Editorial methodology

Updated 2026-07-12 · Reviewed by: Redazione ce85204 — revisione editoriale assistita da AI (2026-07-12)

ce85204.com content is built from EUR-Lex primary sources: a draft produced with the help of AI, automated validation of citations and a blocklist during the build, and a final editorial review. The use of AI is disclosed openly; every legal statement cites an article, annex or chapter.

This page explains how we produce and verify our content. We make it public because a site dealing with food law must be open to scrutiny: readers are entitled to know where the information comes from, how it is checked, and what role artificial intelligence plays in the process.

The editorial workflow

Every page goes through three stages.

1. Draft from primary sources. We always start from the official text. For Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 we automatically import the consolidated version from EUR-Lex and do not rewrite it: the legislative text reproduced on our pages sits between technical markers and is never edited by hand. On the basis of that text and the official guidance — in particular Commission Notices 2016/C 278/01 and 2022/C 355/01 — we produce a first draft of the commentary with the help of an artificial-intelligence model, instructed to cite a source for every statement.

2. Automated validation during the build. Before a page can be published, a set of automated checks runs in our continuous integration (CI). These gates block publication if: a citation points to a non-existent article or annex; a misleading term from our blocklist appears; an internal link is dead; or a page is marked as published without review. Text that fails the checks never goes online.

3. Editorial review assisted by AI. The validated draft is passed to an editorial review, itself assisted by AI tools but under human editorial responsibility: we verify the accuracy of the references, the consistency between what the rule says and what we assert, and the absence of marketing language. Only after this stage does a page lose its draft status.

Citation rules

These are the backbone of the site.

• Every legal statement is anchored to its source. In our commentary we never state a rule without pointing to the article, annex or chapter that grounds it, through a precise reference to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 or the other Hygiene Package instruments.
• We separate three levels. What the rule says (the text), what it means (the interpretation, with the source that supports it, usually a Commission notice or the Codex Alimentarius), and what is the editorial team's opinion (marked as such, "in our view"). We never blur them.
• No repealed regulations passed off as being in force. Regulation (EU) 2017/625 repealed the earlier official-controls regulations: citing them as if still in force is a recurring error, and our checks help to avoid it.
• Every source is dated. At the foot of each page we list the sources with their URL and last-access date; the general inventory is on the sources page.

Managing legislative updates

Food law changes. The consolidated text we publish shows its consolidation date; when EUR-Lex publishes a newer version, we regenerate the text from the source rather than editing it by hand. The relevant amendments — for example those introduced in 2021 on allergens, food redistribution and food safety culture — are tracked on the regulation amendments pages. National information, which ages faster than EU material, carries a verification date: see the Italy page.

Transparency about the use of AI

We say it openly: part of the commentary text is generated with the help of artificial-intelligence models, starting from the primary sources, and then subjected to automated validation and editorial review. We consider disclosing this a strength, not a weakness: AI speeds up drafting and the checking of citations, but responsibility for the content remains editorial, and the ultimate source is always the official text published on EUR-Lex. AI does not decide what the rule prescribes: the source does, and we cite it.

Reporting an error

No process is infallible. If you spot an inaccuracy, a wrong reference or a source that needs updating, write to us: the channel is given on the contact page. Well-founded reports are acted upon, and the corrected page shows a new update date.