Editorial Process

Our Expert Writers

Our writers adhere to the standards and provide us with content that is well-researched and informative. We always try to train writers to write a wide range of articles, understand the content structure, follow the guideline very well, and create their content that ranks on the top page. We let them have space to create their own content based on a given topic; however, we train them with standard guidelines and provide feedback to enhance the qualification.

Our Editorial Team

Health Canal’s contents are made up of licensed professionals with long experience in healthcare topics. Each piece of information is reviewed and fact-checked to ensure the exact information and accuracy. 

Medical Disclaimer

All of our content on is made and published online merely for informational purposes – not advice. The content can not replace any professional medical advice. There are no warranties applied with any medical information published on this website. In case that users suffer from risks due to the reliance upon the information, the website owner will not accept liability for any damage.

We are not responsible for any claims of external academic citation you see on this website. 

Style & Voice

We strictly follow Associated Press (AP) style to provide consistent guidelines for many types of publications.

We also create a writing style that is friendly and simple yet guiding, keeping the content accurate, current and comprehensive. We use the right word choice that matches healthcare topics, turning complex health definitions into easy-to-follow concepts.

Our Process

Every piece of information will be from deep research and created by our health professional team. 

Primary resources are always a priority, from studies, academic research institutions, government organizations to clinical associations. Health Canal always tries its best to provide high-quality and accurate information to the audience. 

After taking a deep insight into the topic, our expert writers will create the content based on academic research and personal knowledge. We have strict standards applied to the writing process. 

Health Canal’s content is then thoroughly reviewed and fact-checked by a team of medical professionals to guarantee all facts and useful information. Accuracy, comprehensiveness, and information are always priorities.

General Content Assessment Standards

Writers can have different tastes for writing but always meet the same standard. Our editorial team works hard to enhance quality content little by little. 

We build up the quality of the content depending on three key features that can be used in medical assessment, which are:

  1. Be Readable & Comprehensive 
  2. Be Accurate
  3. Be Informative

Readable & Comprehensive Rating

When content is comprehensive, it is easy for the audience to consume and skim through. It helps answer the audience’s query and leaves them feeling well-educated on the topic. We always make sure to take a deep insight into the complexities of a topic to guarantee comprehensiveness. 

All the content is written at an appropriate reading level, using succinct sentence structures and suitable word choices. Our content is accessible and interactive.

We try to assess the quality of Readability & Comprehensiveness, based on these requirements:

  • Focus on the short and precise ideas; 
  • Should answer the target question of the topic;
  • Focus on how the article is present, avoiding a wall of text; 
  • Convey clear meaning to the audience; cover essential and useful information; showing deep research and personal perspectives of writers.

Informative Rating

Audiences can relate to the topics and trust your content. Also, give the content more personality with the writer’s knowledge and experience. 

Writers must show in-depth knowledge, as well as personal perspective on the provided topic.   

  • The content must answer the audience’s question. Usually, we always seek what the audience is wondering about, and then try to solve the problems. We go straight to the topic by giving you the short and precise answer right on the first or second paragraphs, then explain further the idea with follow-up headings.
  • Narrow the content focus – That way you can go in-depth and get useful information, and have a deep insight into various aspects of the topic.
  • Provide experts’ perspectives. This critical consideration shows that writers have a high academic level, but it automatically adds more interest and originality to the writing. 

Accurate Rating

Diligent verification is critical. We take great care to ensure that statements of fact in our content are both correct and in context, including:

  • Provide honest, true information 
  • The content will not misinform the audience 
  • The content will not affect the credibility
  • The content will not cause the audience to make wrong decisions based on the information given in the content

Editorial Evaluation Standards

As choosing the most suitable health product is essential, we decided to build an Editorial Methodology to rank product usage. The Editorial Evaluation Methodology is also published in Health Canal’s editorial policy.

We take great care to ensure that statements of fact in the rating methodology are both accurate and easy to follow. Here is how we assess a product:

  • The Evaluation Methodology is divided into two features: Health Supplement Brand Assessment & CBD Product Brand Assessment
  • Each category can be divided into several features to evaluate. 
  • We set the maximum overall score at 10. The score can be different among products, depending on particular evaluated features. 
  • The score is given by our team of expert health writers and is double-checked by professional medical experts.

Health Supplement Brand Assessment 

Ironically, most people take vitamins because they want to be healthier. The most crucial part when assessing a product is to read all ingredients on the label. Here is the summary of how we evaluate the quality of vitamins/supplements:


We assess the supplement if it is qualified enough to use, free of potentially harmful and unnecessary ingredients, and does not have any or only 1-2 side effects. 

Here is how we classify a high-quality bottle of vitamin/supplement

Outstanding Quality
Safe[1] and natural ingredients[2]; no reports for ingredient allergy; contains all-natural ingredients; no severe side effects recorded; no controversial ingredients[3] or history of recall; Constantly receive good feedback about the effectiveness; no bad reviews
9 Highly RecommendSafe to use; report 1-2 normal side effects; have no history of recall; Often receive good feedback about the effectiveness; only 1-2 bad reviews reported; Contain 1-2 controversial substances in a very small amount
8 Good 1-2 of ingredients are reported causing slight allergy to the users; report 1-2 normal reactions to users; contains 1-2 controversial substances in an allowable amount; have a few bad reviews of effectiveness, or have a history of recall but reformulated[4]
7AcceptableContain 3-4 ingredients are not nature-made; reported causing slight allergy to the users; have a history of recall and under reformulating; have 1-2 slight side effects reported; Have some bad reviews about the effectiveness; contain 3-4 controversial substances
6Moderate Half ingredients are nature-made; reported causing allergy to the users; have a history of recall; have 1-2 side effects reported; contains many controversial substances; many negative feedbacks of effectiveness[5]
5MediocreHave reports of products containing harmful ingredients leading to considerable side effects; much negative feedback comments about effectiveness; recent recall and not reformulated
4UnrecommendCausing serious side effects; terrible reports about side effects; many controversial ingredients; in a recall status
3Low QualityHave reports of adverse side effects; Ingredients are harmful; most substances are unallowable
2AwfulFalse claims of ingredient content; contain many harmful and contaminant ingredients
1AppallingAll Ingredients are harmful; false claim of ingredients and cannot be used


  1. Safe ingredients may be in use in case a consumer is allergic to one of the ingredients. Read the label and do your research carefully when looking for new products. For example, a product may say it is gluten-free, but one of its ingredients may contain gluten in small amounts (less than 20 ppm). An example is maltodextrin. The FDA has claimed that this level will not cause an autoimmune reaction, but sensitive individuals may still react. Or, the product may be processed in a plant that handles other allergy-provoking foods allowing for cross-contamination. So just because a product is safe does not mean it is allergy-free. Allergy-provoking ingredients include soy, tree nuts, dairy products, gluten, eggs, shellfish, peanuts, and wheat. Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, manufacturers are required to list these allergenic foods on the label.
  2. Natural ingredients include plant, animal, mineral, or microbial ingredients present in (or produced by) nature. Manufacturers may use chemical reactions or biological processes to extract natural ingredients from their source. 
  3. Controversial substances are on the FDA’s Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) list. Still, scientific studies support the potential for or actual harm the ingredient may cause to an individual making the public wary of the ingredient and hesitant to use it. Examples include High Fructose Corn Syrup, artificial colors, artificial flavors, maltodextrin, MSG, carrageenan, sodium benzoate, BHA, BHT, and artificial sweeteners. Note that Stevia is not considered an artificial sweetener.
  4. Reformulated ingredients are when the product has been recalled for quality control problems related to one or more of its ingredients, and the ingredients need to be altered to comply with GMP.
  5. Customer Feedback is an important part of overall quality control feedback. You can learn a lot about a product’s quality from its consumers—review customer feedback for reports of adverse events.

Support Research 

Checking the evidence behind each claim is extremely important. Clarifying the support data helps customers to guarantee the belief for the brand when using products.

The criteria below are to check medical support claims, whether all ingredients have backup science research, or whether the product contains any controversial ingredients.

10 Strong Backed-up ResearchMay conduct their research or have third-party lab tests; Strong backed-up research for every claim and ingredient. Have 1-2 randomized controlled trials (RCT)[1] for human health
9 Very Well Researched
Strong backed-up studies/research for each claim; have at least 1 RCTs for human health;
8 Adequate Research Adequate amount of studies from health organizations for claims; conduct at least 1 of 3 scientific studies below: Observational Studies, Qualitative studies[3], or studies on human health related to ingredients in the product.
7Modest ResearchSeveral studies for the claims or ingredients from individuals but not a well-established organization; have at least 1 human health study[4]
6Minimal Support ResearchMinimal medical support research for claims. Weak evidence to support ingredients 
5Limited Support ResearchA limited number of studies support claims.
4Controversial ResearchSupported by very controversial medical research/evidence; or only has animal/lab testing claims, makes medical claims.
3Weak Support ResearchMost claims are supported by weak and invalid evidence; doesn’t even have animal testing claims
2False Support ResearchFalse claims, False evidence to support for claims
1No Evidence at allDoes not have any backup evidence


The choice of study type would mainly rely on the number and content of research questions.

There are 3 main types of research: 

  • Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 
  • Observational Studies (Cohort studies, Case-control studies, Cross-sectional studies)
  • Qualitative studies.
  1. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are used to test the efficacy of medical interventions and may additionally provide information about adverse effects, such as drug reactions. A randomized controlled trial can provide compelling evidence that the study treatment causes an impact on human health. RCTs may achieve sufficient control over these confounding factors to deliver a useful comparison of the treatments studied.
  2. Observational Studies: are used to assess the connection between diseases and exposures. It has been shown to perform similar results to Randomized controlled trials and is used when RCTs are not ethical or possible. Cohort studies and Case-control studies are mainly applied in Observational Studies, evaluating the association between disease and exposure by offering a temporal dimension. Cross-sectional studies measure those elements at one selected time. 
  3. Qualitative studies: are used to evaluate how a person lives with a certain disease. Qualitative studies are conducted by informational surveys with people living with the disease and the ones close to them. It doesn’t count much on numbers & data.
  4. Studies on humans: Although the randomized controlled trial (RCT) remains the gold standard of research, it is not the only way to get your research questions answered. There are also cohort studies, case-control studies, and qualitative studies to be considered as well.
  5. Unpublished studies on humans: These studies are generally conducted by the manufacturer of the product and include polling, surveys, and post-marketing research.

One way to check evidence of ingredients is to look for credible scientific studies. We use study sources from the National Institute of Health; or the National Library of Medicine.


Brand transparency is another factor that clarifies the quality of the product. A transparent brand indicates that it has been tested by the independent party, is clear about agencies it is registered with, and its customer services show performance indicators as it hits the market.

Here are some of the features you can check when looking for a brand’s transparency

10 Most RecognisableWidely used and popular; Have GMP registration; No false claim to treat, cure or prevent any disease; Have certificate of third-party testing[1] by the credible organization or conduct their own clinical trials; money-back guarantee support; clear return & shipping policy; Excellent customer services and informative website; Adequate and easy-to-use website; Clear disclaimer2] are on the label; Has a seal[3] with 1 of 4 credible organization here (NSF International, US Pharmacopeia, Underwriters Laboratory, USP Dietary Verification Program or Consumer Lab)
9 Very Well-knownAdequate & informative website however some people found it not friendly interface to use; Many people use and know about this brand; Follow FDA’s Good Manufacturing Program (GMP); Have Third-party testing by the credible organization; Clear in return & shipping policy; Have disclaimer on the label; Product label present on the website.
8 Good Many people recognize this brand; Have some negative feedback about return & shipping policy; Follow FDA’s Good Manufacturing Program (GMP); Have Third-party testing by credible organizations; Have disclaimer on the label; Website has sufficient information on the product; May have a seal by a credible organization. Label clearly visible.
7CompetentSometimes have negative reports of return & shipping policy and customer services; lacks minimal information on the website (proof of certification; brand verification; shipping & return policy; etc.); Website is not user-friendly; Have disclaimer on the label; Have GMP approval with proven compliance; third-party testing by the credible organization; money-back guarantee support
6Moderate Have no approval seal by the credible organization on the label; Money-guarantee support cannot be applied; limited shipping locations; website is not user-friendly, lacks minimal information on the website; Provides GMP approval
5UntransparentHave no GMP approval; no third-party testing by the credible organization; makes claims to treat, cure, or prevent disease (other than structure-function claim); not registered with any agency; no money-back guarantee; bad reviews of customer support; lacks much crucial information on the website
4UnrecommendHave no money-back guarantee support; no health claims or disclaimer; no third-party testing; mixed customer service reviews; constantly receive warnings for its side effects from experts;
3Poor Awful customer services, No GMP approval seal in the label; no disclaimer on the product; no update information on the website
2AwfulNo customer service found; cannot find the website; no third-party testing; have bad product reviews
1AppallingScam brand, No Information found


  1. Third-party testing includes an audit of the manufacturing process, an evaluation of the product’s quality, and labeling to ensure it is accurate and compliant with regulations.
  2. Example of a Disclaimer Statement: “The statements made within this website have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These statements and the products of this company are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease”. Structure-function claims must be accompanied by the FDA disclaimer statement.
  3. A transparent brand usually has a seal with the NSF International, US Pharmacopeia, Underwriters Laboratory, the USP Dietary Verification Program or Consumer Lab. These verify that the product actually contains the ingredients that the label says it does and that the product doesn’t have any potentially harmful ingredients.
  4. Brands may make structure-function claims but must have a disclaimer present with the claim. No claims to treat, prevent or cure diseases are legal, according to the FDA. A structure-function claim is a physiological fact related to the effect supplements have on the body such as “calcium builds strong bones.”
  5. Proven Compliance: Take note of warning letters sent to supplement companies in violation of Good Manufacturing Practices. These are usually found in google searches or in customer reviews. It should be considered in a final score of brand transparency since they are an indication of compliance with the GMP. The same is true if there is evidence of lab violations of the GMP.


The price may almost always be the most crucial consideration when we make a purchase. Here, we compare the cost that may be associated with the value and the quality of the supplements to see if the product is worth buying or not. 

Score Scale Feature
10Must BuyExtremely good price that you’re ready to buy, extremely effective; worth buying again,
9Worth BuyingWorth buying; Good price compared to effectiveness, see clear effectiveness; have many positive reports of effectiveness
8Reasonable ValueCan consider to buy but have a high price; good to use;
7Possibly Worthy Fair and affordable price, have some reports of effectiveness;
6Perhaps Want to BuyMedium Price; can afford to buy but only have 1-2 reports of efficacy
5Considering to BuyIt may not be worth buying, not many people purchase the product; maybe exorbitant, but no effectiveness reports
4Inappropriate to BuyExorbitant, sometimes receive bad reports of effectiveness
3Not Worth Buying Not worth buying; Very exorbitant, constantly receive bad experience reports
2Don’t Buy Low price, worst product experience; almost nobody purchases the product
1UnavailableScam price, or no information of price, no experience reports

CBD Brand Assessment 

Here we use the same scale with the Health Supplement Assessment. A high-qualified CBD brand is evaluated by 3 features: Quality, Reputation, and Price. We use the same rating scale and features to assess the Price and value of the product.


Detecting a qualified cannabis source is essential, as cannabis plants can absorb harmful chemicals, heavy metals, and pesticides in soil or water, resulting in a contaminated CBD extract. 

The extraction technology is also a vital criterion, which provides the customers with the cleanest, safest, and purest oil. Hence, we evaluate CBD quality by three factors: cannabis source, extraction method, and product purity.

ScoreScale Feature
10Outstanding QualityCome from transparent sources of hemp plants that are free of contaminants; Very safe to use; Using the modern extraction methods (CO2 extraction, or hydrodynamic, for example)[1]; oils retain 100% purity; Have safe THC level (0.3% or below) in compliance with the Farm Bill of 2018; solid evidential support for 100% claims and ingredients; Constantly receive good feedback about the effectiveness;
9Highly RecommendDerived from a good source of hemp plants; safe ingredients; does not contain controversial additives; safe THC level; Have backed-up studies/research for each claim; uses safe modern extraction methods.
8Good QualityCome from a good source of hemp plants that are free of contaminants; using safe modern or traditional extraction method; has evidential support for half of its claims and ingredients.
7Acceptable QualityHemp sources may be USA-made or overseas but still, have a legitimate origin. Using modern or traditional extraction methods[2] but still, retain purity.
6Moderate QualityThe hemp is from overseas but from a legitimate source and is 75% free of contaminants; Minimal medical support research for claims. Weak evidence to support ingredients; Can use traditional extraction methods (alcohol, hydrocarbon) but still retain oil purity; have 1-2 bad reports about side effects.
5Mediocre QualityOversea & unverified hemp source and contain additives that are reported to be harmful to your body; contaminated during the extraction process.
4UnrecommendIllegal & undetected hemp source; Does not have a product’s test results; Contains controversial ingredients; lacks medical support research for claims; recorded some severe side effects.
3Low QualityHemp plants are contaminants; have many reports of adverse effects; awful customer reviews.
2Awful QualityContain many additives that are harmful to your body; have many reports of serious side effects.
1Appalling QualityHemp sources are contaminated and harmful, false claims of evidence and ingredients


  1. Modern Techniques: A hydrodynamic extraction technique uses ultra-sonication to break the cannabis into a nano-emulsion and releases it into an aqueous phase. It is a newer, more modern extraction technology that is right up there with CO2 extraction as far as quality. Ultrasound-assisted with microwave extraction is another modern extraction method.
  2. Traditional extraction methods can include Solvent extraction, Olive Oil Extraction, Steam Distillation. The drawbacks are that the extract may be contaminated or impurified from the cannabis plant, giving the extract an unpleasant taste 


A transparent CBD manufacturer always provides a certificate of Analysis (COA) to back up claims about ingredient contents and potential contaminants. Transparency also means backing up claims and practices the manufacturer has made about customer support policy. We take the hemp source, the COA result, customer support, and the presence of CBD and THC levels into consideration. 

Here is how we detect a brand’s clarity:

Score Scale Features
10Most Recognisable BrandHave third-party testing results[1] by a credible organization (Have COA[2] from manufacturers); usual product variety; clear in return & shipping policy; money-back guarantee; well-known hemp source[3] (usually the USA made); constantly receive good feedback for customer services; well-established & transparent website.
9Very Well-known BrandNo false claim to treat, cure or prevent any disease; transparent & legitimate hemp source; Have legitimate COA certification; have a wide range of products; transparent & up-to-date website.
8Good BrandWell-known hemp source (usually the USA made); doesn’t have a wide product variety.
7Competent BrandLack COA certification; legitimate hemp plant but from overseas; sometimes receive negative feedback about customer services; Has legitimate COA on file.
6Medium recognition & transparencyMay claim third-party testing result but from the unverified organization or conducts their own lab testing; un-detected hemp source; only have 1-2 product variety
5Untransparent BrandNo history of third-party testing; not clear in return & shipping policy; unverified hemp source; received some bad customer service reports.
4Bad BrandMake unallowed claims; have no lab-test result; many negative reports about quality and customer services.
3Poor BrandNo money-back guarantee; make unallowed claims on the label; unknown hemp source.
2Awful BrandMake false health claims; bad customer service; no update on the website.
1Unknown BrandNo website found; no evidence at all


  1. Third-party lab tests may use methods validated by one of three national standard-setting organizations: the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC), the American Herbal Pharmacopoeia (AHP), or the US Pharmacopeia (USP). 
  2. A Certificate of Analysis (COA) is a document provided by a third party (generally a lab) that analyzes some of the various compounds found in your cannabis. This testing can include outlining a strain’s cannabinoid and terpene profile as well as testing for other crucial factors like pesticide residues, microbial growth or heavy metals. Note that the safe level for various heavy metals may vary from state to state. Example: lead.
  3. Hemp source is mostly from USA growth that meets the requirements of the Farm Bill Act 2018. 

Hemp plants outside of the USA could be dangerous due to a lack of regulations and varying safety standards.


To make sure you spend the right amount of money on high-quality and worthy products, we would compare the cost, the value, and the quality provided in the product. 

10Must BuyExtremely good price that you’re ready to buy; effective; worth buying again,
9Worth buyingWorth buying; Good price compared to effectiveness; have many reports of effectiveness
8Reasonable ValueCan consider to buy but have a high price; good to use
7Possibly WorthyFair and affordable price; have some reports of effectiveness;
6Perhaps want to buyMedium Price; can afford to buy but only have 1-2 reports of efficacy
5Considering to buyMay not be worth buying; not many people purchase the product; may be exorbitant but no effectiveness reports
4Inappropriate to buyExorbitant; sometimes receive bad reports of effectiveness
3Not worth to buyNot worth buying; Very exorbitant; constantly receive bad experience reports
2Don’t BuyLow price; worst product experience; almost nobody purchases the product
1UnavailableScam price; or no information of price; no experience reports

We Welcome Your Feedback

Healthcanal always welcomes your precious contribution. Don’t hesitate to contact us about your concerns to improve the content quality.

Harvard Health Publishing

Database from Health Information and Medical Information

Harvard Medical School
Go to source

Trusted Source

Database From Cleveland Clinic Foundation

Go to source

Trusted Source

Database From U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Governmental Authority
Go to source


Database from World Health Organization

Go to source

Neurology Journals

American Academy of Neurology Journals

American Academy of Neurology
Go to source


United Nations Global Compact
Go to source

Trusted Source

Database From National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
Go to source

Trusted Source

Database from U.S. National Library of Medicine

U.S. Federal Government
Go to source

Trusted Source

Database From Department of Health and Human Services

Governmental Authority
Go to source

PubMed Central

Database From National Institute Of Health

U.S National Library of Medicine
Go to source

Help us rate this article

Thank you for your feedback

Keep in touch to see our improvement