FutureNutra Foundation's Science Director Makes the Case for Bioactive Standardization

Paul Eftang, science director of the FutureNutra Foundation opened his Future Nutra Innovation Summit (FNIS) session by describing the nonprofit's origins and his own background running Nootropics Depot for roughly 14 years before founding Omnient Labs, an ISO-accredited lab built to test novel bioactives.

He said the FutureNutra Foundation was formed because no existing testing organization was built purely to prioritize consumers, given that each operates on a for-profit model involving brand fees or affiliate arrangements. "We wanted to make a nonprofit that took lab testing, quality control seriously, and put consumers first," Eftang noted.

Why Does Identity Testing Fall Short of Proving a Product Works?

Eftang framed his discussion around what he called the industry's 3 common tiers of standardization: identity-only testing, ratio extracts, and broad marker compounds, arguing that each leaves a gap between what a product's label implies and what it actually delivers.

Identity testing, using methods like DNA analysis, high-performance thin-layer chromatography (HPTLC), or fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), can confirm a product contains the correct species without confirming it contains the compounds responsible for the marketed effect.

Ratio extracts, he argued, are frequently unverifiable manufacturing claims rather than potency measures, since an ISO-accredited lab cannot validate a stated input-to-yield ratio like "10:1" after the fact. Broad marker compounds present a related problem, Eftang said, pointing to beta-glucans in lion's mane (Hericium erinaceus) as an example. While beta-glucans support intestinal health, the cognitive effects consumers associate with lion's mane come from a different set of compounds entirely, making beta-glucan content a poor proxy for the product's intended use.

What Does Proper Standardization Require?

Eftang laid out what he described as the correct sequence for formulating a supplement:

1. Start with the product's intended use
2. Identify the specific bioactive compounds responsible for that effect
3. Verify and standardize those bioactives in every dose, and set a batch specification tied back to that standard.

Using lion's mane as his reference, he distinguished between the mycelium and fruiting body growth stages, noting that each contains different compound classes, erinacines in mycelium and hericenones and hericenes in fruiting body, that produce cognitive effects through different mechanisms. He said his lab's own focus on erinacine A specifically is based on 2 clinical studies, a 49-week trial in early-onset Alzheimer's and an 8-month trial in age-related hearing loss, both using erinacine A-standardized lion's mane at defined doses.

Referencing a clinical study without matching its bioactive dose in the finished product, he said, is not scientifically honest.

What Did Independent Testing Find in a Top-Selling Lion's Mane Product?

To illustrate the gap between label claims and lab data, Eftang presented multi-method testing results on an unnamed top-selling mycelium-on-grain lion's mane product. HPTLC analysis showed the product's compound fingerprint closely resembled rice flour rather than lion's mane, he said, while DNA testing still returned a positive result for Hericium erinaceus because of trace fungal DNA in the growth substrate.

Untargeted nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) metabolomics, conducted by a separate lab, showed the product's metabolomic profile did not match lion's mane, and ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC) testing found no detectable erinacine A of any kind. The product, per Eftang, is marketed for cognitive effects and references erinacine research in its marketing despite containing none of the compound the cited studies used.

How Are Ratio Extract Claims Misleading Consumers in the Tongkat Ali Market?

Eftang extended the same critique to Tongkat Ali Eurycoma longifolia, calling claimed 100:1 and 200:1 extract ratios in the market "a complete lie" that he said originated with suppliers rather than any verified extraction process.

His lab's testing across thousands of samples reportedly found that raw dried Tongkat Ali root typically contains between 0.08% and 0.15% of the relevant native bioactive, and that a product on the market claiming a 100:1 ratio tested lower than untreated raw root.

He also described a secondary problem in legitimate 10:1 extraction: after a genuine extract is produced, the leftover spent material, still technically compliant with DNA and label-claim testing, is sometimes resold to buyers who aren't conducting bioactive testing, sometimes still marketed as a 10:1 extract.

What Should Brands Do Differently, According to Eftang?

Eftang closed by outlining a 4-step standard he urged brands to adopt: follow the underlying science regardless of whether the results are convenient, test using methodologies fit for the product's specific intended use, standardize and declare bioactive content per dose, and publish testing results publicly.

He acknowledged that proper lab testing is expensive, but argued the larger cost comes from acting on unfavorable results, rejecting batches, going out of stock, or confronting contract manufacturers, rather than from the testing itself.