Where do you source your mushrooms ?

We source our raw materials based on the objective quality. We use third party laboratories to determine that quality and, of course, the safety. We test for both active ingredients and contamination, such as heavy metals and radioactive isotopes, all in all for ± 30 compounds.

We ignore geographical location and we use several suppliers, changing to another supplier if the quality is better there.

Marketing has led many people to believe it matters where the mushrooms have been sourced. Like, Siberian Chaga is always best, Japanese Reishi is always preferable, Chinese mushrooms are always best avoided, etc...

But this is not true at all, and nobody has ever been able to prove that, as an example, 'Siberian Chaga is best'. Such claims are based on ignorance and hearsay.

Marketing. If you can show us objective proof that e.g. Siberian Chaga has a higher quality than others please get in touch!

'Best quality' is -objectively speaking- defined by the therapeutic potential and the safety / lack of contamination, fillers and adulteration of the supplement. All these variables are easy and cheap to test.

The bioactive compounds define the therapeutic potential. These compounds are well-known and can be determined cheap and easily in a lab. Compounds such as beta-glucan, terpenes and polyphenols. Being the pragmatic common-sense people that we are, that is what we do - we test a lot of raw materials and then choose the stuff with the highest therapeutic potential and the lowest level of contamination.

As said, we test for ± 25 - 30 compounds, including heavy metals and 3 radio-active isotopes. We source the best quality mushrooms only, ignoring geographical location.

And we share those test results with our customers, starting from the idea that premium and proven quality is what people want. It's also the best marketing there is, knowing that consumers want their money's worth. We're sure everybody agrees with that !!

Which makes you wonder why other vendors don't follow the same path. Instead, a story is their main marketing. A story rich in unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims, usually. No hard facts, but a lot of suggestive statements and assumptions instead. What do you prefer ?