Are Peptides Legal in the US? What "Research Use Only" Actually Means

Last reviewed: September 2026. US federal law and verified state actions only; rules on Epitalon, Semax and other peptides differ in other countries.

Quick Answer

The honest answer to "are peptides legal" in the US is that it depends on the peptide and how it is sold, and a vial reading "For research use only. Not for human consumption." does not settle it. FDA judges intended use from everything a seller says and sells, not from the disclaimer alone [1]. FDA-approved peptide medicines are lawful with a prescription. Most research peptides have no approval; they are not federally scheduled drugs, but once the evidence shows they are intended for people, FDA treats them as unapproved new drugs that cannot be shipped interstate outside narrow exemptions [2, 3].

Key Takeaways

• The words "For Research Use Only" come from 21 CFR 809.10(c), a labeling rule for in vitro diagnostic products. No federal regulation we found creates an RUO category for peptides [4].
• The drug-side rule for laboratory shipments, 21 CFR 312.160, uses different wording ("Not for use in humans") and requires the shipper to vet the recipient and keep shipment records for 2 years [5].
• FDA defines intended use as "the objective intent of the persons legally responsible for the labeling of an article," so a disclaimer is one piece of evidence, not the verdict [1].
• On August 24, 2026, FDA dated warning letters to 5 peptide sellers citing FD&C Act sections 201(g)(1), 201(p), 301(d) and 505(a), despite each seller's research-use disclaimers [6–10].
• FDA quoted hedged, research-framed product copy as evidence, including phrases such as "Considered in preclinical models" [6].
• In July 2026 an FDA advisory committee recommended 6 of 7 peptides, including BPC-157, Semax and Epitalon, for the 503A bulks list. The vote is non-binding, and 21 CFR 216.23 still lists 6 non-peptide substances [11–13].
• A certificate of analysis documents a lot's quality. It confers no approval, and none of the 5 August letters turned on purity [6–10].

Research Use Only. Products sold by 99 Purity Peptides are supplied for laboratory research use only and are not for human or veterinary consumption. This page is sourced regulatory reporting. It is not legal advice, and it makes no statement about the regulatory status or compliance of any particular company or product, including our own.

What Does "Research Use Only" Actually Mean?

In federal regulations, "For Research Use Only" is a labeling statement written for in vitro diagnostic (IVD) products. It is not a legal status that attaches to peptides [4]. The wording sits in 21 CFR 809.10(c)(2)(i). That clause covers "a product in the laboratory research phase of development, and not represented as an effective in vitro diagnostic product." Its required statement reads, in full: "For Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures." [4]

The next clause supplies a sibling label. Products shipped for testing before full commercial marketing must carry: "For Investigational Use Only. The performance characteristics of this product have not been established." [4]

Both sentences were drafted for test kits, reagents and instruments that examine human specimens. FDA's 2013 guidance on these two labels confirms the scope, since it applies only to IVD products that have not been approved, cleared or licensed [14]. The version common in the peptide market keeps the first sentence and swaps the second. "Not for use in diagnostic procedures" becomes "Not for human consumption," and at that point the wording no longer matches any codified text.

Is There a Drug Rule for Laboratory Research Shipments?

Yes, although it is narrower than a vial label suggests and rarely quoted. Under 21 CFR 312.160, a person may ship "a drug intended solely for tests in vitro or in animals used only for laboratory research purposes" if it carries this exact caution: "CAUTION: Contains a new drug for investigational use only in laboratory research animals, or for tests in vitro. Not for use in humans." [5]

The permission comes with duties, and they fall on the shipper. It must "use due diligence to assure that the consignee is regularly engaged in conducting such tests." It must also keep records of each recipient's name and address, plus the date, quantity and batch of every shipment, for 2 years [5]. In addition, FDA may inspect those records, and unused supply must be returned or disposed of as the shipper authorizes. FDA can end the authorization if the drug "is used for purposes other than bona fide scientific investigation." [5]

This corrects a claim that circulates widely. One popular guide says the purchase is simply legal so long as the buyer is a real laboratory with a genuine research purpose. The regulation frames the question around the shipper's conduct instead, so the buyer's good intentions are not the test it sets.

Notice that "not for human consumption" appears in none of the codified texts. In August 2026, FDA quoted that exact phrase back to a seller as a statement it had considered and found outweighed [6].

Is It Legal to Buy Research Peptides in the United States?

Buying a research peptide is not a federal controlled-substance offence, because the peptides discussed on this page do not appear in the federal drug schedules [15]. That is a narrower statement than "buying is legal," and the gap matters.

Which Federal Laws Actually Apply to Buyers?

The Controlled Substances Act covers scheduled drugs, including anabolic steroids. Research peptides generally sit outside it, and our explainer on peptides versus steroids covers where that line falls. Human growth hormone is a special case, however. The FD&C Act makes knowingly distributing it for unauthorized human use a crime punishable by up to 5 years in prison [16].

The FD&C Act is where research peptides are actually regulated, and its prohibited acts are not written only for sellers. Section 301 also covers the receipt in interstate commerce of a misbranded drug [17]. Section 303 then sets penalties of up to 1 year in prison for a violation, rising to 3 years where there is intent to defraud or mislead [16].

The enforcement record points somewhere specific, though. Every federal and state action we confirmed from a primary source targeted a seller, a distributor, a trade platform or a clinic, not an individual buyer [6–10, 18–21]. That is a finding about the record we could check. It is not a prediction, and it says nothing about how any state treats a particular person.

Is It Legal to Sell Research Peptides?

Selling a peptide becomes a federal violation when its intended use makes it a drug and it ships interstate without an approved application or a valid exemption [2, 3, 17]. Four provisions do that work, and the August 2026 warning letters cited all of them.

Which Sections of the FD&C Act Did FDA Cite?

• Section 201(g)(1) defines a drug to include articles "intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease" and articles intended "to affect the structure or any function of the body" [2].
• Section 201(p) makes a drug a "new drug" when experts do not generally recognize it as safe and effective under the conditions in its labeling [2].
• Section 505(a) bars introducing a new drug into interstate commerce unless an approved application is in effect [3].
• Section 301(d) makes that introduction a prohibited act [17].

In practice, "unapproved new drug" is a low bar for FDA to clear. The agency does not have to show that a product is contaminated, mislabeled for strength or harmful. It needs intended use as a drug, no general recognition of safety and effectiveness, and no approval. Each August letter followed that sequence and noted that "certain exceptions" to the approval requirement were "not applicable here" [6–10].

Has Anyone Been Convicted for Selling Them?

Yes, at least one business. In October 2020, Tailor Made Compounding LLC of Nicholasville, Kentucky, pleaded guilty to one count of distributing unapproved new drugs. According to the plea agreement, those drugs included BPC 157, Epitalon and Semax alongside SARMs, and the company agreed to forfeit $1,788,906.82 [18]. It was a pharmacy rather than an online research vendor. Even so, the charge was the same unapproved-new-drug theory FDA used in 2026.

Why Doesn't the Disclaimer Settle It?

FDA's intended-use regulation looks at objective evidence of what a seller means, and a disclaimer is only one item in that file [1].

What Does 21 CFR 201.128 Say?

The regulation defines intended use as "the objective intent of the persons legally responsible for the labeling of an article (or their representatives)." That intent "may be shown by such persons' expressions, the design or composition of the article, or by the circumstances surrounding the distribution of the article." It may also be shown by "labeling claims, advertising matter, or oral or written statements by such persons or their representatives." [1]

In plain words, a vial label is a written statement. So is a product description, a blog post, a comparison chart and a social caption. The regulation treats them all as evidence, and nothing in it ranks the disclaimer above the rest. When the other evidence points toward human use, FDA can rely on it, which is exactly what happened in August 2026.

Does the 2021 Amendment Help Research Chemical Sellers?

No. FDA revised 201.128 in a rule published on August 2, 2021 [1]. The revision added a proviso: "a firm would not be regarded as intending an unapproved new use for an approved drug based solely on that firm's knowledge that such drug was being prescribed or used by health care providers for such use." [1]

Read its conditions closely. The drug must already be approved. The use must be by health care providers. And knowledge must be the only evidence. An unapproved research peptide meets none of the three. Meanwhile, the same sentence keeps the general rule intact: intent can still be shown where an article is, "with the knowledge of such persons or their representatives, offered or used for a purpose for which it is neither labeled nor advertised." [1]

What Does FDA's 2013 RUO Guidance Add?

FDA's November 2013 guidance on RUO and IUO labels was written for diagnostic devices, and it states that it contains non-binding recommendations [14]. Still, it is the agency's most detailed explanation of how it reads a research-only label.

Four passages carry the logic. Intended use "may be determined by looking at the totality of circumstances surrounding the distribution of the article." An IVD labeled for research while intended for clinical use would be misbranded under section 502(a) "because such labeling would be false or misleading." A buyer-certification program counts as one factor, but "the existence of a certification program alone would not relieve manufacturers from their responsibilities." Finally, "mere placement of an RUO or IUO label on an IVD product does not render the device exempt from otherwise applicable clearance, approval, or other requirements." [14]

Our judgment on its weight is straightforward. The guidance is the clearest window into how FDA reads the word "research" on a label. Applied to peptides, however, it is an analogy. The binding texts for drugs are the statute and 201.128, so any page presenting this guidance as peptide law is overstating it.

What Did the August 2026 FDA Warning Letters Say?

FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research dated warning letters on August 24, 2026 to five online peptide sellers. Each letter told the firm its products were unapproved new drugs despite research-use disclaimers [6–10]. FDA posted all five on September 1, 2026. According to the letters, FDA documented the violations while reviewing each firm's website in July 2026, and each firm had 15 business days to respond.

Semaglutide appears in all five letters. That single molecule shows why category labels fail: the same compound is an approved medicine in one channel and an unapproved new drug in another.

Which Two Passages Matter Most?

The first appears in a footnote that FDA repeated in every letter, swapping in each firm's own disclaimer. Royal Peptides' version reads: "Despite statements on your product labeling marketing your products "for research use only" and "not for human or animal consumption," evidence obtained from your website establishes that your products are intended to be drugs for human use." [7]

The second follows in the same footnote. It says the firm markets bacteriostatic water alongside a "peptide guide" and a "peptide calculator," resources that "collectively provide the means to prepare an injectable drug for human administration." [7] NuScience received the same point about a "peptide calculator" [8]. Peak Performance Peptides was told that selling the products together showed its bacteriostatic water was intended for use in injection [6], and the Peptide Partners and Tex Peptides letters make the same point about solvent sales [9, 10]

Four letters went a step further and named the water itself as a drug. Their reasoning was that selling it beside injectable peptides "demonstrates that you intend" it "to be used in combination for injection." [6, 8–10]

What Did FDA Quote as Evidence of Intended Use?

Most summaries skip this part, and in our view it is the most important finding in the letters. FDA did not quote only overt benefit claims. It also quoted hedged, research-framed copy:

• From Peak Performance Peptides, bullet points such as "Considered in preclinical models of endocrine and metabolic research" [6].
• From Royal Peptides, the sentence "Tesamorelin is categorized under growth-signaling research." [7]
• From Peptide Partners, lay summaries of laboratory work, including one that begins "This lab study looked at how the peptide SS-31 could protect eye cells from damage" [9].
• From NuScience Peptides, text on a third-party PubChem page that a product page linked to, which FDA listed among examples of the firm's labeling [8].

The lesson is uncomfortable for the whole research-compound category. Words like "studied" and "preclinical" did not neutralise the claims beside them. FDA read each site as a whole, which is what 201.128 permits [1].

What Did the Letters Not Say?

The gaps are as informative as the text:

• None of the five letters reports FDA testing a product, and none turns on purity, potency or contamination [6–10].
• FDA's web listing for each letter carries the subject "Unapproved New Drugs/Misbranded." The letter text, however, charges only unapproved-new-drug violations under sections 301(d) and 505(a); no section 502 misbranding charge appears [6–10].
• None names BPC-157, Semax or Epitalon. The cited molecules were GLP-1-class compounds, tesamorelin, PT-141 (bremelanotide) and, in four letters, SS-31 (elamipretide).
• An approved molecule did not help. FDA granted elamipretide accelerated approval as Forzinity in September 2025 [22]. Nevertheless, the letters state for every cited product that "No approved applications pursuant to section 505 of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 355, are in effect for these products." [6–10] Approval belongs to an application and a product, not to an amino acid sequence.

RUO, Approved, Compounded or Supplement: What Is the Difference?

The four categories differ in what authorization exists, who may supply and receive the product, and what use the law allows. The research reagent is the only one defined by the condition that it is not for use in humans.

The supplement column deserves one more line. Beyond the ingestion requirement, the statutory definition excludes articles approved as new drugs, and articles authorized for investigation as new drugs where substantial clinical investigations have begun and been made public, unless they were marketed as supplements or foods first [24]. For that reason, "sell it as a supplement" is not a workaround for most peptides of interest. For background on what the research category covers, see our guide to what research peptides are.

Can a Doctor Prescribe BPC-157, Semax or Epitalon?

Not through a lawful federal compounding pathway as of September 2026. None of the three is an approved drug, and none is on the 503A bulks list that would let a pharmacy compound it on prescription [13, 27].

Why Can't Pharmacies Compound Them Yet?

Section 503A lets pharmacies compound only with bulk substances that meet a USP or NF monograph, are components of an approved drug, or appear on FDA's 503A bulks list [25]. That list, codified at 21 CFR 216.23, names 6 substances, and none is a peptide: Brilliant Blue G, cantharidin, diphenylcyclopropenone, N-acetyl-D-glucosamine, squaric acid dibutyl ester and thymol iodide [13]. Even for those six, the regulation states that data are inadequate to demonstrate safety or efficacy [13].

On July 23 and 24, 2026, FDA's Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee voted to recommend six of seven peptides, including BPC-157, Semax and Epitalon, for that list, and voted against emideltide [11, 12]. Those recommendations departed from FDA's briefing document, which proposed against inclusion [28]; they are also non-binding, and a change to the list requires notice-and-comment rulemaking [27]. Our explainer on the July 2026 FDA peptide vote covers the details.

For the complete timeline on one compound, read our worked example, Is BPC-157 Legal?

What Routes Remain?

Two points close off common assumptions. First, off-label prescribing applies to approved drugs; even the 2021 intended-use proviso speaks only of "an approved drug" [1]. Second, the formal route for using an unapproved drug in people is a clinical investigation under an investigational new drug exemption, which section 505(i) authorizes [3]. Doctors can, of course, prescribe FDA-approved peptide medicines within their state scope of practice.

Does a Certificate of Analysis Make a Peptide Legal?

No. A certificate of analysis (COA) records identity, purity and other test results for one lot. It is quality documentation, while approval under section 505(a) turns on an approved application, not on test results [3].

Where a COA does appear in federal compounding rules, it is necessary but never sufficient. Section 503A requires bulk drug substances to come with a valid certificate of analysis and from an FDA-registered manufacturer [25]. Yet the compounded drug still needs an eligible substance, a licensed compounder and a prescription for an identified patient [23].

The August letters make the same point from the enforcement side. None of the five discussed purity [6–10]. A lot can test at 99% purity and still be an unapproved new drug, because section 201(p) asks whether a drug is generally recognized as safe and effective, not whether it is chemically clean [2].

A COA is still worth reading closely for what it is. Our guide on how to read a certificate of analysis explains HPLC and mass-spectrometry fields, lot documentation is published on our certificates page, and our guide to choosing high-purity research peptides covers supplier vetting. Terms such as COA, HPLC and 503A are defined in our research peptide glossary.

What About State Law and Other Agencies?

State attorneys general have acted against "research grade" peptide sales under consumer-protection law. The actions we could confirm from official state websites targeted an online seller, a trade platform and a clinic.

Two further rule sets sit outside criminal law but matter to specific readers. The Department of Defense's Operation Supplement Safety lists BPC-157 on the DoD Prohibited Dietary Supplement Ingredients List, and it notes the compound falls in the World Anti-Doping Agency's S0 Non-Approved Substances class [26]. State pharmacy and consumer-protection laws can also apply independently of federal law, and this page does not survey all 50 states.

What This Page Cannot Tell You

This page reports what statutes, regulations, guidance and enforcement records say. It cannot tell you how those rules apply to your situation, and it is not legal advice. Intended use is decided on facts and circumstances, so two sellers of the same molecule can stand in very different positions. Anyone making a decision that depends on this framework should consult a regulatory attorney.

The evidence also has limits worth naming. A warning letter states FDA's position on one firm; it is not a court ruling. The 2013 guidance is non-binding and written for devices. Our search found no prosecution of an individual buyer, but that search was not exhaustive. Whether any specific research supplier operates within 21 CFR 312.160 depends on records no public document shows. Finally, the compounding status of BPC-157, Semax and Epitalon remains undecided until FDA acts on the July 2026 votes.

How We Graded the Evidence

We ranked every source by its legal weight before relying on it, and we did not let a weaker source carry a conclusion that only a stronger one could support.

Where Should You Read Next?

If a single compound brought you here, start with our worked example, Is BPC-157 Legal?, which traces that peptide's regulatory history in detail. For the compounding question, our breakdown of the July 2026 FDA peptide vote explains what the advisory committee decided and what still has to happen. And if the vocabulary on this page was new, the research peptide glossary is the quickest reference.

References

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 21 CFR 201.128, Meaning of "intended uses." As amended at 86 FR 41401, Aug. 2, 2021. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/21/201.128
2. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, section 201 (definitions, including 201(g)(1), 201(p) and 201(ff)). 21 U.S.C. 321. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/321
3. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, section 505 (new drugs, including 505(a) and 505(i)). 21 U.S.C. 355. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/355
4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 21 CFR 809.10, Labeling for in vitro diagnostic products. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-H/part-809/subpart-B/section-809.10
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 21 CFR 312.160, Drugs for investigational use in laboratory research animals or in vitro tests. 52 FR 8831, Mar. 19, 1987, as amended. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/21/312.160
6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Warning Letter to Peak Performance Peptides, MARCS-CMS 735127. August 24, 2026 (posted September 1, 2026). https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/peak-performance-peptides-735127-08242026
7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Warning Letter to Royal Peptides LLC, MARCS-CMS 734884. August 24, 2026 (posted September 1, 2026). https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/royal-peptides-llc-734884-08242026
8. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Warning Letter to NuScience Peptides LLC, MARCS-CMS 733652. August 24, 2026 (posted September 1, 2026). https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/nuscience-peptides-llc-733652-08242026
9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Warning Letter to Peptide Partners LLC, MARCS-CMS 735063. August 24, 2026 (posted September 1, 2026). https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/peptide-partners-llc-735063-08242026
10. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Warning Letter to TXP Innovations LLC dba Tex Peptides, MARCS-CMS 735067. August 24, 2026 (posted September 1, 2026). https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/txp-innovations-llc-dba-tex-peptides-735067-08242026
11. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. July 23-24, 2026: Meeting of the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee. https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/advisory-committee-calendar/july-23-24-2026-meeting-pharmacy-compounding-advisory-committee-07232026
12. National Community Pharmacists Association. FDA advisory committee nominates six peptides for pharmacies to compound. July 31, 2026. https://ncpa.org/newsroom/qam/2026/07/31/fda-advisory-committee-nominates-six-peptides-pharmacies-compound
13. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 21 CFR 216.23, Bulk drug substances that can be used to compound drug products in accordance with section 503A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 84 FR 4710, Feb. 19, 2019. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/21/216.23
14. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Distribution of In Vitro Diagnostic Products Labeled for Research Use Only or Investigational Use Only: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. November 25, 2013. Docket FDA-2011-D-0305. https://www.fda.gov/media/87374/download
15. Drug Enforcement Administration. 21 CFR part 1308, Schedules of Controlled Substances. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-II/part-1308
16. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, section 303 (penalties, including 303(a) and 303(e)). 21 U.S.C. 333. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/333
17. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, section 301 (prohibited acts). 21 U.S.C. 331. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/331
18. U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Kentucky. Nicholasville Compounding Pharmacy and Its Owner Plead Guilty to Unlawful Distribution of Prescription Drugs. Press release, October 29, 2020. https://www.justice.gov/usao-edky/pr/nicholasville-compounding-pharmacy-and-its-owner-plead-guilty-unlawful-distribution
19. Office of the Attorney General, State of Connecticut. Attorney General Tong Sues GLP-1 Weight Loss Drug Distributor Triggered Brand, Announces Investigation Into Made In China. Press release, May 21, 2025. https://portal.ct.gov/ag/press-releases/2025-press-releases/attorney-general-tong-sues-glp-1-weight-loss-drug-distributor-triggered-brand
20. Office of the Attorney General, State of Connecticut. Attorney General Tong Announces Online Platform to Cease Bootleg GLP-1 Weight Loss Drug Sales Nationwide Following Connecticut Investigation. Press release, May 6, 2026. https://portal.ct.gov/ag/press-releases/2026-press-releases/attorney-general-tong-announces-online-platform-to-cease-bootleg-weight-loss-drug-sales
21. Alabama Attorney General's Office. Attorney General Steve Marshall Files Suit Against Cullman IV Infusion Clinic for Administering Dangerous, Unapproved Weight Loss Drugs. Press release, November 10, 2025. https://www.alabamaag.gov/attorney-general-steve-marshall-files-suit-against-cullman-iv-infusion-clinic-for-administering-dangerous-unapproved-weight-loss-drugs/
22. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Grants Accelerated Approval to First Treatment for Barth Syndrome. News release, September 19, 2025. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-first-treatment-barth-syndrome
23. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, section 503A (pharmacy compounding). 21 U.S.C. 353a. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/353a
24. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. New Dietary Ingredients in Dietary Supplements: Background for Industry (summarizing FD&C Act section 201(ff), added by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994). https://www.fda.gov/food/new-dietary-ingredient-ndi-notification-process/new-dietary-ingredients-dietary-supplements-background-industry
25. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Bulk Drug Substances Used in Compounding Under Section 503A of the FD&C Act. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/compounding/bulk-drug-substances-used-compounding-under-section-503a-fdc-act
26. Operation Supplement Safety, U.S. Department of Defense. BPC-157: A Prohibited Peptide and an Unapproved Drug Found in Health and Wellness Products. https://www.opss.org/article/bpc-157-prohibited-peptide-and-unapproved-drug-found-health-and-wellness-products
27. Werner MJ, Klock SM. FDA Advisory Committee Endorses Compounding of Certain Peptides. Holland & Knight Alert. August 4, 2026. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/08/fda-advisory-committee-endorses-compounding-of-certain-peptides
28. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Briefing Document, Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee Meeting, July 23-24, 2026. https://www.fda.gov/media/193342/download
29. Office of the Attorney General, State of Connecticut. Bootleg GLP-1 Weight Loss Drug Distributor to Cease Unlawful Sales in Settlement with State. Press release, August 5, 2025. https://portal.ct.gov/ag/press-releases/2025-press-releases/bootleg-weight-loss-drug-distributor-to-cease-unlawful-sales-in-settlement-with-state
30. National Association of Attorneys General. State and Territory Attorneys General Urge FDA to Take Action Against Counterfeit and Illegally Sold GLP-1 Drugs. February 2025. https://www.naag.org/press-releases/state-and-territory-attorneys-general-urge-fda-to-take-action-against-counterfeit-and-illegally-sold-glp-1-drugs/
31. Office of the Attorney General, State of Connecticut. Attorney General Tong Calls for Federal Action Against Counterfeit Weight Loss Drug Makers. Press release, February 2025. https://portal.ct.gov/ag/press-releases/2025-press-releases/attorney-general-tong-calls-for-federal-action-against-counterfeit-weight-loss-drug-makers