On July 23–24, 2026 an FDA advisory committee decides whether seven widely-used peptides move toward licensed compounding pharmacies. We track the legal status of each — and tell you plainly what the science does and doesn’t show.
In April 2026 these seven — among a dozen peptides — were removed from FDA Category 2 — but not moved to the approved Category 1 list. None is FDA-approved; none is yet legal to compound.
Status nuance: the April 15, 2026 removal from Category 2 happened because the nominations were withdrawn — not because the FDA found these peptides safe. Removal does not authorize compounding (that needs Category 1, a USP monograph, or approval) and does not grant enforcement discretion. The July vote is the first formal step.
A separate PCAC meeting before the end of February 2027 will review five more: Cathelicidin LL-37, Dihexa, GHK-Cu (injectable), PEG-MGF (pegylated MGF), and Melanotan II. Non-injectable GHK-Cu was separately removed from Category 1.
Recommendations are non-binding. If favorable, FDA rulemaking follows; realistic pharmacy access is late 2026–Q1 2027. Every vote was close: 8–6 with one abstention for BPC-157, KPV and TB-500; 7–5 with two abstentions for MOTS-c; 7–4 for Epitalon and 8–5 for Semax. Emideltide (DSIP) failed 6–7 — the only substance the committee declined to recommend. Voting members were added shortly before the meeting; several have peptide-industry ties, which has drawn conflict-of-interest scrutiny.
We email when a peptide’s status actually moves — committee votes, briefing documents, final rules — plus the occasional licensed-access update. Plain-English, evidence-first. No hype, no filler.
Every status here is tied to a primary source — the FDA advisory committee calendar, the Federal Register notice (docket FDA-2025-N-6895), the FDA’s interim 503A bulk-substances list, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We state an evidence grade for each peptide honestly: where human data is thin or absent, we say so, and where sources conflict (as with CJC-1295 and ipamorelin’s current category), we flag it rather than pick a side. We do not publish dosing, reconstitution, or sourcing information, and we do not link to “research-use” sellers.
Health content is researched, cited, and dated. A named licensed-clinician review is being added; until it is, pages are presented as editorial and are not described as medically reviewed. Funding and partner relationships are disclosed; corrections are logged publicly.