Paul Stamets (host defence) on the use of mycelium on grain.

Real Mushrooms was bringing it up before I was, and many people actually look into the science behind things and come to similar conclusions. I think it's pretty reductionist to say that people here only parrot around what I say brainlessly. People are perfectly capable of hearing what I say, then going off and researching to see if they come to the same conclusions. I've had multiple discussions with some that took the opposite position, and we went back and forth on the science behind it.

The studies you linked above are all animal studies. No human studies. Also, Chaga doesn't have the same mycelium/fruiting body difference as other mushrooms. It forms a big mass of mycelium called a sclerotium. Chaga is also a good one to bring up, because it needs to be grown on birch trees during specific times of the year to lead to the characteristic triterpenoids. So not only is the growth media extremely important, but the time it is harvested is as well.

The biggest issue is not necessarily the mycelium. I have said many times that there are some interesting compounds found in mycelium that are in higher concentrations than the fruiting bodies. However, the issue is growing mycelium on rice, then grinding the whole mass up and calling it a mushroom. It's not a mushroom, and if the beneficial compounds are in the mycelium, why grind it up with the rice? It's about the money. You can culture pure mycelium, and if the discussion was really about them being better, that's what you would see Paul Stamets doing. It's just more expensive. The big issue that I have, and many others do as well, is the grinding up of a bunch of rice with mycelium and calling it a mushroom. It's mostly rice by mass! Furthermore, traditional usage over thousands of years has used actual mushrooms. The bulk of the human studies use mushroom fruiting bodies. To then make a completely different product, but call it a mushroom, is misleading. Also, as much as I would like to think I have helped push this message along, you can't really say people are biased towards fruiting bodies because of me, since that is the form humans have been using them in for thousands of years. A few years of us selling mushrooms is nothing compared to the history they have across various civilizations.

It's clear that the mycelium of mushrooms have beneficial properties. Nobody is arguing against that. What we are arguing against is allowing a bunch of ground up rice and mycelium to be called a mushroom, then using polysaccharides (starch) to serve as the measure of the active ingredients; when rice is full of starch as it is! Seriously, just think about this logically. They are not using beta-glucans to measure the actives of their product. They are using starch, which rice would have without any mycelium present at all. Why are they doing that? Why do the alpha-glucan numbers in their products almost match exactly the alpha-glucan numbers you would see when analyzing rice by itself? Could it be because it's mostly rice?!?

Anyway, if you would like to go back and forth on the science behind it all, I am more than willing to do that. I have a lot of studies we can reference, including human studies regarding the effectiveness of whole fruiting body mushrooms on various outcomes. However, the FDA agrees with our position that mycelium products are not mushrooms, and they should not be labeled as such.

https://www.fda.gov/downloads/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/ucm515733.pdf

What are examples of processes that chemically alter an article of food present in the food supply?

Use of a botanical ingredient that is at a different life stage than the life stage of the botanical ingredient used as a conventional food. Examples: making an extract from unripe instead of ripe apples or using the mycelium instead of the fruiting body of a fungus.

https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm074627.htm

The Food and Drug Administration sometimes receives inquiries about the use of mushroom mycelium produced by submerged culture propagation in various media. Mushroom mycelium is considered suitable for food use when grown in acceptable media.

However, mushroom mycelium has an identity different from mushrooms, and food products in which it is used should be labeled to clearly indicate that they contain mushroom mycelium.

POLICY:

Mushroom mycelium grown in acceptable media is regarded as suitable for food use. Any food in which mushroom mycelium is used should be labeled to state that fact. Labeling should not suggest or imply that the food contains mushrooms. For example, a soup in which mushroom mycelium is an ingredient should not be labeled or sold as "mushroom soup" since that name by long consumer understanding and usage is preempted by soup containing real mushrooms.

It's also proper to note that the submerged culture propagation method is the one I was referring to earlier. That's the one that can lead to pure mycelium, like the CS4 cordyceps product. Growing mycelium on grain is a totally different process, and needs to be labeled as "freeze dried myceliated rice" or "dried myceliated brown rice." You will notice that is what is on the back side of the Host Defense labels. I think it is also pretty telling that there are zero scientific studies showing mycelium grown on rice is more beneficial than the fruiting body of the same species, or even a fully liquid culture extract of the mycelium of that species. Host Defense has the money to do that. Why have they not come out and put this whole thing to rest with some scientific comparisons of myceliated rice vs. pure cultured mycelium vs. whole fruiting body? Why are they still using polysaccharides (starch) as the measure of actives in their products, when we have accurate methods for testing beta-glucans and other actives in them now? Why are they not using any fruiting bodies in their products? Don't just take what I am saying at face value. Please please please use the questions I am posing as a starting place to do your own research. If you come back to me with a totally different take on the matter, I would be more than willing to discuss it with you, and hear your position.