On July 23–24, 2026 an FDA advisory committee recommended six of seven widely-used peptides for licensed compounding — a non-binding vote the FDA has not yet acted on. 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Status nuance: the April 15, 2026 removal from Category 2 happened because the nominations were withdrawn — not because the FDA found these peptides safe.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 acetate, GHK-Cu (injectable), PEG-MGF (pegylated MGF), and Melanotan II. Non-injectable GHK-Cu sits in Category 1 and may be compounded under the FDA’s interim policy; only the injectable route is outside it.
Recommendations are non-binding. Where favorable, FDA rulemaking would follow; realistic pharmacy access is 2027 at the earliest — no proposed rule as of September 2026. 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. The FDA announced eight new members on 29 June 2026, shortly before the meeting. Health Affairs later put the panel at 11 standing voting members plus those eight temporary ones, with between 12 and 15 voting on each peptide; the FDA has not published that breakdown itself. Roughly half of the seated members 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.