FDA panel endorses broader use of certain peptides

An article from Dive Brief // Trump administration FDA panel endorses broader use of certain peptides In a victory for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “MAHA” agenda, panelists narrowly recommended broader use of four peptides despite a lack of substantive evidence supporting their benefits and safety. Published July 23, 2026 Ben Fidler Lead Editor Share Copy link Email LinkedIn X/Twitter Facebook Print License Add us on Google Dive Brief: Advisers to the Food and Drug Administration have endorsed lifting restrictions that stop specialized compounding pharmacies from making certain peptides, heightening the chance that the agency could formally change its stance even as questions linger about their safety and effectiveness. In closely contested votes, a narrow majority of panelists recommended adding four peptides to the “503A Bulks List,” a registry of ingredients compounders can legally use to make custom medications for individual patients. Two peptides, KPV and TB-500, were being evaluated for use in wound healing, while BP-157 and MOTs-C were considered for ulcerative colitis and weight loss, respectively. Safety concerns led the FDA to ban the four peptides, which haven’t been rigorously tested for their purported uses, three years ago. But they’ve since soared in popularity among wellness influencers, been embraced by Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and are sold on the grey market. The FDA usually, but not always, sides with its advisory committees. The panel is scheduled to debate opening up use of three other peptides — Emideltide, Semax and Epitalon — on Friday. Dive Insight: The two-day advisory panel meeting that began on Thursday represents an unusual and high-profile collision between career FDA scientists, medical experts and supporters of a key part of the “MAHA” agenda. Kennedy has told podcaster Joe Rogan that he’s a “big fan” of peptides and has used them personally. He’s also advocated for widespread use of peptides, as reclassifying them would allow compounding pharmacies to produce higher quality versions than the “research grade” products many Americans are purchasing from questionable sources in search of weight loss, muscle gain or shinier skin. Yet the peptides in question don’t have substantive proof of efficacy or safety — and do, in some cases, have reports of dangerous side effects. In briefing documents filed ahead of the meeting and during presentations Thursday, agency reviewers advised against broader use of those peptides given the lack of available evidence and resulting unknowns about their true risks and benefits. Additionally, in unusual fashion, the advisory panel included several members with conflicts of interest, such as a history of prescribing or selling peptides. Their presence, as well as the FDA’s initial move in April to schedule the meeting, added to persistent angst that politics and ideology are influencing the agency’s decisionmaking. The meeting’s outcome isn’t likely to calm those fears. Each vote Thursday was close, with a divided panel narrowly recommending broader use. Those clashes involved weighing the risks of broader use against keeping the status quo in place. Supporters — many of whom had ties to peptide-linked businesses — pointed to either an absence of clearly established safety issues or the chance to give patients a more regulated choice than what’s available. “There's stuff happening out there that we need to try and control and make sure that we keep patients as safe as possible,” said panelist Haleem Mohammed, a physician and Chief Medical Officer of Gameday Men’s Health, a network of clinics that offers peptides. Dissenters, meanwhile, felt positive votes might cause bigger problems. “I'm concerned that we're responding to a market-induced demand rather than a decision based in solid science,” said Elizabeth Rebello, the executive director of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Brian Lee, an associate professor of medicine at USC’s Keck School of Medicine, voiced worries about patient safety and the precedent being set by the proceedings. “I think this endorsement can be potentially harmful, and I cannot, in good conscience, vote yes,” he said regarding opening up use of the peptide BP-157. Lee also called on the FDA to “standardize” decisionmaking on these products going forward, arguing that such decisions “should be objective and based on facts, not subjective and based on opinion.” Add us on Google Share Copy link Email LinkedIn X/Twitter Facebook Print License Filed Under: FDA