How Do You Know the Mushroom in the Bottle Is the One on the Label? DNA, Beta-Glucan and What Each Test Proves

In brief5 points · 1-minute read

• No single test proves everything: DNA proves which species is in the bottle, beta-glucan proves how much, and only a verifiable lab report turns both into fact.
• Across three market surveys, label and content matched in just 5 of 19 American reishi products and 6 of 19 Italian supplements.
• Alpha-glucan not detected is the chemical sign that there is no grain in the bottle; mycelium grown on rice is rich in starch and poor in beta-glucan.
• Our extracts were tested at TÜV Austria on the finished extract: beta-glucan 23.21% to 28.16% on a dry basis, alpha-glucan not detected.
• DNA barcoding and species-specific markers such as triterpenes or cordycepin are not yet measured by us, so no number is written for them.

Questions about this article? Ask the Triterra bot ›

Reishi (Ganoderma lucidum, lingzhi), lion’s mane (Hericium erinaceus, yamabushitake), cordyceps and turkey tail (Trametes versicolor, yun zhi) are sold as dietary supplements, and no regulation requires proof that the species on the label is the species in the bottle. The honest answer: no single test proves everything. A DNA test proves identity, not quantity; a beta-glucan test proves quantity, not identity; and only a lab report verifiable with the laboratory turns either into a fact.

What we have is three kinds of evidence, and we read all three for this page: market surveys in which university laboratories bought mushroom supplements off the shelf and tested them against the label; method papers that define what a DNA barcode can identify and what the beta-glucan assay actually measures; and taxonomy work that explains why the trade name on a label and the current scientific name are not always the same. We sell extracts too, which is why we also wrote down what we ourselves do not test.

What can actually be wrong in a bottle of mushroom extract?

Four things, and each needs a different test: the species is not the species on the label; the material is mycelium grown on grain rather than fruiting body; the amount of active compound is lower than promised or was never measured at all; or something is in the bottle that should not be there, from heavy metals to a steroid drug.

The first failure, identity, is the quietest: a brown powder of one mushroom looks exactly like a brown powder of another, and the consumer cannot tell them apart. The second, mycelium on grain, is the most common in the world of powders: the mushroom is indeed there, but most of the powder is the rice or oats the mycelium grew on. The third, quantity, is the one a label hides best: “reishi extract” is a description, not a number. And the fourth, contamination, is the rarest but the most dangerous, and you will find its hard example in the Thai survey below.

How many products on the market actually match their label?

Few. In the three market surveys we found on PubMed, only 5 of 19 reishi products in the United States matched their label in chemical testing, only 6 of 19 mushroom supplements in Italy matched it in DNA testing, and 54.3% of 65 cordyceps products sold online in Thailand were classified as falsified.

The American survey (Wu et al., 2017, Scientific Reports) did not test DNA at all. It tested what the label promised: 19 reishi products purchased in the United States were measured by chromatography and saccharide mapping for polysaccharides and triterpenes, and the researchers compared what was measured with what was written. In 14 products the gap was too large to call “consistent”. It is a study of quantity, not of identity.

The Italian survey (Risoli et al., 2023, Nutrients) did the opposite. It sequenced DNA from 19 mushroom supplements sold in Italy as monotherapy and matched the sequences against GenBank. In only 6 products did the sequence match the species on the label. The researchers added measurements of ergosterol, aflatoxins, heavy metals and total glucans, and found that there too the results did not always line up with the declarations. It is a study that began with identity and continued to quantity, which makes it the closest thing to a “complete test”.

The Thai survey (Wirasathien et al., 2026, BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies) was born of an event: an outbreak of acute kidney injury linked to cordyceps products. The researchers bought 65 products online, examined them under the microscope, ran thin-layer chromatography for cordycepin and adenosine, and used test kits for steroids. 54.3% were classified as falsified, meaning the species or the form on the label was not actually found; 11% were not registered at all; and 6.2% contained corticosteroids, a drug that has no place in any dietary supplement. And 73.8% of the products made disease claims on social media.

Three surveys in three countries using three methods, and their conclusion is the same: the label alone is not evidence.

What is a DNA test for mushrooms, and what does it prove?

A DNA test for fungi compares a short, agreed-upon stretch of the genome, the ITS region, with known sequences in a database, and answers one question: which species the material belongs to. It identifies species even in ground powder, and in a trial on 7 reishi supplements it identified the species in all of them. About the amount of active compound it says nothing.

ITS (Internal Transcribed Spacer) was chosen in 2012 as the universal DNA barcode of the fungal kingdom, after a multinational consortium compared six genomic regions and found it had the highest probability of correctly identifying the broadest range of fungi (Schoch et al., 2012, PNAS). In 2016 Raja and colleagues (Food Chemistry) showed that ITS can be sequenced from processed material too: from mycelium powders, from grocery-store mushrooms and from capsules of commercial supplements, across 33 samples. In 2020 Gunnels and colleagues (PLoS One) showed that in seven reishi supplements from different suppliers, six powdered and one dried, ITS sequencing with Ganoderma-specific primers identified the species in all seven.

The important word in Raja’s title is “partial”. The authors themselves define the DNA barcode as “a partial solution for product certification”: it verifies taxonomic identity, and does not verify that the product contains the amount it promises, or that the material came from the fruiting body rather than the mycelium.

What does a DNA test not prove?

Three things: how much active compound the product contains, which part of the mushroom it came from, and what happened to it during extraction. A matching DNA sequence can come from a powder that is mostly grain, from a product whose beta-glucan was never measured, and in a liquid extract the DNA itself degrades and often cannot be sequenced at all.

A DNA test is therefore an entry test, not an exit test. It answers “is this the right mushroom” at the moment the raw material comes in, and at that it is excellent. It does not answer “how much of this mushroom is in a dose”. A brand that presents a “genetic test” as proof that its product “works” or “is concentrated” is using the right test for the wrong question.

And there is a technical limit worth knowing: the Italian survey sequenced powders and capsules; Gunnels sequenced powders; Raja reported success “in the majority of cases”. A hydro-alcoholic extract that has been through pressure cooking and weeks in alcohol is a far harder sample. On a liquid extract, the test that actually measures what is in the bottle is chemical, not genetic.

Why is “Ganoderma lucidum” on a label almost always a trade name rather than a scientific one?

Because the taxonomy changed. Molecular studies showed that the reishi cultivated in Asia, the one studied and sold worldwide, is a separate species, Ganoderma lingzhi, while Ganoderma lucidum in the strict sense grows in Europe and parts of China. Of 20 manufactured reishi products DNA-tested, 93% contained the cultivated species and none contained the strict lucidum.

The study by Loyd and colleagues (2018, Frontiers in Microbiology) examined 20 manufactured products (capsules, tablets, teas) and 17 grow-your-own kits, all bearing the name “Ganoderma lucidum”. ITS and tef1α sequencing found the cultivated Asian species in 93% of the products, and lucidum in the strict sense in none of them, and in only one grow kit. The same year the same group published (PLoS One) a study of more than 500 collections from the United States that identified 12 different species which had all been called “lucidum” for a century. And in 2023 Du and colleagues (Journal of Fungi) showed, after sequencing the original type specimen, that the correct name for the reishi cultivated in China is Ganoderma sichuanense, with lingzhi a later synonym.

What does this mean for you as a consumer? That “Ganoderma lucidum” on most labels in the world, including ours, is the accepted trade name for cultivated reishi, not the outcome of a taxonomic test. It is not fraud; it is a convention that science has moved past. But it is exactly why the name on the label is evidence of nothing, and the test is.

Fruiting body or mycelium on grain: how do you tell without a laboratory?

Not with certainty, but there is one sign that is hard to hide: starch. Mycelium grown on rice or oats is ground together with its substrate, so such a powder contains a lot of alpha-glucan, which is starch, and little beta-glucan. Fruiting bodies contain almost no starch. A test report showing alpha-glucan “not detected” is the chemical evidence that there is no grain in the bottle.

The difference is not theoretical. The accepted method for measuring beta-glucan in mushrooms (McCleary and Draga, 2016, Journal of AOAC International) first measures total glucan, then measures alpha-glucan using the enzyme glucoamylase, which breaks down starch and glycogen, and calculates beta-glucan as the difference. In other words, every proper beta-glucan report also contains the starch number, even if the manufacturer chooses not to display it. If the report in front of you shows only “beta-glucan” without “alpha-glucan”, ask why.

A screen of 39 mushroom species, cultivated and wild (Sari et al., 2016, Food Chemistry), found the highest beta-glucan contents precisely in the hard bracket fungi, the family that turkey tail and reishi belong to, and that in most species the stem is richer in glucans than the cap. That is why the question “which part of the mushroom” is not pedantry: it changes the number.

What does a beta-glucan test prove, and how is it done?

It proves quantity: what percentage of the dry matter in the sample is beta-glucan 1,3/1,6, the component the innate immune system recognises through the Dectin-1 receptor. The test is chemical-enzymatic, is performed on the sample that was sent, and its result depends on what was sent: fruiting body, mycelium, powder or finished extract.

The number the test returns depends on two things worth asking about. The first is the basis: a percentage “on a dry basis” and a percentage “of the liquid product” are two completely different numbers for the same extract, and a brand that shows a percentage without saying what it refers to shows a number that cannot be compared. The second is the sample: a test on the raw fruiting body says what was in the raw material; a test on the finished extract says what remained after extraction, which is what you drink.

Why beta-glucan rather than “polysaccharides”? Because beta-glucan, and in particular 1,3 chains with 1,6 branches in a triple-helix conformation, is the form on which immunological research concentrates (Zhang et al., 2025, International Journal of Biological Macromolecules), and biophysical studies have shown that the Dectin-1 receptor responds to this structure and not to any glucan (Anaya et al., 2023, Biophysical Journal). The 1,6 branches are measured separately with dedicated methods (Yamanaka et al., 2020, International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms), so a report that states “1,3/1,6” tells you the laboratory knew what it was looking for.

Why is “total polysaccharides” not the same as beta-glucan?

Because “polysaccharides” also include starch, glycogen and other sugars that have nothing to do with the studied activity. A mycelium-on-rice powder can show “40% polysaccharides” and contain 5% beta-glucan. A polysaccharide number without a beta-glucan number beside it is a number meant to look large, not to be precise.

That is why on this page, and across the site, we quote beta-glucan only. And if you see a report in which “total polysaccharides” is lower than beta-glucan, stop: chemically that is impossible, because beta-glucan is a subset of the polysaccharides. Such a report means something in the measurement, the definition or the transcription went wrong, and a question to the laboratory is the next step.

What are species-specific markers, and what do they add beyond beta-glucan?

Markers are compounds that exist in only one mushroom, so measuring them proves identity and quantity at the same time: ganoderic acids and triterpenes in reishi, hericenones and erinacines in lion’s mane, cordycepin and adenosine in cordyceps, PSK and PSP in turkey tail. They are the most complete test, and the most expensive, and we do not yet publish them.

In reishi more than 495 triterpenoids have been described from 25 species (Galappaththi et al., 2022, Biomolecules), and Wu’s American survey used precisely these, alongside the polysaccharides, to decide which products matched their label. In lion’s mane the distinction matters especially: hericenones characterise the fruiting body while erinacines characterise the mycelium (Friedman, 2015, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry), so a marker profile also reveals which part of the mushroom the material came from. In cordyceps, cordycepin and adenosine are the accepted indices, and in the Thai survey they were measured by thin-layer chromatography to detect falsification. In turkey tail, the polysaccharopeptides PSK and PSP are the most studied compounds (Bains et al., 2021, Materials).

Honesty requires saying: markers are the next stage of transparency, not the stage we are at. Our extracts have been tested for beta-glucan, alpha-glucan, heavy metals, pesticide residues and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Triterpenes, hericenones and cordycepin in the finished extract have not been measured by us to date, and as long as they have not been measured, we will not write a number for them.

What is tested beyond identity and quantity: heavy metals, pesticides and PAHs?

Mushrooms absorb from their substrate, so many species accumulate cadmium and mercury at high levels when they grow on polluted ground. The three accepted purity tests are heavy metals (lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury), pesticide residues, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) formed by smoke-drying. None of them replaces the quantity test.

Kalač’s review (2012, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture) of the chemical composition of some 200 edible mushroom species sums it up: “several species can accumulate very high levels of both detrimental trace elements, particularly cadmium and mercury … if growing on heavily polluted substrates”. That is why the place of cultivation is a question of purity and not of local pride: a mushroom grown on a controlled substrate inside a greenhouse is measured against a mushroom picked from a forest that nobody knows what was sprayed on.

And it is also why the Italian survey added heavy metals, aflatoxins and nicotine to its DNA test: identity without purity is half a picture. In the chapter “What we actually measure in our bottle” you will find our four tests, including the numbers that are not zero.

How do you verify that a lab report is real and not graphic design?

A real report stands on four anchors, all of which can be checked independently: a laboratory name with contact details, a report number the laboratory can locate, identification of the sample that was tested (what was sent, not what the product is called in the shop), and the method with the basis on which the number was reported. Missing one of them, it is graphic design.

There is also a difference between two kinds of document that look alike. A “Certificate of Analysis” (COA) in its strict sense is often issued by the manufacturer itself and summarises tests it ran or commissioned. A “Test Report” is written by the external laboratory and carries its report number. Our documents say “TEST REPORT”, and we walk through how to read them line by line in the guide to reading a test report.

And note the wording: an extract was “tested at TÜV Austria”, not “approved” by it. A test report measures values in a sample; it is not a standards mark, not a product approval, and not a promise that every bottle is identical to the sample. Whoever writes “approved by a laboratory” is saying something a laboratory does not do.

What does regulation require of a mushroom supplement manufacturer, and what does it not?

In Israel, the Public Health (Food) (Dietary Supplements) Regulations of 1997 require a manufacturing licence, proper manufacturing conditions, Hebrew labelling and a fixed warning sentence, and forbid attributing disease cure or prevention to a supplement in advertising. They do not require measuring or publishing the content of the active compound, and do not require genetic verification of the species.

In other words the law in Israel, like in most countries, regulates the how (manufacturing, labelling, advertising) and not the how much. A manufacturer can sell “reishi extract” without anything in it having been measured, without departing from the regulations. As early as 2000 a review in the journal Harefuah (Lavy et al.) described this gap: large demand, massive publicity of properties, and products whose quality, efficacy and safety had not been examined by accepted medical criteria. Import regulations (2025) have since added a registered importer and a digital product file, but an obligation to measure the active compound still does not exist. The full map is in our regulation page. In the United States, under DSHEA, a dietary supplement may likewise not claim to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease, and content testing is the manufacturer’s responsibility rather than a published requirement.

The consumer meaning is simple: if the manufacturer is not obliged to measure, measurement is a choice. And whoever chose to measure will show you the report.

What does each test prove, and what does it not? One table

No single test covers all four failures on its own. A DNA test closes the question of identity; a beta-glucan test with alpha-glucan closes the questions of quantity and grain; species-specific markers close identity and quantity together; and the purity tests close the question of contamination. The table sums up what each one answers, and what it leaves open.

What do you ask a seller before buying a mushroom extract?

Seven questions, in this order: which species and under which scientific name; fruiting body or mycelium; how much beta-glucan, on what basis and by what method; how much alpha-glucan; what the identification of the tested sample is; which laboratory and what report number; and what was tested for purity. A seller who answers the seven questions with a document, not a marketing paragraph, is a seller who measured.

And do not be shy about the eighth question: “What did you not test?” The answer to that reveals more about a brand than any report. A brand that measured knows exactly what it did not measure, and says so. A brand that did not measure answers “everything”.

What we actually measure in our bottle

Our extracts begin with fresh fruiting bodies from our farm in Moran, in the Galilee. We isolate the strain on agar, grow the fruiting bodies in a greenhouse on a controlled substrate, and take them from harvest to extraction without a drying stage, which as far as we know very few growers in the world do. The extraction is triple: cold water, alcohol for seven weeks, and hot water under pressure, at a mushroom-to-liquid ratio of 1:2 for lion’s mane, 1:2.5 for cordyceps and 1:3 for reishi and for turkey tail with reishi. The finished extract contains 32% alcohol, and is kosher under the supervision of the Mateh Yehuda Rabbinate, Rabbi Gad Atias.

A sample of the finished extract, not of the raw material, is then sent to the TÜV Austria laboratory for beta-glucan 1,3/1,6 and alpha-glucan testing. It is the only test by which one can say what is in the bottle, rather than what was in the mushroom before we began. The results, on a dry basis:

Alpha-glucan not detected is the chemical proof that there is no grain in the bottle. Alongside it, the four mushrooms were tested at the VELTIA laboratory for heavy metals: lead, arsenic and mercury were not detected in any of them; cadmium was detected at 0.03 to 0.10 milligrams per kilogram where it was detected, and aluminium at 7 milligrams per kilogram in lion’s mane only. In a screen of 610 pesticides no active ingredient was quantified, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were below the limit of quantification in all of them. All the signed reports, with report number and sample name, are open on the lab testing page, and the difference between fresh and dried mushroom and the meaning of the extraction ratio are explained on separate pages.

That is what we know how to measure and prove about what is in the bottle. What was not measured, genetic identity by DNA barcode and species-specific markers in the finished extract, is not written as if it had been.

What this page does not say, and what we do not claim

The page does not say that mushroom supplements in Israel are falsified: the three surveys were conducted in the United States, Italy and Thailand, and we have no comparable Israeli survey. It does not say that DNA testing is pointless, but that it answers one question. It does not say that our extracts are “genetically verified”, because we have not performed a DNA test, and it presents no triterpene, hericenone or cordycepin number, because we have not measured them. It does not promise that every bottle is identical to the sample that was tested: a test report describes a sample. And nothing here is a claim about what an extract will do for your health; a dietary supplement is not a medicine, and responsibility for your health belongs with your physician.

The bottom line

The label is not evidence, and no single test is complete proof. A DNA barcode proves species; beta-glucan and alpha-glucan prove quantity and the absence of grain; species-specific markers prove both together; and the purity tests prove that nothing is in the bottle that should not be. What turns each of them from a promise into a fact is a report with a laboratory name, a report number and a sample identification. We publish four such tests on the finished extract, and say explicitly which two we have not yet performed.

Frequently asked questions

Does a DNA test prove that a mushroom supplement is “genuine”?

It proves that the material belongs to the species on the label, and that matters: in the Italian survey only 6 of 19 supplements passed that test. But it does not say how much active compound there is, whether it is fruiting body or mycelium on grain, and what survived extraction. “Genuine” also requires a chemical test.

Why does Triterra not perform DNA testing?

Because we isolate the strain ourselves on agar and grow the fruiting bodies on the farm, so the question of identity is closed at the cultivation stage rather than in an external laboratory; and because in a liquid extract that has been through cooking and weeks in alcohol the DNA degrades. The test that measures what is in the bottle is chemical, and that is the test we publish.

What is the difference between beta-glucan and “total polysaccharides” on a label?

Total polysaccharides also include starch and other sugars that are not the studied component, so the number is always larger. Beta-glucan 1,3/1,6 is the component the innate immune system recognises. A product that shows only polysaccharides, without beta-glucan and without alpha-glucan, shows a number that cannot be compared with anything.

How can you tell whether a supplement is mycelium on grain rather than fruiting body?

Through the starch. Mycelium is ground together with the rice or oats it grew on, so such a powder is rich in alpha-glucan and poor in beta-glucan. Fruiting bodies contain almost no starch. A report showing alpha-glucan “not detected” is the chemical evidence; in our four extracts that is the result.

Does “Ganoderma lucidum” on the label mean the product is not genuine?

No. It is the accepted trade name worldwide for cultivated reishi, which taxonomic research today calls Ganoderma lingzhi or Ganoderma sichuanense. 93% of the 20 reishi products DNA-tested contained the cultivated species. The name on the label is evidence neither way; the report is.

What is the difference between a COA and a Test Report, and which is stronger?

A Certificate of Analysis (COA) in its strict sense is often issued by the manufacturer and summarises tests it ran or commissioned. A Test Report is written by the external laboratory and carries a report number that can be verified with it. Our reports are of the second kind, which is why they say TEST REPORT.

What do you not test, and why do you say so?

We do not perform DNA barcoding and we do not measure triterpenes, hericenones or cordycepin in the finished extract. We say so because species-specific markers are the next stage of transparency, and because a brand that measured knows exactly what it did not measure. The four tests we did perform are open in full.

Does the law require publishing laboratory tests for a mushroom supplement?

No. Israel’s 1997 dietary supplement regulations govern manufacturing licences, labelling and the ban on disease claims in advertising, but do not require measuring or publishing active-compound content, and do not require genetic verification; DSHEA in the United States likewise sets no published content requirement. Measurement is the manufacturer’s choice, so an open report is the sign that the manufacturer chose to measure.

Scientific sources (peer-reviewed)

• 19 reishi products purchased in the United States were measured for polysaccharides and triterpenes; only 5 (26.3%) matched their label — Wu DT, et al. Scientific Reports, 2017. View on PubMed
• 19 mushroom supplements from the Italian market were DNA-sequenced; only 6 matched the species on the label, and ergosterol, aflatoxins, heavy metals and total glucans were also tested — Risoli S, et al. Nutrients, 2023. View on PubMed
• 65 cordyceps products sold online in Thailand: 54.3% falsified, 11% unregistered, 6.2% with corticosteroids, 73.8% with disease claims on social media — Wirasathien L, et al. BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, 2026. View on PubMed
• 20 manufactured reishi products and 17 grow kits sold as Ganoderma lucidum: 93% of the products contained the cultivated Asian species, and none the strict lucidum — Loyd AL, et al. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2018. View on PubMed
• More than 500 Ganoderma collections from the United States: 12 different species all called “lucidum”, with strict lucidum found only in restricted areas — Loyd AL, et al. PLoS One, 2018. View on PubMed
• Sequencing of the original type specimen established Ganoderma sichuanense as the correct name for cultivated Chinese reishi, with G. lingzhi a later synonym — Du Z, et al. Journal of Fungi, 2023. View on PubMed
• ITS barcoding identified the species in all 7 reishi supplements tested, 6 powdered and 1 dried, from different suppliers — Gunnels T, et al. PLoS One, 2020. View on PubMed
• ITS barcodes were generated from 33 food and supplement fungal samples, including mycelium powders and commercial capsules; the authors call it a “partial solution” for product certification — Raja HA, et al. Food Chemistry, 2016. View on PubMed
• A multinational consortium compared six genomic regions and established ITS as the universal DNA barcode for fungi — Schoch CL, et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2012. View on PubMed
• The method for measuring beta-glucan in mushrooms and mycelial products: total glucan by acid hydrolysis, alpha-glucan enzymatically, and beta-glucan by difference — McCleary BV, Draga A. Journal of AOAC International, 2016. View on PubMed
• A beta-glucan screen of 39 cultivated and wild mushroom species: bracket fungi especially high, and the stem richer than the cap in most species — Sari M, et al. Food Chemistry, 2016. View on PubMed
• A dedicated method for quantifying beta-1,6-glucan branches in mushrooms, alongside beta-1,3 via Dectin-1 — Yamanaka D, et al. International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms, 2020. View on PubMed
• A review of lion’s mane chemistry: hericenones in the fruiting body, erinacines in the mycelium, and about 70 characterised bioactive compounds — Friedman M. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2015. View on PubMed
• A review of Trametes (turkey tail): the polysaccharopeptides PSK and PSP as the principal studied compounds — Bains A, et al. Materials, 2021. View on PubMed
• 495 triterpenoids from 25 Ganoderma species described between 1984 and 2022, including their identification methods — Galappaththi MCA, et al. Biomolecules, 2022. View on PubMed
• A review of cordyceps polysaccharides, 2004 to 2024: cordycepin, adenosine and polysaccharides as the identified active constituents — Chen L, et al. Molecules, 2024. View on PubMed
• The Dectin-1 receptor responds to beta-glucan structure and not to any glucan: structured glucans activate it, short unstructured glucans less so — Anaya EU, et al. Biophysical Journal, 2023. View on PubMed
• A review of 4,545 papers on mushroom polysaccharides: beta-1,3 with 1,6 branches in a triple helix is the strong immunomodulatory form — Zhang X, et al. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 2025. View on PubMed
• A review of the chemical composition of some 200 edible mushroom species: several species accumulate very high levels of cadmium and mercury on polluted substrates — Kalač P. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2013. View on PubMed
• An Israeli review of natural-medicine regulation: large demand, massive publicity, and products whose quality and safety had not been examined by medical criteria — Lavy T, et al. Harefuah, 2000. View on PubMed

Read next

• Lab results: every signed report
• How to read a test report (COA) line by line
• Beta-glucan vs polysaccharides
• Mycelium vs fruiting body
• Fresh or dried mushroom
• Extraction ratio: what the number says and what it does not
• Mushroom supplements and regulation in Israel
• Transparency: what we publish and why
• The science of reishi
• The science of cordyceps
• The research hub
• Functional mushrooms by goal

This page is educational and does not constitute medical advice. It describes what market surveys and method papers measured, and what they did not; it is not a claim about the effect of any extract on your health. A dietary supplement is not a medicine and does not replace treatment; before starting any supplement, including ours, and especially alongside medication, during pregnancy or breastfeeding, or with a diagnosed medical condition, consult your physician. Test reports describe the sample that was tested. *These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.*