Learn about what makes good quality products  

Raw materials are sent to a lab, a test report is being issued and then they use
        
these materials in a product, adding flow agents, fillers, anti-clumping agents etc etc during the production process. These easily add up to 20-25% of the final product (otherwise they wouldn’t have the desired effect). On their label and their website they proudly claim e.g. “20% beta-glucan, third party tested!” but the report is not about the final product. Instead of 20% the final product might contain only 15% or 10% beta-glucan.

Easy to spot. If there are no lab credentials (name, address, certification) present it is not an actual lab test report.

If the logo of the seller is on the report it is usually not an actual lab test report either. In-house testing is per definition unreliable, testing should be done by certified and trained professionals.

An actual test report should show the name of the lab, their contact details, the certification (ISO 17025 is best) and the client's information (the seller’s name/address – never a logo). Plus, of course, what was tested, how it was tested and the results. If this is missing it is better to look elsewhere, you’re being fooled.

Before 2010 nobody bothered about test reports or ‘Certificates of Analysis’ (CoA).

In 2010 Oriveda started to make people realise the Certificate of Analysis (CoA) is a great quality marker. It is a test report issued by a certified laboratory and ideally it reveals both the potency (the amount of marker compounds such as beta-glucans etc.) and the contamination (heavy metals, allergens etc.) of the tested product.

For consumers this makes it easy to judge the quality, safety and value for money. For that reason it is not popular with sellers. They prefer to keep things vague. It may be hard to believe, but 99% of sellers do not spend any money on quality control. Lab test reports are the main part of quality control.

Most sellers will not share test reports. Because they did not test their products or because it would reveal poor quality. The ones that claim to have test reports most of the time just take their producer’s technical data sheet and use that as a Certificate of Analysis. Copy/paste the numbers into a spreadsheet or use it ‘as/is’, after removing their producer’s details/logo of course.The producer’s data sheet however is also just a quality claim and the seller is supposed to validate those numbers to ensure they’re correct and the product is what the producer claims it is in terms of potency and safety.

But if the numbers look good and the price is low they don’t want to spoil the party and choose to skip additional testing, saving some money in the process. They know there’s a big chance nobody will ever find out. And if someone finds out, they will play the “plausible deniability” game: “So sorry, we thought we could trust our supplier! We’ll talk to them, this is unacceptable! Not our mistake!

Research showed a hot water extracted product had 4 – 10 times better immunological effects when compared against a non-extracted dried powder.

But sellers selling non-extracted products often try to suggest their approach is preferable because the mushroom product is more or less in its natural state. They use statements such as ‘a whole food with its natural ratio of components is always a better choice than concentrations of individual elements, like in extracts‘. Sounds logical, right?

Mushroom extraction however is in the core not about concentrating specific compounds, but about liberating those compounds by breaking down the indigestible chitin cell walls of the mushroom,m aking them bioavailable.

Marker compounds such as beta-glucan and triterpenes are all locked in a chitinous cell structure, like a LEGO brick is locked in a LEGO wall. This chitin is indigestible for most people.

By destroying the molecular structure of the chitin (using hot water is the most common) the desired marker compounds are made ‘bioavailable’ and significantly more easy to digest for humans. As said, 4 – 10 times more effective. If the product is not filtered after this phase it is called a “1:1” extract and will contain all compounds in their natural ratio. In other words, it is full spectrum.

The reason sellers make these claims is simple. Extraction is expensive. There are no extraction facilities worthy of the name outside of SE-Asia and China.

Sellers want to increase their profits by saving on expenses. A kg of dry mushroom powder costs as little as 8 - 10 dollars. After repacking it the seller will sell the powder for 10 – 50 times that price. Depending on the desired product quality an extract costs 30 – 500 dollars per kg. The profit margin will be much lower.

‘Organic’ is not a guarantee for quality or safety. For instance, ‘certified organic’ is not a guarantee no heavy metals are present. Mushrooms accumulate heavy metals and heavy metals are found in all soils.
        
Levels of heavy metals should be covered in a lab test report. The ‘USDA Certified Organic organization’ (and their international counterparts) does not test anything, it is all about paperwork. If the farm can prove they’re not using certain pesticides they get their certificate and that’s it. Nothing is being tested.
        
There might be one onsite inspection every year, but they don't have any lab equipment nor do any actual testing. They don’t have and don’t use labs. They look at documentation and verify compliance.
       

Cultivating and in particular processing mushrooms on a large scale is not cheap.
        
So if the price of the mushroom supplement is very low that means somewhere corners were cut. Usually it means the product is not based on pure mushroom/pure mycelium but on biomass (this is the combination of the substrate and the mycelium that grows on it) and it is not extracted. These products never specify beta-glucans but you might see ‘myceliated rice’ or ‘rice powder’ on the back label.
        
A new development is spiking a poor quality mushroom product with cheap yeast beta-glucan. You’ll see e.g. Reishi or Chaga with > 60% beta-glucan specified, complete with a supporting lab test paper. Chaga normally has ± 10 % beta-glucan, and the more pricey products can have ± 20% at best. Higher percentages are technically possible, but that means extensive processing and a very expensive product.
        
There is no such thing as cheap high quality, unfortunately. You cannot drive a Ferrari for the price of a Kia. Do not buy, no matter how cheap, as such products are a waste of money.
     

This trick is as old as trade itself. But again, thanks to social media it is currently more dominant than ever before. You can literally buy 1000s of reviews for a few dollars, complete with video testimonials if you want. It is a business model. There are dedicated websites where pro reviewers and review farms offer their services.
        
Keep in mind most buyers do not leave reviews unless they have a complaint or get some reward. So, if you really want to read reviews, do focus on the bad ones only and use common sense. A company that has been in business for less than a few years can never ever have 1000s of reviews. You can also use websites like Fakespot, but they are not 100% reliable anymore.

 Some sellers will take it a step further. They claim on the label – example – “one serving = 5000mg mushroom (based on a 10:1 ratio)”, when in fact you get 1 capsule with 500mg. No specifications of marker compounds. This is illegal because it is a flat-out lie but many small companies appear to get away with it.

Concentrated has the subtext of being ‘more potent’. Insoluble matter was filtered
out, leaving only the solubles. Usually these are the beta-glucans. However, some mushrooms, (i.p. Lion’s Mane) are rich in insoluble beta-glucan. In that case a concentrated (= filtered) extract will be weaker than a 1:1 extract. Again, a specification of beta-glucan on the label will reveal this and show the actual potency. Do not buy products without specifications, you’re probably wasting your money.

Many people overlook the content of the capsules and focus on the number of
capsules instead. Companies know and capitalise on this. 100 capsules @ 250 mg each is 30% less than 100 capsules @ 350 mg each. Make sure you check the amount in the capsules and do the math, and don’t forget to look at the specifications and the dosage recommendation as well.
     

Most sellers have no good answer when you ask them where they got their dosage recommendation from. They write e.g. “1 capsule daily” to make their product look like good value for money. Assuming the supplement has good specifications the recommended dosage for an adult is around 1 gram of extract, daily. This is based on research – best immunological results were achieved when taking ± 7 – 8 mg beta-glucan per kg of body weight. [link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3751581/]
     

 This suggests something ‘scientific’ was done to the product, improving it.
        
Micronised however does not mean ‘extracted’ and the bioavailability will not have improved. Usually it is the same powder as found in other products; “80 mesh” - which is 178,000 nanometer. A nano-mill produces particles of less than 1000 nanometer, roughly the size of a single cell. But nano-mills are extremely expensive lab equipment and are not used in production processes. Micronised really is a meaningless marketing phrase unless the supplement also has claim-supporting specifications on the label, like a percentage of beta-glucan.

Extract ratio’s are extremely deceiving. They suggest that the supplement is more concentrated and therefore more potent. But extract ratio does not translate linearly to active compound concentration. What it really means is that some stuff was filtered out. Unfortunately, there’s no way to verify an extract ratio claim unless there’s also a specification of the main marker compound(s).

So just ignore that extract ratio claim (usually it is made up nonsense anyway) but focus on the actual marker compound(s). The most important marker compound is beta-glucan, which is present in all mushrooms.

Apart from that, some mushrooms, (i.p. Lion’s Mane) are rich in insoluble marker compounds. In that case a concentrated (= filtered) extract will be weaker than a 1:1 extract. Again, a specification of beta-glucan on the label will reveal this and show the actual potency.

The term ‘full-spectrum’ is also used to describe biomass products that are e.g. a combination of mycelia, substrate (rice, grains, oats), and primordia / fruiting bodies.

A smart play with words, but in essence misleading. Assuming it is true (but how to verify such a claim?), this does not necessarily mean it is better or preferable. Most functional mushrooms were found to have the biggest concentration of marker compounds in either the fruiting body or the mycelia, so for most products combining these has no added benefit anyway, although it might indeed sound very ‘complete’ to an ignorant layman.

That said, unless there are label specifications that guarantee the desired marker compounds are actually present in a noteworthy amount this approach is essentially meaningless. Apart from that, we’ve never seen a biomass ‘full-spectrum’ product that was also extracted. In fact, like all biomass products these products were found to be very high in starch (60-70% useless alpha-glucans is an average) and very low on useful compounds.

Sublingual or topical administration of beta-glucans is not effective because of the large size of mushroom beta-glucans. These are huge molecules that cannot pass through the membranes under the tongue or the skin barrier.

Also, beta-glucans and most other marker compounds found in properly extracted mushrooms are not affected by stomach acid, and if you take them on an empty stomach (at least 30 minutes before meals) the potential effects will be just perfect.

There is nothing to gain by sublingual administration.
 

These are empty marketing slogans implying that ‘traditional is better’ or ‘Reishi grown on ‘duanwood’ is better’ etc. etc. without providing any proof for that. Often ‘the good old days’ are romanticized but amongst many other odd practices, heroin cough syrup was once prescribed to kids!

Don’t forget, “XXX mushroom” is not automatically beneficial or good or safe to use, traditional or not. Marker compounds such as beta-glucan are responsible for the desired effects, and more is better. The only convincing proof are detailed specifications on the label revealing the amount of those compounds. Objective facts, supported by genuine lab reports.

Somehow these details are usually lacking when the marketing is using phrases like these. Numbers don’t lie, but marketing does.

Sellers have to write the origin of their product on the label. Almost all mushroom extracts are produced in China though, and many people are led to believe Chinese products are not safe to use. To overcome that negative connotation sellers use this phrase, although it is illegal to do so.

This again shows how important transparency is and how poor the mentality of most supplement sellers. If they would share lab test results everybody can see how safe and potent a product is. But they won’t, because it usually reveals poor product quality and kills whatever competitive edge they think they have. If you see this on a label it is better to look elsewhere.

The reason suppliers do this is usually “You can’t trust products from China! Buy local instead!”

Also see the previous marketing trick “Lying about sourcing”. Is this negative feeling warranted?

No, not at all, quite the contrary in fact. Imported Chinese products are tested for safety numerous times:

• When they are being produced
• When they are exported from China
• When they are imported in the destination country (customs is very strict on imports from China
• And then again by the importer and / or their processing partners if they are
  doing things the right way.
          

A reliable seller will share these test reports on their website or on demand. Local producers never do that. Their quality control is poor if any and potency reports are lacking completely. Also because outside of SE-Asia there are no extraction facilities.
        
In other words, local products are mostly not extracted and cannot guarantee beneficial marker compounds such as beta-glucan. When you buy locally you have no clue what you get and whether or not you will benefit from it.

Very deceiving, this one. Sellers will refer to marker compounds you might have
seen and read about in research papers, leading you to believe their product contains them as well. Like, beta-glucan, triterpenes, anti-oxidants... But on the label there’s nothing. And of course, no supporting test reports either.
        
If you come across this it is better to look elsewhere if you do not want to waste your money. Why buy a product without relevant specifications or validated claims ? Even when it’s cheap it’s money wasted.
       

 This mainly reveals the ignorance of the seller. “100% Reishi fruiting body powder”is not a quality marker. “100% hot water extracted Reishi fruiting body with > 20% beta-glucan” is better. Ideally that last claim is supported by a test report – why not share it if you have it?
        
Fruiting bodies or pure mycelium both have their benefits. It’s all about the marker compounds such as beta-glucan: are they present and if yes, how much. They should be specified on the label, together with the extraction method that was used. Their source is irrelevant.
       

An orange is considered healthy because it contains some vitamin C. Mushrooms contain several similar marker compounds; the most common one is beta-glucan. This is called ‘an active ingredient’ or ‘marker compound’. The quality of a supplement is determined by how much of these ‘active ingredients’ are present.
        
Oranges are natural products and unsuitable for testing. Mushroom supplements however have been dried and processed and can then be tested in bulk. Not doing this or downplaying this usually means the seller has something to hide. Like, poor quality. Nobody would hide good test results, and lab testing is not that expensive: a professional beta-glucan test is only USD 120 or so.

The main active ingredient in all functional mushrooms is “beta-glucan”. This is the main quality marker and if it is not specified on the product label, better look for a product that does specify it.

Beta-glucans are polysaccharides, but not all polysaccharides are beta-glucans. Polysaccharides is an umbrella-term, and the term covers a huge variety of compounds, including among others cellulose, starch, chitin, dextrin, maltitol and many many more carbs. This brief list already makes it clear that ‘polysaccharides’ cannot be used as a quality marker, because most polysaccharides are not useful. Dextrin, maltitol are e.g. commonly used as fillers in supplements. Chitin is indigestible, etc.

We have mentioned biomass products already several times. Biomass in this context is the combination of undigested substrate (rice/grains/oats) and the mycelium that grows on it. Dried and powdered biomass is often sold as ‘mushroom supplement’ although there are no mushrooms in it. It is 60-70% starch.

A second level of deception can be mentioning “polysaccharides” as an indication of quality. These polysaccharides are mainly useless starch and chitin, up to 99% according to research. In the US most sellers sell biomass-based supplements because they are ridiculously cheap to produce. It is easy money.

Older research papers often mention ‘polysaccharides’ as the active ingredient in functional mushrooms without further specifications. That is because in the context of the research it is obvious they are referring to specific polysaccharides; beta- glucans. Also, reliable methods to measure beta-glucans were not available back then.