Blog By Matt Harrier
Introduction
We recently noticed something that should worry anyone who cares about analytical rigor in the nutraceutical industry.
A laboratory was granted ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation—by ANAB—for a scope described simply as “Functional Mushroom Potency.”
At first glance, that looks reassuring to a brand manager or a consumer. But when you look closer, it raises red flags. “Potency” in this context is undefined. It’s a marketing term, not an analytical one.
Under ISO/IEC 17025, scopes are supposed to be specific. They need to define what is being measured, how it is measured, and for which analytes. This scope does none of that.
Here is why that is a problem for the industry.
1. Identity Comes First
You cannot measure how strong something is if you haven’t validated what it is.
Before any potency claim can be evaluated, the material must be correctly identified.
-
- Is the lab accredited for identity testing?
-
- What methodologies are they using (DNA, HPTLC, microscopy)?
-
- Are identifications limited to mushrooms with qualified reference materials?
Without accredited identity testing, a potency number is meaningless. You might be measuring the “potency” of an adulterant or the wrong species entirely.
2. The Beta-Glucan “Shortcut”
Let’s address the elephant in the room.
In the current market, “potency” is often used as a euphemism for a generic Beta-Glucan test. While measuring beta-glucans is useful, using it as a catch-all for “potency” across all functional mushrooms is scientifically lazy.
Beta-glucans are non-specific polysaccharides found in yeast, oats, and many fungi. They do not tell the whole story.
-
- Reishi efficacy relies heavily on triterpenes.
-
- Cordyceps quality is often judged by cordycepin and adenosine.
-
- Lion’s Mane relies on hericenones and erinacines.
If a lab’s “potency” scope is just a Beta-Glucan assay in disguise, they are missing the actual biomarkers that make these specific mushrooms valuable.
3. Functional Mushrooms Are Chemically Diverse
“Functional mushrooms” is a commercial category, not a chemical one. You cannot just swap methods between species because their bioactive profiles are totally different.
Look at the chemical diversity involved here:
| Species | Key Bioactives (Examples) |
| Reishi (Ganoderma lucidum) | Ganoderic acids (Triterpenes), Ergosterol |
| Cordyceps | Cordycepin, Adenosine |
| Lion’s Mane (Hericium erinaceus) | Hericenones, Hericenes, Erinacines |
| Turkey Tail (Trametes versicolor) | PSK, PSP (Polysaccharide-peptides) |
| Chaga (Inonotus obliquus) | Inotodiol, Betulinic acid |
Each class here requires different extraction strategies, different detection methods (HPLC-UV, LC-MS, GC-MS), and different validation frameworks. No single, broad “potency” scope can credibly cover this mess of variables.
4. The Reference Standard Problem
One of the biggest constraints in our industry is the lack of qualified reference materials.
If a lab has a broad accreditation for “Functional Mushroom Potency,” how have they demonstrated competency?
-
- Where are they getting their standards?
-
- Are they generating their own?
-
- If so, how are they validating them against third-party materials that often don’t exist?
A vague scope allows a lab to quietly sidestep these hard questions.
Why This Matters
This type of accreditation language creates “Accreditation Theater.”
It gives brands and consumers a false sense of security. It suggests an accredited coverage exists across an entire category when, in reality, the lab may only be validated for a single assay on a single species.
This blurs the boundaries, making it easier for labs to operate outside their true validated capabilities. That erodes trust in analytical testing for everyone.
The Bottom Line
Functional mushrooms cannot be responsibly evaluated under a single, undefined “potency” scope. Accreditation must reflect specific species, specific analytes, and defined methods.
At Future Nutra Foundation, we believe accreditation should clarify, not obscure. As the mushroom market matures, we have to demand:
-
- Narrow, clearly defined scopes.
-
- Transparent analyte listings.
-
- Method-specific accreditation.
That is how we build trust—and how we ensure consumers get what they pay for
