Mushroom Growing.Aotearoa New ZealandSearch

Did Sporeshift Mushrooms Make an Illegal Claim to Google?

The available records do not establish that Sporeshift or Taylor McConnell made a false or unlawful claim to Google. They also do not establish that MPI bought its tested blue-oyster spawn from Sporeshift. Here is what can—and cannot—be verified.

Answer: This question cannot be answered “yes” from the evidence currently available. No Google request, claimant notice, decision, court order or correspondence reviewed for this article identifies what Sporeshift allegedly submitted. MPI’s public report identifies neither Sporeshift nor Taylor McConnell.

Sporeshift’s mushroom practice

Sporeshift Mushrooms NZ is a North Canterbury business founded by Taylor McConnell with Susan Jacobs. Public profiles describe a business that began supplying gourmet mushrooms to restaurants, markets and shops, then expanded into grow kits, grain spawn, agar cultures, cultivation supplies and education.

Sporeshift says it produces spawn and undertakes culture work for home growers and other small mushroom farms. Its educational material covers grow kits, log cultivation, outdoor beds and grain spawn. A 2024 Canterbury Horticultural Society talk described the business growing oyster mushrooms, shiitake, tawaka and pekepeke-kiore and supporting growers who supply local markets and restaurants. View Sporeshift’s summary of the talk.

The allegation about Google

In 2021, a page on this site concerning Sporeshift ceased appearing in Google Search. It was alleged that Taylor McConnell or Sporeshift denied selling the culture and supplied false information to Google to obtain the removal.

No copy of the removal request, Google decision, court order or correspondence reviewed for this article establishes who made a request, which Google policy or law was invoked, what representations were made, or why the result stopped appearing. Without those records, it is not possible to establish that Sporeshift made the request, that any statement was false, or that any law was broken.

The word “illegal” requires more than disagreement about facts. It would require the actual statement, the circumstances in which it was submitted and the law said to have been breached. None of those elements is established by a missing search result.

What a search removal means: Google explains that removing a result from Search does not remove the source page from the internet. A removal may arise under privacy policies, product rules or applicable law. The absence of a search result is not a scientific finding about a mushroom culture and, without the decision record, is not proof that either side of a dispute was correct.

Online visibility and scientific evidence are different

RecordWhat it can establishWhat it cannot establish alone
Google search resultA URL was indexed and displayed at a particular timeWhether every claim on the page was true
Removal noticeThe requester, ground and scope if those details are disclosedThe taxonomic identity of a culture
Product listing or invoiceThe name used, seller, date and quantitySpecies, ancestry, purity or import history
PhotographVisible form, label and contextExact species or hybrid parentage
Laboratory reportResults for the sample actually testedConnection to a sale without chain of custody
MPI or EPA decisionThe official finding and regulatory scope stated in that recordFacts about unnamed parties beyond the record

Did MPI buy the spawn from Sporeshift on Trade Me?

MPI’s 2020 report says an incursion investigator acquired blue-oyster spawn advertised online as Pleurotus ostreatus from “a retailer.” The report does not name the retailer, the website or marketplace, the notifier, or the supplier. It therefore confirms an official purchase and investigation, but it does not publicly confirm a purchase from Sporeshift on Trade Me.

A separate redacted invoice image held by this site names Sporeshift Mushrooms NZ Ltd and describes one kilogram of “Blue Oyster Spawn,” invoiced in November 2019. That image supports the narrower statement that Sporeshift issued an invoice for a product sold under that common name. The customer and invoice number are redacted, and the image has no MPI case number, sample seal, laboratory identifier or other link to the material tested by MPI.

Redacted Sporeshift Mushrooms invoice describing one kilogram of Blue Oyster Spawn
Redacted invoice naming Sporeshift Mushrooms NZ Ltd and “Blue Oyster Spawn.” It records a commercial description and transaction, but does not identify the customer or connect the product to MPI’s sample.
The two records cannot be joined without further evidence: an unnamed-retailer purchase in MPI’s report and a separate Sporeshift invoice do not prove that they were the same transaction or culture.

Independent research involving Sporeshift cultures

A University of Canterbury thesis examining cultivated Pleurotus in New Zealand records three commercial samples attributed to Sporeshift Mushrooms, Christchurch, collected in February 2022:

These records provide independent evidence about the three samples studied. They do not identify every culture Sporeshift supplied, establish the identity of a product sold under a different name, or retrospectively answer what material the business possessed in 2019 or 2020. View the University of Canterbury thesis record.

What MPI found in the tested blue-oyster culture

MPI reported in 2020 that it acquired spawn advertised as Pleurotus ostreatus from an unnamed online retailer. Laboratory work identified the material as an undescribed lineage then referred to as Pleurotus sp. OB within the wider P. ostreatus species complex.

MPI traced related stock through a supply network, found four imported cultures that included two hybrids and two cultures assigned to the OB lineage, and recalled available cultures held by ten unnamed retailers. The report records a positive biosecurity investigation involving misidentified material; it does not record a conviction or identify the businesses involved. Read MPI Surveillance 47(2), pages 29–30.

MPI described another detection in 2023 involving an oyster mushroom bought from an Auckland supermarket. Testing identified a hybrid between P. ostreatus and the OB lineage. Again, the public report did not identify Sporeshift. Read MPI Surveillance 50(2).

How a claim about a supplier should be verified

Before connecting a named supplier to a regulatory investigation, a publisher should seek records that join each step:

  1. a dated listing or offer from the supplier;
  2. an invoice and payment record;
  3. sealed packaging and a batch or culture identifier;
  4. a documented chain of custody from receipt to testing;
  5. a complete laboratory report and retained voucher;
  6. an official MPI or EPA record connecting that material to the regulatory finding; and
  7. a fair opportunity for the named supplier to provide records or correct factual errors.

Where those links are absent, the accurate formulation is that the connection has not been independently established.

Correcting mushroom information online

A knowledge resource should correct the source page when evidence changes, rather than relying on whether a search engine displays it. A useful correction identifies the precise claim, links the new source, explains what changed and preserves the date of the revision.

For disputed culture identities, corrections should separate:

New Zealand regulatory considerations

MPI requires edible mushroom cultures and spawn to follow the applicable import-health pathway, including a permit, scientific-name labelling, manufacturer documentation and border clearance. EPA approval may be needed where a viable organism meets the statutory definition of a new organism.

Neither a seller’s claim nor an online accusation determines legal status. For a particular culture, current MPI requirements, EPA decisions and the evidence linking the tested organism to the material in question are decisive.

What the evidence supports

References