Sources and Review Policy

How food records are built

Every one of the 105 records in our database carries a verdict for each of three species groups, a stated reason, preparation notes, caution tags, an evidence level and its sources.

Records are written from specialist and veterinary sources rather than compiled from other websites’ food lists. The principal references are:

• The Tortoise Trust, for husbandry and species-specific feeding practice
• The British Chelonia Group, for UK care standards
• The Tortoise Table plant database, for plant safety
• Published veterinary and field research, for nutritional and ecological claims
• Manufacturer specifications, for product composition only

Evidence levels

Each record carries an evidence rating, visible on the record itself.

Where evidence is genuinely insufficient, a record is marked insufficient evidence rather than given a guessed verdict. We would rather tell you we do not know.

The six verdicts

Suitable regularly, feed in moderation, feed sparingly, do not feed, species dependent, and insufficient evidence.

Six rather than two, because safety and frequency are different questions. A plant can be entirely non-toxic and still be a poor everyday food, and collapsing that distinction is how tortoises end up on diets of iceberg lettuce.

Plant identification standards

• Botanical names are recorded wherever a common name could point at more than one plant.
• Ambiguous names are split into separate records. Plantain the weed (Plantago) and plantain the fruit are different foods with different verdicts.
• Common-name traps are flagged, such as Calendula against Tagetes marigolds, or hellebore sold as Christmas rose.
• Regional synonyms are handled in search, so courgette finds zucchini and rocket finds arugula.
• We do not identify plants from photographs, and the checker will not guess a verdict for an unrecognised name.

Where sources conflict

We state the disagreement, give both positions and explain ours.

Our general rule is to follow specialist and veterinary sources over commercial ones, and the more cautious position where an animal’s health is at stake and the evidence is genuinely divided. Current examples include alfalfa hay, commercial pellets, daisies, and fruit proportions for forest species.

Veterinary and expert review

Pages touching on health, appetite loss, hibernation and supplementation should carry review by a qualified exotics or reptile veterinarian, or a demonstrably experienced chelonian specialist.

Where a page has been reviewed, the reviewer is named on that page along with their qualifications. Where it has not, no reviewer is claimed. We do not describe general research as veterinary review, and we do not imply credentials that nobody involved holds.

Review cadence

Records and pages are reviewed annually, and sooner when specialist guidance changes, when a manufacturer alters a composition, or when a reader raises a substantive challenge.

Searches that return no result are logged without personal data, which tells us which foods to research next.

Challenging a rating

If you think a verdict is wrong, tell us, and bring the source. We change ratings on evidence.

The ratings most likely to attract challenge are the ones where we differ from common advice: dandelion at moderation rather than regular, and daisies on the avoid list. Both are explained on their own pages, and both would change if the evidence changed.

Contact details are on our contact page. Wider standards are in our editorial policy, and the limits of this information are set out in our veterinary disclaimer.

Last reviewed: September 2026.