. Content may, however, be edited, archived, restricted or removed for significant legal, safety, privacy, rights, factual or editorial reasons.