certificate of analysis

Certificate of Analysis for Mushroom Supplements

ByJess

Certificate of Analysis for Mushroom Supplements: What It Is, How to Get One

A supplement label tells you what a brand wants you to know.

A certificate of analysis tells you what is actually in the product.

Oriveda
Full multi-page lab reports published · Eurofins & Alkemist tested · ISO 17025

CoAs published at oriveda.com/coa.php. Beta-glucan, triterpene, and species-specific compound data on every product. The benchmark for documentation in this category.

Real Mushrooms
Batch-specific CoAs on product pages · Fruiting body only · NSF certified

Linked from individual product pages. Shows beta-glucan content per batch. One of the few brands where you do not need to email at all.

Most consumers never ask for one. Most brands are counting on that. A CoA is the single most useful document for verifying whether a mushroom supplement contains what it claims, and getting one is simpler than most people think.

📄
1 document
tells you more about a supplement than 30,000 five-star reviews
0
legal requirements for brands to publish independent testing data for supplements
~30s
to email a brand and request theirs — the fastest quality check available

What a CoA actually is

A certificate of analysis is a document produced by a third-party laboratory that independently tests a specific batch of a product [1]. It reports what the lab found, not what the brand claims.

For mushroom supplements, a CoA typically tests for:

  • Active compound content (beta-glucans, triterpenes)
  • Heavy metals (lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury)
  • Microbial contamination (bacteria, yeast, mould)

Each result is tied to a batch number, test date, and the lab’s accreditation [1].

The key word is third-party. An internal quality document from the brand is not a CoA in any meaningful sense. A genuine CoA comes from a named, accredited laboratory with no commercial relationship to the brand.

Why it matters for mushroom supplements

Under DSHEA, supplement labels do not require brands to disclose beta-glucan content, extraction method, or whether the product is fruiting body or mycelium on grain [2]. A brand can list 1000mg of lion’s mane and legally leave out everything that would tell you whether that 1000mg is worth anything.

The CoA fills that gap. It shows you the actual measured beta-glucan percentage from an independent lab [3], which is the most important single number for evaluating quality.

Without one, you are trusting the label. And the label is not required to tell you anything useful.

What to look for on a CoA

Interactive reference
Anatomy of a CoA
Click each section to see what to look for and why it matters.
①Beta-Glucan Percentage Most important
The primary quality indicator. Quality fruiting body extracts: 25-40%. Mycelium on grain: 1-5% [3]. If this number is missing from the CoA, the document is incomplete for your purposes. This is the number that tells you whether the product has a chance of doing what the research says it can.
②Heavy Metals Testing Safety
Lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury. Mushrooms absorb from their substrate, so heavy metal testing is not optional. Results should show specific measured values with pass/fail against established limits (typically USP or California Prop 65 standards). “Tested for heavy metals” without numbers is not useful.
③Microbial Contamination Safety
Total plate count, yeast, mould, coliforms, E. coli, Salmonella. Confirms the product was tested for biological contamination before sale. Absence of this section on a CoA is a gap worth noting.
④Batch Number & Test Date Traceability
A batch number ties the document to a specific production run. Without it, you cannot confirm the CoA applies to what you are buying. A test date more than 12-18 months old is not reliable for a current purchase. Both should be present and current.
⑤Lab Name & Accreditation Credibility
The lab should be named and independently verifiable. ISO 17025 is the relevant accreditation standard [1]. Look for labs like Eurofins, Alkemist, NSF, or EMSL. A CoA from an unnamed lab is worth treating with skepticism. You should be able to Google the lab and confirm it exists.

Red flags on a CoA

Red flags on a CoA
✕No lab name or unnamed testing facility
✕No batch number linking to the product
✕Test date over 12-18 months old
✕Beta-glucan percentage missing entirely
✕Heavy metals or microbial sections absent
✕Numbers that contradict the label claims
✕Looks like marketing (branded, designed) instead of a lab report
A real CoA looks clinical, not polished. Raw data tables, plain formatting, lab letterhead. If it looks like it was designed by a marketing team, treat it as an internal summary, not independent verification.

How to get one

Most brands do not advertise their CoAs prominently. Here is the process, from easiest to most effort.

Step 1: Check the product page. Some brands publish CoAs directly. Oriveda links full multi-page lab reports from their CoA page [4]. Real Mushrooms links batch-specific documents from product pages. Proactive publication is itself a quality signal.

Step 2: Check the FAQ or quality section. Brands that do not publish publicly sometimes make CoAs available through a FAQ link or quality assurance page.

Step 3: Email the brand directly. If nothing is published, a direct email works. Keep it specific.

New Message
To: support@[brand].com
Subject: Certificate of Analysis request — [Product Name]

Hi,

I am considering your [Product Name] and would like to review the most recent certificate of analysis before purchasing.

Could you provide a CoA that includes:

– Beta-glucan percentage (independently verified)

– Heavy metals panel results

– The batch number this corresponds to

I would also like to confirm the testing laboratory and whether they hold ISO 17025 accreditation.

Thank you for your time.

Copy this email. Swap in the brand and product name. Send it. The response tells you everything you need to know about that brand’s confidence in their product.

How brands typically respond

What happens next
Three ways brands respond — and what each tells you
✓They send the CoA promptly Strong signal
The document arrives within days, has a named lab, current batch number, and shows beta-glucan content. This is what confidence looks like. The brand has invested in testing and is comfortable sharing the results. Proceed to evaluate the numbers against the benchmarks above.
~They send a generic quality statement Weak signal
A response about “our commitment to quality” or “rigorous internal testing” without an actual document attached. Sometimes a branded PDF that looks like marketing material, no raw data, no named lab. This is not a CoA. Reply once asking specifically for the independent lab report. If the second response is still vague, you have your answer.
✕No response, or they decline Red flag
Silence after two weeks, or an explicit refusal. In a category where quality is invisible and verification is voluntary, a brand that will not share independent test data is asking you to trust them without evidence. Move on to brands that do not make you ask twice.

What if a brand will not provide one?

Then you have your answer.

A brand that cannot or will not share an independent CoA for a current batch is asking you to trust their label claims without any verification mechanism. In a category with a documented quality problem [3][5], that is not a reasonable ask.

Some smaller brands produce good products without systematic documentation. But brands that have invested in transparency exist, and in the absence of a CoA, starting with those is the smarter approach.

A CoA is step 4 of 5
The full framework checks everything else too.

Fruiting body. Beta-glucan %. Extraction method. CoA. Brand transparency. Five criteria.

Frequently asked questions

Does every mushroom supplement brand have a CoA?

Not every brand runs systematic third-party testing. Some test irregularly or rely on supplier documentation. Brands that test consistently and publish results are making a deliberate transparency choice worth factoring in.

Can a brand fake a CoA?

Outright forgery is uncommon at any real scale. The practical concern is documents that look official but come from non-accredited internal labs or are outdated. A named, verifiable lab addresses most of this.

How often should a CoA be updated?

A CoA is batch-specific. For a regularly purchased supplement, a document from the current production year is appropriate. One from several years ago tells you nothing reliable about what is in the product today.

What if the beta-glucan percentage on the CoA is lower than the label implies?

That is a meaningful discrepancy worth taking seriously. Labels are not required to list beta-glucan content, so technically there may be no false claim. But if a brand implies potency through marketing language and the CoA shows 2 percent beta-glucans, you have learned something important about the gap between presentation and reality.

References

[1] ISO/IEC 17025:2017. General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. ISO 17025

[2] U.S. Congress. Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). Public Law 103-417. Full text

[3] McCleary BV, Draga A. Measurement of beta-glucan in mushrooms and mycelial products. Journal of AOAC International. 2016;99(2):364-373. DOI: 10.5740/jaoacint.15-0289

[4] Oriveda. Published certificates of analysis for all products, tested by ISO 17025 accredited laboratories (Eurofins, Alkemist US). oriveda.com/coa.php

[5] Cohen PA. The Supplement Paradox: Negligible Benefits, Robust Consumption. JAMA. 2016;316(14):1453-1454. PubMed: 27727370

Related reading

Similar Posts