What’s Really in Your Chaga Supplement? New Research Unpacks the Mycelium-on-Grain Problem

Mycelium-based supplements are booming—but are they always what they claim to be? A recent study led by industry pioneers Nammex and QA company PurityIQ, published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences puts the spotlight on Chaga (Inonotus obliquus) and raises serious concerns about misleading labelling and quality variation in fungal products grown on grain.

Chaga has long been celebrated for its antioxidant and therapeutic properties. Traditionally harvested from birch trees, the fungal conk is rich in unique bioactive compounds like betulin, betulinic acid, and inotodiol. But as demand outpaces wild supply, many producers have shifted to lab-grown mycelium cultivated on grain substrates.

This study makes one thing clear: these two forms of Chaga are not biochemically equivalent.

Image credits: Adrian White

Mycelium vs Fruiting Body: What’s the Difference?

Researchers compared wild-harvested Chaga with mycelial biomass grown on standard grain media. They found that the grain-grown samples lacked the hallmark triterpenoids that define true Chaga’s pharmacological potential. In their place: simple carbohydrates and polysaccharides, primarily from the substrate itself.

In other words, the mycelium-on-grain version contains none of the compounds that consumers associate with Chaga’s health benefits. The birch-derived triterpenes—such as inotodiol and betulinic acid—are completely absent in lab-grown versions, because these compounds come from the tree, not the fungus alone.

A Misleading Market

Despite this clear compositional gap, many products on the market are labelled simply as “Chaga,” with no distinction between fruiting body and mycelial biomass. Worse, most don’t indicate the growth substrate—typically rice or oats—which contributes heavily to the final product’s starch content.

This misrepresentation doesn’t just confuse consumers. It dilutes the reputation of medicinal fungi and undermines the science that supports their use.

The study’s chromatographic analysis showed just how stark the difference is: while natural Chaga extracts contain high concentrations of triterpenoids and polyphenols, grain-grown mycelium samples are dominated by residual sugars. Total phenolic content and antioxidant activity were significantly higher in wild-harvested material.

Why It Matters

For clinicians, consumers, and formulators, this isn’t a technicality—it’s a matter of efficacy and trust. Without clear standards, consumers seeking functional health benefits may be paying premium prices for something closer to flavoured grain powder than a true medicinal extract.

The implications go beyond Chaga. Many other fungal species are now being produced via mycelial fermentation on grains, raising similar concerns about compound loss, dilution, and label accuracy.

Image credits: Nihel Armani

What the Study Recommends

The researchers call for greater transparency in fungal supplement labelling. Key points include:

• Disclosing the fungal part used (fruiting body, mycelium, or both)

• Listing the substrate material

• Providing quantified bioactive compound levels

  
  

These steps would help realign consumer expectations with product performance—and help separate high-integrity producers from opportunistic ones.

The Bigger Picture for the Fungal Industry

As mycelium-based innovation moves into mainstream health and nutrition, this research is a reminder that not all mycelium is equal. Fermentation can be powerful, but it must be coupled with rigorous quality control and honest communication. Otherwise, the sector risks repeating the mistakes of the broader supplements market: over-promising, under-delivering, and eroding consumer confidence.

Chaga is just the case study—but it’s a revealing one.