Editorial Policy

Love Brands sells laundry detergent. That is a conflict of interest, and this page exists because pretending otherwise would be the first thing to distrust. Everything published on lovepaks.com is written by a company that wants you to buy Love Paks. What follows is the process we hold ourselves to so that the information is still worth reading.

Who writes and who checks

Content on this site is produced by the Love Brands editorial team. Where an article carries a named author, that person is real and the name is theirs. Where it does not, the publisher is the author — which is Love Brands — and we say so rather than attaching a byline to someone who did not write it.

We do not invent experts. We have not commissioned a dermatologist, a chemist or a laundry scientist to review this content, and you will not find a made-up credential anywhere on this site. If that changes, the reviewer will be named, their qualification stated, and the date of their review recorded on the page.

How a page is checked before it goes up

Every substantive page goes through four steps, in this order:

1. Drafted against a written brief that lists the questions the page has to answer and the sources it should draw on.
2. Claim-checked against a fixed list of verified facts about Love Paks. The check is adversarial by design: the reviewer's job is to find reasons to reject the page, not to approve it. Anything asserted about the product that is not on the verified list is flagged, including things printed elsewhere on this website.
3. Corrected. Every confirmed violation is fixed. A reviewer may argue that a flag is wrong, but the reason has to be written down.
4. Re-checked. The corrected page is read again by someone who did not write it, looking specifically for whether anything survived the fix.

This is not a formality. When we ran it across the first thirty pages of this site, not one page passed the first check. The failures were the ordinary kind — a statistic that turned out to be slightly off from the paper it was attributed to, a product attribute that had drifted a word too far, a comparison that needed a stated basis. Pages that state a lot of facts get a lot of facts wrong on the first pass. That is the argument for the check, not against it.

What counts as a source

For anything factual we go to the primary source: government agencies, universities, peer-reviewed literature, standards organisations, and manufacturers writing about their own equipment. Where we cite a number, someone has opened that source and matched the number to it.

We do not cite marketing blogs, content farms, or articles that are themselves summarising something else. A chain of blogs citing blogs is not evidence, and it is the most common way a wrong number becomes an accepted one.

When a source says something inconvenient for us, it still goes in.

What we will not publish

• Any health, medical or physiological claim. Love Paks are a laundry detergent. We do not claim they affect your body, your mood, your sleep, your energy or your wellbeing, and we will not describe the rose quartz in them as doing any of those things.
• Any patent claim. LOVE PAKS is a registered US trademark, registration 8371488. A trademark is not a patent, and we will not let one stand in for the other.
• Certifications we do not hold. We are not going to write EPA Safer Choice, USDA BioPreferred, cruelty free, vegan, hypoallergenic, dermatologically tested, organic, non-toxic, plastic free or septic safe unless we hold the thing and can show you the listing.
• Invented statistics, studies, quotations, reviews or experts.
• Unqualified environmental claims. Words like biodegradable and eco-friendly carry specific meanings under the FTC's Green Guides. We would rather explain what those meanings are than borrow the words.
• Comparisons without a stated basis. "Uses less than" is not a claim until you say less than what, measured how.

Rose quartz, and keeping four things apart

Rose quartz is part of why this company exists, and writing about it honestly means keeping four registers separate and labelling which one we are in:

• Historical fact — what is documented about the mineral.
• Cultural belief — what people have believed about it. This is a statement about people, not about the product.
• Love Brands philosophy — why we chose it. This is us talking about our own design intent.
• Scientifically demonstrated — for the rose quartz in Love Paks, nothing.

We think saying that plainly is more interesting than the alternative, and we would rather you trust the fourth line than be sold the third one dressed as the fourth.

Prices and product facts

Guides on this site avoid printing current prices, because a page written once and read for years will be wrong about a price long before it is wrong about anything else. Where cost matters, we explain the arithmetic — pack price divided by paks, times paks per load — and point at the product page, which is always current. Where a tool needs a price, it reads the live figure from the store rather than a number typed into an article.

Corrections

If something here is wrong, tell us: contact us and say which page and which sentence. We will check it against the source, fix it if it is wrong, and we would rather hear it from you than leave it up.

When we make a substantive correction, we change the page and update its review date. We do not quietly rewrite a claim and leave the old date sitting on top of it, and we do not refresh a date to look current when nothing was actually reviewed.

What this policy does not yet cover

Naming the gaps is part of the point:

• There is no independent expert review programme in place. If we add one, the reviewers will be named.
• We have not published a full ingredient list for either formula. That is a real gap and we know it — see what is in Love Paks, which says so.
• Older pages on this site predate this policy. We are working through them; some have already been corrected, and where we find a claim we cannot support, it comes down rather than getting softened.

For how we handle evidence in more detail, see our content methodology.

Frequently asked questions

Who writes the content on this site?

The Love Brands editorial team. Where an article carries a named author, that person is real. Where it does not, Love Brands is the author and we say so rather than inventing a byline.

Is this content reviewed by a doctor or a chemist?

No. We have not commissioned independent expert review, and we do not display credentials we have not earned. If we add expert review, the reviewer will be named with their qualification and the date of their review.

Why does a detergent company write about FTC rules?

Because the terms on detergent labels are mostly undefined, and the ones that are defined are defined by regulators rather than by marketers. Explaining what the rules actually require is the most useful thing we can add, and it also constrains what we ourselves are allowed to say.

How do I report an error?

Contact us with the page and the sentence. We check it against the source and correct it if it is wrong. We would rather hear it than leave it up.

Do you edit old articles?

Yes. Some pages on this site predate this policy and are being worked through. Where we find a claim we cannot support, it is removed rather than reworded to sound softer.