Our content is built on commitments we don't compromise on:
01. Scientific Accuracy & Evidence-Based Foundation
We base our content on real, credible evidence. Our team uses information from:
- Studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, meaning other scientists have checked the work.
- Recognized experts and institutions in nutrition, botany, and food science.
- Conversations with qualified professionals. We show you the full scientific picture, explaining what we know for certain and where research is still developing.
02. Uncompromising Transparency
You deserve to know where information comes from. We commit to:
- Clearly labeling articles based on evidence separately from opinion pieces or personal stories.
- Citing our sources so you can check them yourself.
- Avoiding exaggerated claims and describing the real, documented benefits of our products and their ingredients.
03. A Customer-Centric Approach
Our main goal is giving you information that's actually useful. We work to:
- Explain complicated science in straightforward language anyone can understand.
- Answer the questions and concerns you actually have about tea and wellness.
- Create content that builds your confidence to make decisions, without using fear or making promises we can't keep.
04. Commitment to Regular Updates
Science and wellness change constantly. We stay current by:
- Reviewing our published articles regularly to make sure they reflect the newest research and findings.
- Dating our articles and noting when we've made major updates.
Our Content Review Process
We treat every article the way you’d treat something you’re about to drink or bring into your home: it has to earn your trust. That takes more than clean grammar. It takes structure, discipline, and several pairs of eyes.
01. Research & Drafting
Every piece starts with a writer who understands the subject matter, not someone learning it on the fly.
They:
- Rely on primary or high‑quality sources such as peer‑reviewed studies, regulatory filings, and technical documentation.
- Cross‑check important claims against multiple independent sources.
- Clearly distinguish between:
- Statements supported by data
- Traditional use or anecdotal reports
- Areas where evidence is limited or uncertain
Each draft includes a source list, so every key claim is traceable.
02. Fact-Checking & Editorial Review
This is where the draft stops being just a good idea and has to prove itself.
Our editorial team goes through the article line by line, slowly if needed.
They:
- Check major claims against the original source, not a blog post or summary about it.
- Confirm that every number, range, and unit is both accurate and used consistently.
- Call out any spot where:
- Benefits sound bigger than the data supports
- Risks, trade‑offs, or limits are softened or pushed to the side
- The phrasing could mislead, confuse, or overwhelm a non‑expert reader
At the same time, they tighten the writing:
- Clarity: Straightforward language, clean structure, no unnecessary jargon.
- Tone: Calm, neutral, and honest about what we know and what we don’t.
- Flow: Ideas connect in a way that feels natural, so you are never forced to “fill in the blanks” on your own.
If a claim cannot be tied to solid evidence, it gets revised until it can be, or it is removed.
03. Expert Review
Product development experts check that:
- Ingredients, materials, and specifications match what we actually make and use.
- We are not hinting at performance, safety, or health effects that the product was not built or tested to deliver.
Scientific reviewers (including members of our Scientific Advisory Board) look at the article with a research-focused lens. They ask:
- Do the claims line up with the data that is actually cited?
- Are study types clearly labeled, animal, in‑vitro, human, observational, clinical trial, so readers understand the context?
- Is the strength of the evidence described honestly: strong, early-stage, mixed, or unknown?
Their job is not to nod along. Their job is to push back. If anything feels stretched, fuzzy, or one‑sided, the draft is sent back for another round of work.
04. Revision Rounds
This stage is where the article is shaped into what you finally see.
Most pieces go through multiple revisions. During these rounds we:
- Rewrite sections that need more nuance, clearer framing, or better context.
- Add new references or replace weaker ones when the support is thin or outdated.
- Adjust the wording so it reflects what the data actually shows, not what would be convenient to say.
- Spell out who the information really applies to, for example, generally healthy adults, certain age groups, people with specific conditions, or only under certain use patterns.
An article does not move forward just because the deadline is near. It only moves when the writer, editors, and subject-matter experts all agree that it is accurate, fair, and responsible.
05. Final Approval & Publication
A senior editor conducts a final, full review.
They check for:
- Factual accuracy and logical consistency throughout
- A balanced description of benefits, risks, and unknowns
- Correct citations, labels, and any needed disclaimers
If the senior editor would not be comfortable being associated with the piece, it is not published.
06. Ongoing Updates
We treat articles as living documents.
We:
- Track new research and regulatory changes that may affect our content.
- Update articles when better evidence appears or when our own formulations, standards, or positions change.
- Record substantive edits so we have a clear history of how and why the content evolved.
If we identify an error, we correct it and adjust our internal checks to reduce the chance of it repeating.
We are not trying just to sound trustworthy. We are showing, step by step, how we build content so you can see why it deserves your trust.
Our Corrections Policy
Sometimes, even with a careful process, we get something wrong. When that happens, we treat it as a serious editorial failure, not a small typo to sweep away.
Corrections are part of how we earn and keep trust, so we document them, we explain them, and we learn from them.
When You Spot a Possible Error
If you see a factual mistake or something that feels off, you can email us at editorial@deltanortea.com.
Helpful details include:
- The URL of the article
- The exact sentence or section you’re concerned about
- What you believe is incorrect
- Any sources or documents you think we should review
You do not need to be an expert. If something looks wrong, or even just slightly misleading, we want to know.
Step 1: Acknowledgment
Once your message reaches us:
- We send confirmation that we’ve received your report.
- In most cases, this happens within one business day.
- If the issue appears serious (for example, a safety, health, or regulatory concern), we flag it as a priority.
At this stage, we do not guess or defend the original text. We simply log the concern and open a review.
Step 2: Internal Review & Investigation
Next, our editorial team takes a structured look at the claim.
They:
- Re‑read the article section in question in full context.
- Check the original sources behind that specific statement (studies, regulatory documents, technical sheets, or product specs).
- Compare the wording to what the evidence actually supports.
Depending on the issue, we may pull in:
- Subject‑matter experts (for example: scientists, medical professionals, product formulators).
- Legal or regulatory advisors when the claim touches compliance, labeling, or safety.
We sort the issue into one of several buckets:
- Clear factual error (e.g., wrong number, wrong unit, misread study).
- Misleading framing (e.g., claim is technically correct but overstates certainty or benefit).
- Missing context (e.g., a key limitation, population, or condition was not clearly stated).
- No error found (e.g., the statement is supported, but we may still clarify it for readability).
If the issue involves potential harm or serious misunderstanding, we may temporarily add a note or adjust the wording quickly while the deeper review continues.
Step 3: Correcting the Content
If we confirm that something is inaccurate or materially misleading, we update the article as soon as possible.
Depending on what we find, we may:
- Correct the wording to align directly with the evidence.
- Remove or replace a claim that cannot be supported.
- Add clarifying context, such as:
- The population studied (for example, healthy adults vs. people with a condition).
- The type and size of the study.
- Known limitations, uncertainties, or conflicting data.
We do not just “quietly fix” serious errors. For substantive changes, we:
- Add a correction or update note at the bottom of the article.
- Include:
- What was changed
- Why it was changed (error, clarification, new evidence, etc.)
- The date of the update
If the article contained a claim that could affect health, safety, or product use, we review related content to make sure the same mistake doesn’t appear elsewhere.
Step 4: Closing the Loop With You
When your report leads to a review, we do our best to respond directly.
We will:
- Tell you whether we confirmed an error, a partial issue, or no factual problem.
- Explain, in clear language:
- What we changed (if anything)
- How we updated the article
- How we’ll prevent similar issues in the future, when relevant
Even if we ultimately stand by the original statement, we may still adjust the wording for clarity if your question shows that the phrasing was confusing.
Step 5: Learning From Mistakes
Every confirmed correction feeds back into our process.
We:
- Log the error in an internal corrections register (what went wrong, where, and why).
- Identify whether it was:
- A research problem (source misread, weak evidence)
- An editorial issue (poor phrasing, missing nuance)
- A process gap (a step that should have caught it but did not)
- Update our guidelines and checklists so similar errors are less likely to pass review again.
For recurring patterns, we may:
- Add extra expert review on specific topics.
- Tighten standards for certain types of claims (for example, health effects, dosage, or performance promises).
- Provide targeted training for writers and editors.
We do not treat corrections as an inconvenience. They are part of the work. If you point out a problem, you’re helping us keep the standard where it should be, and we take that seriously.
Thank you for choosing Delta North Tea for quality products and reliable information.
Last Updated: 08-JAN-2026