Urine Mycotoxin Test Accuracy: What Do They Really Show?

Your urine mycotoxin test came back positive. Now you have more questions than answers.

Does this mean you have mold illness? Does it prove your home is making you sick? The honest answer: a positive result confirms you encountered mycotoxins somewhere, but it cannot tell you whether they came from your morning coffee or your water-damaged basement. More critically, it cannot tell you whether your immune system is actually reacting to that exposure.

This is the gap between what urine mycotoxin tests measure and what you need to know.

Executive Summary

Urine mycotoxin tests detect excretion, not illness. As Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker's published review demonstrates, these tests have three fundamental problems: no validated control standards exist to define "elevated" levels, they can't distinguish mycotoxins from food versus environmental exposure, and no study has demonstrated an association between urinary mycotoxin levels and any specific disease state. The CDC echoes this concern, noting that mycotoxins appear in the urine of healthy people simply from eating normal diets.

The bottom line: A positive test shows exposure occurred. It doesn't show whether your levels are abnormal, whether the source is food or your environment, or whether you have an illness. If you want to understand whether mold is making you sick, you need tests that measure your immune system's response — not what your body is excreting.

For a broader perspective on testing options, see our comprehensive mold illness testing guide.

Key Findings

Based on peer-reviewed research, published clinical reviews, and regulatory statements, here are the critical facts about urine mycotoxin testing:

1. No validated control standards exist. Shoemaker & Lark's published review examined 21 studies covering 2,756 healthy controls worldwide and found that 80–100% of healthy people test positive for urinary mycotoxins from dietary sources alone. As Shoemaker states: "No controls, no conclusions about cases." Without a validated baseline showing what levels appear in healthy people, there's no way to determine whether your result is abnormal.

2. Healthy people test positive due to dietary exposure. Mycotoxins appear in many foods. The CDC notes that "low levels of mycotoxins are found in many foods; therefore, mycotoxins are found in the urine of healthy persons." A 2025 Nature study found that deoxynivalenol (DON) was detected in 100% of Chinese population urine samples, primarily from dietary sources.

3. Tests can't distinguish food from environmental exposure. The CDC confirms that mycotoxins appear in urine from dietary sources in healthy people. A positive test can't tell you whether the mycotoxins came from your morning coffee, the grains you ate, or mold in your home. This source ambiguity is a fundamental limitation — your result provides no information about where the exposure came from.

4. No association with any disease state has been demonstrated. No published study has shown a reproducible association between elevated urinary mycotoxin levels and a specific illness. Shoemaker & Lark's review found that the two most-cited papers supporting urine mycotoxin testing lack validated control groups, rigorous case/control design, and any confirmation that results correlate with clinical illness. Without demonstrated disease association, a positive test can't guide treatment decisions.

5. Mycotoxin pharmacokinetics are more complex than simple half-life numbers suggest. Most published half-life data comes from single-dose studies, which don't reflect what happens with continuous exposure in a water-damaged building. With repeated dosing, basic pharmacokinetics dictates that steady-state concentrations build up — fundamentally different from a single-dose spike-and-drop pattern. Some mycotoxins persist far longer than commonly cited: Ochratoxin A has a human plasma half-life of approximately 35 days after a single dose, and research has found OTA persisting in mouse brain tissue for years after exposure ends. Urine tests don't capture this complexity.

6. Positive results do not indicate immune system involvement. Exposure does not equal illness. Most people exposed to mold do not develop serious problems because their immune systems process the exposure normally. Research on HLA genetic susceptibility suggests approximately 24% of the population carries haplotypes that impair their ability to clear biotoxins. What matters clinically is whether your immune system is dysregulated, which urine tests cannot assess.

What the Evidence Shows

The Validation Problem

The core issue isn't regulatory status — it's scientific validation. A test can accurately detect mycotoxins in urine (analytical validity) without that detection having any proven connection to disease (clinical validity).

Dr. Shoemaker's review identifies what's actually missing: validated control groups. The two most-cited papers supporting clinical use of urine mycotoxin testing lack credible controls, rigorous case/control design, and any prospective, placebo-controlled studies. When 80–100% of healthy people test positive from diet alone, a positive result in a symptomatic patient doesn't tell you anything useful.

The CDC echoes this concern, noting that without validated reference ranges, there's no basis for determining what constitutes an abnormal level. The problem isn't that the test "can't measure mycotoxins" — it's that the measurement doesn't separate sick patients from healthy ones.

Why Healthy People Test Positive

Mycotoxins are metabolites of certain fungi that appear widely in the food supply. Coffee, chocolate, grains, wine, dried fruits, and many other foods contain low levels of various mycotoxins.

The 2025 Nature population study demonstrates this clearly: DON appeared in 100% of tested individuals from dietary sources alone. This is not an outlier finding. The CDC confirms that mycotoxins appear in healthy people's urine simply from eating normal diets.

This creates a fundamental interpretation problem. When your test shows mycotoxins present, you cannot determine whether they came from the peanut butter you ate, the coffee you drank, or mold in your home.

Shoemaker & Lark's review of 21 control studies across six continents found mycotoxin positivity rates of 80–100% in healthy populations — from German adults (87% positive) to UK elderly (90% positive for DON) to Nigerian samples (99% positive for aflatoxin). Even a study of mill workers with known inhalation exposure showed no significant difference in urinary mycotoxin levels compared to controls, confirming that urine results primarily reflect dietary intake.

The Patient Experience: Living with Test Uncertainty

The clinical limitations of urine mycotoxin testing translate into real confusion for patients trying to understand their results.

One patient described the uncertainty this way: "I took a lab from RealTime Lab, and I had only gliotoxin derivative of equivocal (0.8). I felt like maybe it is hiding the other things."

This experience is common. Without validated reference ranges, patients are left wondering whether equivocal or borderline results capture the full picture of their exposure. The test provides a number, but no clinical framework to interpret what that number means for their health.

What Urine Tests Actually Measure

Urine tests measure excretion — what your body is eliminating, not what's happening inside it. Your body processes mycotoxins through biotransformation, chemically modifying them for elimination. Very little parent mycotoxin is excreted intact. The test detects metabolized remnants.

Here's where it gets complicated. Most published half-life data comes from single-dose studies: give a subject one exposure, then track how quickly it clears. Some mycotoxins clear in hours under those conditions. But patients living in water-damaged buildings aren't getting a single dose — they're getting continuous, repeated exposure. Basic pharmacokinetics tells us that repeated dosing creates steady-state concentrations that behave very differently from a single-dose spike. And some mycotoxins, like Ochratoxin A with its 35-day human plasma half-life after a single dose, accumulate significantly even under standard modeling.

This means urine test results are even harder to interpret than commonly understood. A snapshot of excretion doesn't capture the full pharmacokinetic picture for a continuously exposed patient.

The Inhalation Exposure Question

Many people pursue urine mycotoxin testing specifically to confirm inhalation exposure from a water-damaged building. This is understandable — but the test can't provide that confirmation.

The published research on building-related illness has consistently focused on inhalation as the primary exposure route of concern. What the science shows is that illness from water-damaged buildings isn't a simple mycotoxin dose-response problem. The mechanism is more complex: in genetically susceptible individuals, exposure to the complex mix of inflammagens in water-damaged buildings — fungi, bacteria, actinomycetes, and their metabolic byproducts — triggers an inflammatory cascade involving immune system dysregulation. This is an immune response problem, not a toxin accumulation problem.

Urine mycotoxin tests can't distinguish this immune-driven illness from normal dietary exposure. They measure only one narrow category of compounds (mycotoxins) while ignoring the broader inflammagen burden that actually drives illness in susceptible individuals.

Confused about which tests provide clinical value?

MoldCo's providers can help you understand your results and determine if blood biomarker testing is right for you.

Talk to a provider

How We Evaluated the Evidence

This analysis prioritizes sources by authority level:

1. Published clinical reviews from researchers with extensive case/control data carry the highest weight. Shoemaker & Lark's review of 21 control studies across 2,756 healthy subjects provides the most comprehensive analysis of urinary mycotoxin testing validity.
2. Regulatory statements from the CDC represent official public health positions and confirm the lack of validated standards.
3. Peer-reviewed population studies like the 2025 Nature study on urinary mycotoxin biomarkers provide empirical data on detection rates in healthy populations.
4. Peer-reviewed pharmacokinetic research on mycotoxin half-lives, tissue accumulation, and continuous-dosing models informs our understanding of what urine tests can and can't capture.
5. Patient experiences from community discussions illustrate real-world consequences of testing limitations, though these are anecdotal rather than evidence.

We cross-referenced claims across multiple sources before including them. Where sources disagreed, we noted the discrepancy.

Limitations and What We Don't Know

Intellectual honesty requires acknowledging research gaps:

Limited sensitivity and specificity data. Published literature does not include comprehensive accuracy statistics for commercial urine mycotoxin tests. Detection thresholds (like RTL's reported 0.2 ppb for trichothecenes) describe analytical limits, not diagnostic performance.

No comparative studies exist. We found no large-scale studies directly comparing urine mycotoxin testing to blood biomarker approaches for clinical decision-making. The superiority of one method over another remains based on mechanistic reasoning rather than head-to-head trials.

Reference ranges remain unestablished. No study has defined what mycotoxin levels in urine should be considered abnormal in healthy populations. Without this baseline, any numeric result lacks clinical context.

Individual variability is not characterized. Metabolism rates, excretion patterns, and clearance times vary between individuals. How these variations affect test interpretation is not well understood.

The absence of this research does not invalidate the scientific concerns. It does mean we should interpret all urine mycotoxin test results with appropriate uncertainty.

What This Means for You

A positive urine mycotoxin test confirms one thing: you encountered mycotoxins somewhere. This information can be useful context, but it does not answer the questions that matter for clinical decisions.

If you have already had testing: Do not dismiss your investment. The test shows exposure occurred. The next question is whether your body is actually reacting to that exposure in a way that causes symptoms. This requires different tests.

The distinction that matters: Urine tests measure what leaves your body. Blood biomarkers measure what is happening inside your body, specifically whether your immune system is mounting a chronic inflammatory response.

Blood markers like MMP-9, TGF-B1, and MSH have been studied extensively in mold-related illness research, with Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker's published protocols providing the foundation for this approach. They measure immune activation, not mere exposure. When comparing blood tests to environmental testing, blood biomarkers provide the clinical specificity that urine mycotoxin tests lack.

MoldCo's Starter Health Panel ($99) measures MSH, TGF-B1, and MMP-9 through LabCorp, providing an evidence-based approach to understanding whether your immune system is actually dysregulated.

Frequently Asked Questions

My functional medicine doctor recommended urine mycotoxin testing. Is it worthless?

Not worthless, but limited. The test confirms exposure, which validates that mycotoxins are present in your life. The limitation is what it cannot tell you: whether that exposure came from food or environment, and whether your immune system is actually affected.

If your doctor uses urine testing as one data point among many, that is reasonable. If treatment decisions rest entirely on urine mycotoxin results without measuring immune response, that approach lacks clinical validation.

The next step after confirming exposure is determining whether your immune system is dysregulated. Blood biomarkers provide that information. For a complete overview, see our mold illness testing guide.

Don't urine tests directly measure mycotoxins in my body?

Yes, they detect mycotoxins being excreted. But exposure does not equal illness.

Consider this: most people can be exposed to mold without developing serious problems. Research suggests approximately 24% of the population carries HLA haplotypes that impair biotoxin clearance, making them susceptible to chronic illness from exposure. Their bodies process and excrete the mycotoxins normally. The question is not "were you exposed?" but "is your immune system reacting abnormally to that exposure?"

A positive urine test cannot answer the second question. Blood biomarkers that measure inflammatory markers can.

Why do experts criticize these tests?

Both the CDC and Dr. Shoemaker's published research highlight the same three fundamental problems:

1. No validated control standards. Without knowing what levels appear in healthy people — and studies show 80–100% of healthy people test positive — there's no way to define what "elevated" means.
2. Source ambiguity. Tests can't distinguish dietary mycotoxins from environmental exposure. Your positive result could come from your breakfast, not your building.
3. No demonstrated disease association. No rigorous study has shown that elevated urinary mycotoxin levels reliably predict or correlate with a specific illness.

These aren't regulatory technicalities. They're fundamental scientific limitations that affect whether test results can guide clinical decisions.

What if I already got urine mycotoxin testing done?

Your test confirmed exposure occurred. That information has value as context.

The question now is: what do you do with it? The test cannot tell you whether mold is causing your symptoms or guide treatment decisions. It can only tell you that mycotoxins were present.

The logical next step is measuring whether your immune system is actually dysregulated. Blood biomarkers (MMP-9, TGF-B1, MSH, C4a) assess the inflammatory response that determines whether you get sick from exposure.

Many patients find this two-step process clarifying: urine testing showed exposure, blood testing showed whether their body was reacting. As one patient in the CIRS community noted after receiving mixed biomarker results: "I have an undetectable MSH, high TGFB-1... My practitioner is saying I still should do the CIRS protocol even though it's borderline." This illustrates how blood biomarkers provide the clinical context that urine testing alone cannot.

What tests can actually confirm mold illness?

Mold illness, particularly Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (CIRS), involves immune dysregulation that produces measurable biomarker patterns.

Blood tests that measure inflammatory markers provide clinical clarity:

• MSH (alpha-melanocyte stimulating hormone) regulates inflammation. Low levels correlate with chronic symptoms.
• TGF-B1 is an inflammatory cytokine. Elevated levels indicate ongoing immune activation.
• MMP-9 reflects inflammation in blood vessel walls and tissues.
• C4a measures complement system activation.

These biomarkers have been validated through extensive peer-reviewed research, with Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker's published studies providing foundational evidence. They measure what is happening inside your body, not just what is leaving it.

For a complete comparison of blood tests versus environmental tests and understanding all your testing options, MoldCo's panel compositions are specifically designed to assess immune response, starting at $99 for the three-marker Starter Panel.

Get clarity on what's actually happening in your body.

MoldCo's Starter Health Panel measures the immune biomarkers that matter clinically, not just exposure. Three markers, one LabCorp draw, results you can act on.

Start with a $99 panel

Any health-related claims made on this site have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The information provided on this site is not intended as a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. MoldCo assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of the references, nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.