Skip to content

Editorial Principles

This page explains how an article gets onto this site: who writes it, what counts as evidence, what is checked before publication, how corrections work, and how the site is paid for.

It exists so that a reader — or a reviewer — can judge the content on method rather than on trust.

1. What this site covers, and what it does not

DoTheyGoBad explains why food spoils and how shelf life is determined, from an industrial food-science perspective: formulation, water activity, pH, microbiology, lipid oxidation, packaging, thermal processing and storage.

We deliberately do not publish:

  • home storage tips and "how long is it good for" guesswork;
  • medical, dietary or nutritional advice;
  • regulatory determinations for a specific product or market;
  • verdicts on whether a particular item of food is safe.

Those boundaries are restated in the Disclaimer. Content here is explanatory and non-prescriptive.

2. Who writes it

The site is written by Martin Wang, a food industry professional with 20+ years in industrial food processing and product development. His background is on the author page.

One author, named, with a contact address, is a deliberate choice: it means every claim has someone accountable for it.

3. What counts as evidence

Sources are used in this order of authority:

  1. Primary scientific literature — peer-reviewed papers, review articles, and reference texts on food microbiology, food chemistry and process engineering. Linked with a DOI where one exists.
  2. Official standards and authority guidance — Codex Alimentarius, ISO methods, and the published guidance of bodies such as the FDA, EFSA and national food safety agencies.
  3. Established industry practice — process and formulation norms that are documented in technical literature or widely standardised across manufacturing.
  4. Professional experience — used to explain why a mechanism matters in practice, and always flagged as judgement rather than as measured fact.

Where sources disagree, the article says so rather than picking the more convenient number.

4. What is never done

  • No invented data. No fabricated measurements, laboratory results, client cases, certifications or test reports. If a figure has not been published or measured, it does not appear as a number.
  • No borrowed results presented as ours. When a value comes from someone else's study, the article attributes it and says whose product and conditions it describes.
  • No invented citations. Every reference is checked to exist and to say what the article claims it says. A citation that cannot be verified is removed, not softened.
  • No false precision. A mechanism explained qualitatively is not dressed up with a number that implies measurement.
  • No fear-based framing. Spoilage is described as a process, not a threat.

5. How articles are produced

Each article follows the same sequence:

  1. Scope — define the question and the product categories it applies to.
  2. Research — gather primary sources and standards; note where evidence is thin.
  3. Draft — write the mechanism first, then the practical consequences, then the limits.
  4. Claim check — every quantitative claim and every reference is traced back to its source; claims that cannot be traced are cut or explicitly marked as judgement.
  5. Scope check — confirm the article does not cross into safety verdicts or regulatory determinations.
  6. Publish — with a date, an author, and links to sources.

6. Use of AI tools

AI tools are used, and it is better to say how than to leave it ambiguous.

Used for:

  • locating published research and background material;
  • summarising long papers so they can be assessed faster;
  • drafting and editing prose;
  • checking internal consistency — units, repeated claims, broken links.

Not used for:

  • deciding what the site publishes;
  • generating measurements, study results or citations;
  • publishing without review — no page goes live unreviewed;
  • producing a page whose claims the author cannot defend in conversation.

Every published page reflects the author's judgement. Where the evidence does not support a firm conclusion, the article says so rather than filling the gap with plausible-sounding prose.

7. Review and updating

Food science and regulation move. Articles are revisited when:

  • a standard or regulation they reference is revised;
  • newer literature changes the picture;
  • a reader reports an error or an unclear passage;
  • the page has gone a long time without review and the field has moved.

Substantive revisions are reflected in the "last updated" information on the page. Minor copy-editing is not.

8. Corrections

If something here is wrong, we want to fix it.

Email [email protected] with the page URL, the claim, and — if you have one — the source that contradicts it. We aim to respond within 7 days and to correct or annotate the page once the point is confirmed.

Substantive corrections are noted on the page rather than made silently, so a reader who cited the earlier version can see what changed.

9. Independence and funding

The site is free to read and funded by advertising served through Google AdSense.

  • Advertisers have no input into what is published. No advertiser sees an article before publication, and none can request a change.
  • Advertising is selected automatically and placed by Google; an ad appearing beside an article is not an endorsement.
  • If sponsored content or affiliate links are ever introduced, they will be labelled on the page itself, at the point where the reader encounters them.
  • There are no paid product rankings, no paid reviews and no "featured" placements sold to suppliers.

10. Contact

Editorial questions, corrections, or a request to reuse content: [email protected]

See also: About · Author · Disclaimer · Terms of Use