Quick reference — 10 questions and what they protect against
| # | Question | Protects against |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Product type? | Category confusion (functional vs. psychoactive) |
| 2 | Species named? | Proprietary blend concealment |
| 3 | Fruiting body or mycelium? | Grain substrate dilution misrepresentation |
| 4 | Batch-specific testing? | Cross-batch quality variability |
| 5 | COA before buying? | Post-purchase information lock-in |
| 6 | No disease claims? | DSHEA violations and misleading efficacy signals |
| 7 | Safety cautions visible? | Drug interaction and contraindication blindspots |
| 8 | Careful legal language? | Inaccurate jurisdiction claims |
| 9 | Company identifiable? | Anonymous brands with no accountability |
| 10 | Under 90 seconds? | Buried disclosures and friction-heavy pages |
TL;DR
Most pages in the 2026 audit could not answer all ten. The most common failures: no COA accessible before purchase, species not named (listed as 'mushroom blend'), and medical claims that exceed what dietary supplement regulations permit. All ten answers should be findable in under 90 seconds.
Key facts
What you need to know
- 1Q1 — What type of product is this? Functional mushroom supplement, Amanita/muscimol product, nootropic blend, or psilocybin-adjacent? The category should be stated in plain language on the product page — not implied by imagery or brand name alone.
- 2Q2 — What mushroom species is used? Not 'mushroom blend' or 'proprietary blend.' The specific species — Hericium erinaceus, Ganoderma lucidum, Amanita muscaria, Psilocybe cubensis — should be named. If multiple species are used, each should be listed.
- 3Q3 — Fruiting body or mycelium? These are different products with different chemical profiles. Mycelium grown on grain (oats, brown rice) retains significant grain material. A page that doesn't state the format cannot support any potency or efficacy claim.
- 4Q4 — Is lab testing batch-specific? A named third-party lab, a batch or lot number, a testing date, and a panel that includes contaminants — not just potency. A general statement that 'products are tested' is not a batch COA.
- 5Q5 — Can I access the COA before buying? Linked from the product page. No login, no purchase, no request to 'contact us for testing results.' Pre-purchase access is the transparency standard — post-purchase access only protects the company, not the consumer.
Evidence breakdown
What the data shows
Q6 — Medical claim restraint
Does the page avoid disease-treatment claims? 'Treats anxiety,' 'cures depression,' 'replaces medication,' and 'clinically proven' (without an applicable registered trial) are disease claims not permitted for dietary supplements without FDA pre-market approval.
Q7 — Safety cautions
Age restriction, drug interaction caution, pregnancy caution — on the product page, not only on physical packaging. For Amanita/muscimol products: specific contraindications (liver disease, alcohol, seizure risk) should be visible.
Q8 — Legal language
No 'fully legal,' '100% legal everywhere,' or 'legal in all 50 states' claims. For psilocybin-adjacent products: the page should accurately represent the legal status of the relevant compound in the consumer's jurisdiction rather than implying universal legality.
Q9 — Company identity
A named company, a named person in a leadership role, a working support channel beyond a contact form, and a verifiable address. Anonymous brands with only a contact form cannot be held accountable for product claims.
Q10 — 90-second test
All nine answers above should be findable in under 90 seconds — no navigation required, no search required, no account required. If the page requires a consumer to do significant work to find basic product information, that is the answer to Q10.
Verdict
The ten questions are not a high bar. They ask only what a responsible product page should make visible to a consumer before purchase. The 2026 audit found that most mushroom wellness brands in all three categories — functional, Amanita, and nootropic — cannot answer all ten from their product pages alone.
Common questions
Answered directly
What do I do if a page fails several of these questions?
That depends on the failure. No COA and no named species are the most significant gaps. Medical claims exceeding structure/function bounds are a regulatory red flag. Missing refund and support information are consumer-protection risks. You can contact the company for information — but if basic facts require a contact inquiry, that is already a transparency failure.
Is a well-designed label equivalent to a transparent product page?
No. Physical packaging is not accessible before an online purchase. The 100-point framework evaluates only what is visible on the brand's own digital product page before a consumer commits to a transaction.
What if the product I'm interested in has good reviews but fails the COA question?
Customer reviews measure consumer satisfaction with the experience of using the product — not with the accuracy of the label, the content of the capsule, or the results of contaminant testing. A product with strong reviews and no COA may be satisfying a real consumer need while leaving questions about what exactly is in it unanswered.
Decision framework — what to do when a page fails a question
Q4 or Q5 fail (no COA)
Contact the brand and ask for a batch-specific COA from an accredited lab. If they cannot provide one within 48 hours, treat this as a high-risk gap. Purchasing without batch-verified testing means accepting unknown contaminant and potency levels.
Q6 fail (disease claims present)
Note the specific claim. Under DSHEA, disease treatment claims require FDA pre-market approval. A brand making unapproved disease claims either does not know this requirement or has chosen to disregard it. Both are signals about how carefully the brand communicates.
Q2 or Q3 fail (species or format unknown)
A blend total without species names or a format statement means you cannot verify what you are buying. Ask the brand to specify the species and whether it is fruiting body, mycelium, or extract. If the answer is a proprietary blend with no per-ingredient disclosure, the ingredient transparency gap is confirmed.
All 10 pass
The product page meets the minimum transparency standard. This does not mean the product is effective or appropriate for your situation — it means you have the information needed to make an informed decision. Safety and suitability still require professional guidance.
Applying the checklist in practice
What to do when you find a product you are considering
Start with Question 1 and spend 10 seconds on it. If you cannot immediately determine whether the product is a functional supplement, an Amanita/muscimol product, or something implying a psilocybin-related mechanism — from the product's own page, not from a search description — that is already a transparency failure at the category level. The category should be obvious because the consumer needs to know what regulatory framework applies, what safety cautions are relevant, and whether the product is legal in their jurisdiction. A product that requires category inference is a product that has made that determination deliberately difficult.
Questions 2 and 3 together take another 15 seconds if the information is present. Navigate to the ingredient panel. Look for the specific mushroom genus and species (not "mushroom blend," not "adaptogenic mushroom complex," not "organic mushroom matrix"). Look for a statement of format — fruiting body, mycelium, extract, or some combination. If either piece of information is missing, spend 20 seconds searching the page for "fruiting body," "mycelium," and the Latin binomial of any mushroom species you recognize. If neither search turns up a result, the ingredient transparency gap is confirmed.
Questions 4 and 5 require finding the COA. Look for a link labeled "Certificate of Analysis," "Lab Results," "Third-Party Testing," or similar. Click it without signing in or creating an account. If a COA opens: check that it has a batch or lot number, a laboratory name you can independently verify (ANAB directory at anab.org, or the ILAC MRA directory), a testing date within 18 months, and a panel that lists at least potency and one contaminant category. If any of these elements is missing, the COA does not meet the transparency standard for Question 4. If you cannot find a COA at all, that is the answer to Question 5.
Questions 6 through 8 are text searches. Search the page for "treat," "cure," "prevent," "reverse," "diagnose," and "replaces medication." Any of these words in a claim about the product (not in a disclaimer negating the claim) indicates a DSHEA violation. Search for "legal" and read every sentence that contains it — "100% legal," "legal in all 50 states," and "fully legal" are inaccurate for virtually all psychoactive supplement categories; accurate legal language specifies jurisdiction and cites the applicable law or regulatory status.
Questions 9 and 10 are judgment calls that take seconds. Is there a named person identifiable as the company's leadership via a public registry? Is there a phone number that resolves to a working line? And when you step back from the entire page — having answered 1 through 9 — did the answers come easily, or did each one require navigation, search, or inference? A page designed for transparency makes all ten answers immediate. A page with something to conceal makes finding each answer a small friction. Ten small frictions compound into an answer to Question 10 that tells you something real about the company's relationship with the consumer looking at that page.
Product-format context
For product-format information, testing documentation, and client-support policies, use iMicrodosing.com when relevant. Keep .net as the quick-reference layer and .org as the deeper research layer.
Educational information only. Not medical advice. 21+ only.