Getty ImagesSave this storySave this story
In an unprecedented move, Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, announced his plans to allow broader use of six previously restricted peptides—going against the advice of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA).
The six peptides in question—BPC-157, KPV, TB-500, MOTS-c, Epitalon, and Semax—came up for discussion in July, when an advisory panel, the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee (PCAC), voted in favor of loosening restrictions and moving the peptides to the 503A Bulks List, which means that compounding pharmacies could legally prepare them. Their advice was just that, advice. It did not mean the peptides were immediately added to the 503A Bulks List or that they were automatically FDA-approved. But this latest development has moved the industry into “genuinely new territory,” says Dustin Robinson, a lawyer and founding partner of LumaLex Law, a firm that advises businesses in emerging health sectors, including peptides.
The “interim enforcement discretion policy,” as it’s called, means compounding pharmacies can mix up the six peptides and the HHS won’t take enforcement action against them—as long as they follow a specific set of rules. Under these regulations, Robinson explains, pharmacies are protected only if they meet every condition, including: raw ingredients must come from FDA-registered manufacturers following good manufacturing practices; they must have a certificate of analysis (COA) that includes test results regarding identity, purity, endotoxins, and lack of contaminants like heavy metals; each product can contain only one peptide; each peptide is limited to specific forms, like intranasal use for Semax. The peptides cannot be purchased over the counter; they require a prescription from a licensed physician.
The document shared by the Department of Health and Human Services also calls out Kennedy in particular, who has been a vocal advocate for peptide use (although he is not a doctor or a medical professional). “The secretary of HHS has determined that this limited enforcement-discretion policy will discourage the continued, widespread use of certain research-use-only peptides supplied by foreign manufacturers that pose a safety risk to US patients,” it reads, adding that based on “available evidence” and the recommendations of a Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee, “the secretary has determined that the policy advances patient choice and freedom while appropriately protecting patient safety.”
Does the FDA agree with RFK Jr.’s decision?
It’s worth reiterating that this policy comes without the blessing of the FDA. None of these peptides have undergone the notoriously rigorous and often time-consuming and expensive process to earn FDA approval, which means they don’t have the added safeguards and peace of mind that come with an FDA-approved substance. And, when you’re injecting something into your body, you want it to be safe, right?
The Associated Press reports that FDA staff helped create the HHS’s safety guardrails, though the publication adds that the“Food and Drug Administration's scientific staffers had little input on the decision and opposed the changes, according to six people familiar with its development.” In related news, Australian actor Richard Norton’s 2025 death was just linked to excess use of a peptide he got via a doctor’s prescription. (The peptide was not one of the six mentioned above.)
The policy puts in place a “highly specific safety valve”
While it’s “tempting” to see this as a way to bypass the FDA, says David J. Holt, attorney and owner of Holt Law, a health-care business law firm in Minnesota and California, it’s “actually a highly specific safety valve” meant to “immediately rescue patients from a dangerous black market”—or that “for research only” loophole that allowed people to buy peptides from various sources without medical oversight. (By checking a box that says the peptides are “for research purposes only,” people can bypass the traditional pathways.)
These updates may actually put some much-needed rules and regulations in place, says Jay Campbell, cofounder of the American Peptide Association. The policy covers state-licensed pharmacies, federal facilities, and physicians compounding for a patient with a prescription, he explains. Pharmacies are also required to report any serious adverse events to the FDA and label the products as a compounded drug product that’s not for resale.
“Those are exactly the safeguards consumers have needed for years,” says Holt, adding that regulation aside, “this is a smart move to bring some manufacturing and related commerce in the peptide space back into the United States, as massive importing is currently occurring.”
What standard does RFK Jr.’s policy set for the peptide space going forward?
According to Campbell, this decision sets two specific standards for the future. The first, he says, is political: “HHS has shown it will act on peptides even when the FDA’s career staff disagree, and that precedent will shape what happens to the next group [of peptides to be reviewed].”
The second standard is quality, as the interim policy “spells out exactly what testing a peptide should pass before it reaches a human being.” As Campbell explains, the raw ingredient must come from an FDA-registered manufacturer and requires the aforementioned COA “covering identity, purity, and endotoxins.” And because pharmacies will be required to report any adverse effects, that means more “real-world evidence” could be collected, says Campbell. “This should become the floor for every peptide sold in this country, not just the six in this policy,” he adds.
Don’t expect these changes to take place overnight, however, since pharmacies need to establish a compliant supply first, says Robinson. And don’t expect this to become par for the course for other experimental medications, adds Holt. “This happened because of a perfect storm: massive consumer demand, an existing PCAC advisory vote in favor of these peptides, a federal administration that appears pro-patient choice related to peptides, and finally a bureaucratic FDA rulemaking process that takes years to finalize,” he explains, calling it a “rare, targeted intervention” that helps protect patient safety and advances patient choice. But again, “I'll reiterate this is not a green light for medical and wellness clinics to start compounding every peptide that pops up in their social media feed.”
Robinson expects we’ll see a similar approval process for the next batch of peptides, as the same panel from July is expected to weigh in on those in February. But regardless of what happens in the future, this policy isn’t permanent, he says. A future administration could “reverse it overnight.”
Where does this decision leave the FDA and its approval process?
“Access should never be confused with scientific or clinical validation,” says Ava Shamban, MD, a board-certified dermatologist in California who has served as an investigator in FDA trials. From a scientific and clinical perspective, she says, it’s critical to distinguish between expanding access and establishing safety.
“This policy creates a potential pathway for greater access, but it does not necessarily establish a new standard for FDA drug approval,” Dr. Shamban says. “That still requires rigorous evaluation of safety, efficacy, dosing, and manufacturing quality and further testing.”
To get a drug approved, explains Steve Kates, PhD, vice president of regulatory affairs at Dicerna Pharmaceuticals, not only do you have to show it’s efficacious, but you have to “justify a safety population.” For example, he says, Ozempic was tested on thousands of people before becoming widely available, creating a “massive amount” of safety data. The same safety data does not exist for these six peptides.
Efficacy, he adds, is determined by “clinically meaningful endpoints” the FDA can negotiate with, and that typically requires “two well-controlled clinical trials.” Though people may argue that the peptides have been used in trials, Dr. Kates says they are not “statistically significant.”
Dr. Shamban says that some peptides have been on the market for decades, “showing benefits and demonstrating efficacy in tens of thousands of patients anecdotally under a doctor's care, even if they aren't FDA-approved.” But that doesn’t mean they should be able to skip out on the evaluation process, nor does it mean they’re suddenly legal and approved.
Other peptides are “not even remotely close to the timing, usage, or testing levels that would allow them to be considered safe without the full rigor of FDA approval,” she adds. “The red flag is the precedent this could create if access substitutes for evidence. Innovation is essential in medicine, but regulatory flexibility should never diminish the scientific standards that protect patients.” Dr. Shamban notes that there’s still not a ton of “adequate human clinical data” to establish dosages, long-term safety, potential drug interactions, and whether the peptides consistently deliver the benefits they promise.
“Purity, sterility, consistency, and immune reactions are legitimate concerns, particularly with injectable compounds,” she explains. “And when we're discussing peptides marketed for collagen production, tissue repair, inflammation, or longevity, consumers need to understand that biological plausibility is not proof of clinical benefit.”
Expect peptides to get more expensive
Robinson notes that these rules “cut out most of the overseas supply chain,” which means manufacturing capacity may be “tight” at first (peptide users, including people purchasing GLP-1 weight loss drugs, often turned to online resources and overseas suppliers to acquire their peptides). He also thinks this policy makes the argument for a gray market weaker. “For consumers, access runs through a prescription, which means telehealth will be the front door for most people.”
However, this new policy likely won’t stop the gray market business. Campbell expects prices to “climb substantially” due to the fact that demand will spike and pharmacies must now source their peptides from FDA-registered manufacturers and run the necessary quality testing, too. Since the rules only apply to the pharmacy lane, he says, things will get more expensive, which means that people currently buying from the gray market will probably continue to do so. In addition, “stacks" of combined peptides, which are popular among the peptide-injecting set, aren't covered under the declaration.
The decision marks a significant development, but not a change in legal status
Patients are increasingly curious about peptides, says Amanda Kahn, MD, a board-certified internist in New York City, but she adds that they’ve been “difficult to access” through legitimate medical channels. Dr. Kahn views the new policy as a “significant development” for longevity, regenerative medicine, and preventative health. “There has been a growing disconnect between patient demand for peptide therapies and the regulatory framework governing access to them,” she explains, calling the updates an “important step” in bringing peptide therapies into a more medically supervised environment.
“Peptide therapeutics represent an interesting frontier in medicine, but we need innovation and scientific rigor to move forward together.” Dr. Kahn thinks more rigorous human studies are required, and says she’d never encourage anyone to “experiment with injectable peptides on their own.”
As for Koehl Robinson, CEO of telehealth company CeliaRx, she's feeling “encouraged and clear-eyed” about the news. “The developments…show that regulators are willing to look at peptides compound by compound…instead of treating the whole category as one risk,” she explains. “For me, it validates why I started CeliaRx. Peptides changed my health, and I saw how hard they were to access safely. The missing piece was a system with physicians, pharmacies, and accountability. That’s what we’ve built, and moments like this are when that infrastructure matters most.” CeliaRx's 503A pharmacy is set to open in 2027. For now, Koehl says, “Our manufacturing team is preparing so we can move quickly once the rules are final, but we won’t move faster than the quality allows.”
Dustin Robinson echoes Koehl's thoughts, saying that the HHS didn't create the demand—peptide users did. The new policy "moves that demand into a channel with a pharmacist, a prescription, and a paper trail.” However, this doesn't mean FDA approval and doesn't change the legal status of the peptides, he explains. “The FDA’s own drug reviewers recommended against listing them. HHS made a policy call, not a scientific finding that they’re safe or that they work.”
What to know if you want a prescription for one of the six peptides
If these peptides start popping up via providers near you, remember that they're not FDA-approved and have not been added to the 503A Bulks List, no matter what marketing says. “You’re likely going to see clinics calling these peptides ‘FDA-approved’ or something similar,” says Campbell. “They are not.”
Robinson recommends a few safety precautions if you are getting one of the six peptides from a pharmacy. First, look at the label and ensure it reads “This is a compounded drug product. Not for resale.” If not, it isn’t covered under the HHS’s policy. Don’t be afraid to ask the pharmacy where the ingredient was manufactured. “A legitimate pharmacy should be able to answer,” he says. Report any side effects. Robinson says that the label should explain how you can report what you’re experiencing so the FDA can compile data.
Dr. Kahn, who says she's a “big believer” in the potential of peptides, tells her patients to remember that not all peptides are created equal: Some are well-researched, while others are experimental. “I always encourage patients to start with a specific health goal rather than just taking peptides because they're trending,” she says. “If you're interested in peptide therapy, work with a physician who understands these compounds, can assess the risks, benefits, and, importantly, the unknowns, and can source them through a reputable, licensed pharmacy.” More isn't always better, Dr. Kahn says. “It's about choosing the right therapies for the right patient, with appropriate medical oversight.”
Dr. Shamban says she is “cautiously optimistic” about peptide science, but has concerns too. “As a dermatologist involved in clinical research, I recognize the importance of developing new therapeutic options. Peptides are not inherently problematic. In fact, peptide-based medications already have established roles in medicine,” she explains. “My greatest concern is that patients may interpret greater availability as confirmation of safety or effectiveness, particularly when these substances are marketed with compelling claims about regeneration, anti-aging and longevity—all key buzzwords being tossed around as a trend rather than true science.”
The goal, Dr. Shamban says, should be to accelerate science, use available clinical resources, and collect and report real-time data. “Greed or gain can never come before patient safety or care,” she says. These guardrails are in place for a reason. We need to support responsible innovation and physician-guided treatment. And we need to protect patients from becoming part of an uncontrolled experiment.”
