Most people think a label protects them.
It doesn’t.
In January, the FDA made something explicit that used to live in the gray: intent matters more than labeling.
Calling a peptide “research use only” does not exempt it from drug law if it’s clearly being marketed, discussed, or distributed for human use.
Why this matters:
This is why we’re seeing warning letters, import alerts, and suppliers quietly pulling products from public catalogs.
It’s not random enforcement.
It’s targeted—especially around GLP-1 copycats and investigational peptides.
The real takeaway isn’t panic.
It’s discernment.
If you don’t understand why a compound is restricted, you’re relying on vibes instead of signals—and that’s how people get blindsided.
If you want to understand what’s actually being scrutinized (and why), start by learning which peptide categories are drawing attention vs. which are simply collateral noise.
If you want a deep dive into the actual regulations and how to stay protected (and stocked up) as a researcher, reply “regulation” to this email and I will write an in-depth email next week breaking it all down.
PS: Regulation doesn’t kill markets. Ignorance does.