ASA publishes the rules that shape its decisions and explains the limits of its statuses, documents, and programs. Transparency does not require disclosure of personal data, privileged advice, trade secrets, or confidential deliberations; it requires enough information to understand authority, process, material interests, and current status.
Code of Responsible Practice
The Code establishes the conduct expected of member organizations and their representatives in connection with ASA. It addresses legal compliance, product and quality responsibilities, claims, accurate records, conflicts, scientific integrity, respectful participation, use of ASA identity, cooperation, and concern review.
Membership review and accountability
Applicants are reviewed against published eligibility and responsibility criteria. Current members reaffirm the Code, maintain accurate records, and remain subject to status review under fair-process protections.
Conflicts of interest
Directors, officers, staff, contractors, committee participants, advisors, authors, reviewers, speakers, and award reviewers disclose interests relevant to their roles. ASA manages an interest through disclosure, balanced participation, recusal, restricted access, independent review, role change, or another documented measure.
Relevant experience is often valuable. The objective is to prevent an undisclosed or unmanaged interest from determining a decision.
Sponsorship and funding
Material support is documented and disclosed where it affects how a reasonable reader would interpret the work. Sponsors and funders do not control ASA policy, scientific conclusions, membership decisions, award decisions, corrections, or access to restricted records.
Advertising and sponsor recognition are visually and editorially distinct from ASA content. Payment does not create endorsement.
Standards and guidance
ASA labels each document by type. A Code or requirement can be binding within its stated authority. A voluntary guideline recommends practice. A position states ASA’s adopted view. An educational resource explains. A standard requires the enhanced development and review process.
Scientific integrity
Scientific work begins with a defined question and method proportionate to the conclusion. Sources, relevance, limitations, reviewer roles, funding, and conflicts are recorded. Public summaries distinguish evidence, inference, expert judgment, and policy choice.
Corrections and record status
ASA distinguishes a typographical edit, correction, clarification, update, supersession, withdrawal, and removal. Material corrections identify what changed, when, why, and whether the conclusion or status changed. Prior versions remain traceable when record integrity requires it.
Competition safeguards
ASA activities must not be used to coordinate prices, output, markets, customers, suppliers, hiring, bids, or other competitively sensitive decisions. Meetings use agendas, reminders, minutes, and escalation procedures appropriate to their risk.
Program recognition
NutraFormula recognition is based on published formulation criteria and a conflict-controlled review. It is free to apply for and does not depend on membership, sponsorship, advertising, or paid promotion. Recognition has a defined scope, version, term, registry record, and status.
Raising a concern
Anyone may identify a possible error, misuse, conflict, membership issue, program concern, or other matter within ASA’s scope. Reports should include the relevant record and support where available. ASA protects information according to need, law, and its ability to conduct a fair review.
Read the core responsibility standard
Read the Code of Responsible Practice
If you need to identify a possible violation or material error, report a concern.