Are Peptides Legal? US Peptide Laws Explained

Key Takeaways

• Current legal status: As of April 2026, peptides fall into multiple FDA regulatory categories — FDA-approved drugs (legal with prescription), 503A Category 1 substances (compoundable with prescription from a licensed provider), Category 2 substances (restricted from compounding, with twelve removed from Category 2 by FDA update published April 15, 2026), and unregulated gray-market products (no legal pathway for human use). Status varies by compound.
• Governing law: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), Sections 503A and 503B; Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA) of 2013; Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 811) where applicable.
• Primary regulator: FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) for drug and compounding law; DEA for scheduling; state pharmacy boards for compounding facility oversight.
• Recent changes: On April 15, 2026, FDA published an update removing twelve peptides from the 503A Category 2 list. A PCAC review of remaining substances is in process; no firm timeline for additional determinations has been published. The February 27, 2026 HHS announcement by Secretary Kennedy was a statement of regulatory intent, not an operative regulatory change.

The Regulatory Framework Governing Peptides

Peptides in the United States are regulated under four overlapping frameworks depending on the specific compound and how it is used. FDA-approved drugs — including peptide medications with approved New Drug Applications (NDAs) or Biologics License Applications (BLAs) — are the most clearly regulated category, dispensed only by licensed pharmacies with valid prescriptions. Compounded peptides fall under Section 503A (patient-specific pharmacy compounding) or Section 503B (outsourcing facility compounding) of the FDCA, as amended by the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA) of 2013. Dietary supplements containing peptides (collagen peptides, certain amino acid products) are regulated under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994 and may be sold over the counter. Research-use-only (RUO) peptides occupy a legal gray area: sold by chemical suppliers for laboratory use, but often marketed implicitly for human use outside any legal framework. Zane and colleagues, in a 2021 review in the International Journal of Toxicology, described regulatory mix for peptide guidance with no peptide-specific pathway — an imprecision that contributes to the legal complexity consumers encounter.

What makes a peptide a "drug" under federal law

Under FDCA Section 201(g)(1), a drug is defined — in part — by its intended use: if a compound is intended to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent disease in humans or animals, it is a drug regardless of its molecular structure. This "intended use" doctrine applies to peptides directly: a collagen peptide marketed as a dietary supplement with structure/function claims such as "supports joint function" (accompanied by the required DSHEA disclaimer under 21 U.S.C. § 343(r)(6)) is not regulated as a drug — DSHEA governs. The same amino acid sequence sold with disease-related claims (e.g., "treats osteoarthritis") becomes an unapproved new drug subject to FDA's NDA requirements, regardless of the molecular composition. Usmani and colleagues, in a 2017 database analysis in PLOS One, described the THPdb database of FDA-approved peptides (239 therapeutic peptides and proteins) — illustrating the scale of the approved peptide drug landscape. Al Musaimi, in a 2024 review in Biomolecules, reviewed approximately 100 FDA-approved peptide medications across major therapeutic classes including GLP-1, GHRH, and ACTH analogs. Mendias and Awan, in a 2026 review in Sports Medicine, contrasted the FDA-regulated pathway against the gray market, articulating the legal divide in a sports-medicine context.

FDA-approved peptides: the fully legal pathway

FDA-approved peptide drugs are unambiguously legal when dispensed with a valid prescription from a licensed prescriber. Approval requires completion of Phase 1 through Phase 3 clinical trials demonstrating safety and efficacy for the specific indicated use. Examples of FDA-approved peptide drugs as of April 2026 include: semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus), tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Zepbound), liraglutide (Victoza, Saxenda), leuprolide (Lupron), insulin (multiple formulations), teriparatide (Forteo), and octreotide (Sandostatin). Tesamorelin (Egrifta) is FDA-approved as a biologic for HIV-associated lipodystrophy. Because it is regulated under the Public Health Service Act as a biologic (not a small-molecule drug), it cannot be lawfully compounded under Section 503A — a distinction that matters when patients ask about "compounded tesamorelin" offered by some gray-market vendors. Sharma and colleagues, in a 2023 review in Drug Discovery Today, reviewed FDA-approved peptide drugs and the clinical trial pipeline, illustrating the growing scale of legally available peptide therapeutics.

Dietary supplements and cosmetic peptides: the over-the-counter pathway

DSHEA (1994) permits the sale of dietary supplements — including oral peptide supplements such as hydrolyzed collagen — without premarket FDA approval, provided no drug claims are made. Topical peptide products in skincare are regulated as cosmetics, not drugs, under the FDCA. The regulatory bright line: the moment a product's label or marketing attributes a disease-related effect to a compound, it crosses from supplement or cosmetic territory into drug territory, triggering FDA's NDA requirements. Most injectable therapeutic peptides are prescription-only — the injection route and therapeutic intent generally trigger drug classification and prescription requirements. A narrow set of legacy injectable insulin formulations are federally OTC in some states, but the broader category of therapeutic injectable peptides (GLP-1 analogs, GnRH analogs, growth hormone secretagogues, etc.) is prescription-only.

503A Compounding: The Prescription Pathway for Non-Approved Peptides

Section 503A of the FDCA — as amended by the DQSA of 2013 — authorizes licensed pharmacies to compound drug products for individual patients when a valid prescriber-patient relationship exists. This is the primary legal pathway through which physicians prescribe peptides that are not FDA-approved as commercial drug products. Compounded products are not FDA-approved and have not undergone premarket review for safety or efficacy — but they are legal under specified conditions. Gabay, in a 2014 review in Hospital Pharmacy, summarized the DQSA as the foundational federal law that created the current 503A/503B framework. The legislation was directly motivated by the 2012 multistate fungal meningitis outbreak linked to contaminated compounded methylprednisolone: Teshome and colleagues, in a 2014 paper in the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, explained how the outbreak exposed regulation gaps that prompted Congress to strengthen the compounding framework.

What 503A requires: the three conditions

Three conditions are necessary for lawful 503A compounding. First, a valid prescription from a licensed prescriber (MD, DO, NP, or PA with prescribing authority) for a specific patient — a valid prescriber-patient relationship is required. Telehealth prescribing is lawful in most US states when state telehealth law is followed; Hoffman, in a 2020 review in the American Journal of Law and Medicine, examined the legal landscape of telemedicine prescribing, noting state variation in the absence of comprehensive federal rules. Second, the bulk drug substance must qualify under one of three statutory pathways in 21 U.S.C. § 353a(b)(1)(A): (i) it complies with an applicable USP or NF monograph, (ii) it is a component of an FDA-approved drug, or (iii) it appears on the FDA's 503A bulk drug substances list (Category 1). What constitutes a valid prescriber-patient relationship is defined by state law and varies across states — some require an initial in-person evaluation, most permit audio-video telehealth establishment, and a small number permit asynchronous evaluation for non-controlled substances. Third, the pharmacy must hold a current state pharmacy license and operate as a 503A pharmacy — not a 503B outsourcing facility. Cabaleiro, in a 2021 review in the International Journal of Pharmaceutical Compounding, described determining substance legality under 503A as involving "a patchwork of laws, regulations, and FDA guidance" — an authoritative acknowledgment of the complexity consumers encounter.

What 503A does NOT authorize

• Compounding Category 2 substances
• Producing a compound that is essentially a copy of an FDA-approved drug without a legitimate clinical rationale
• Wholesale distribution without individual patient prescriptions
• Operating outside state pharmacy board oversight or USP 797/795 sterility standards
• Using ingredient sources that are not from FDA-registered suppliers

Kircik and Siegel, in their 2023 compounding review, established the foundational principle: compounded products have not undergone premarket review. Compounded products are not FDA-approved — premarket review is not part of the 503A statutory framework. The patient-specific prescription requirement and state pharmacy oversight are the regulatory substitutes for premarket review, but they do not provide the same evidence base as FDA approval.

503A vs. 503B: the key distinctions

503B outsourcing facilities operate at larger scale and are registered with FDA directly, not merely state-licensed. They may produce batch quantities without patient-specific prescriptions but face FDA inspection authority similar to drug manufacturers and must comply with Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMP). Only compounds on the FDA's 503B bulk drug substances list may be compounded at 503B facilities. Most individual patients encounter 503A pharmacies; 503B facilities primarily supply hospital systems and clinics. Gianturco and colleagues, in a 2021 review in the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, distinguished 503A from 503B compounding and explained the bulk drug substance restrictions applicable to each.

• 503A Traditional Compounding Pharmacy:
  • Governing authority: State pharmacy board + FDCA Section 503A
  • Prescription requirement: Required for each patient
  • Production volume: Patient-specific; limited quantity
  • FDA inspection: State-led; FDA may inspect
  • Eligible substances: 503A Category 1 bulk list
  • FDA-approved status: Compounded products are NOT FDA-approved
  • Distribution: Interstate distribution is capped at 5% of total prescriptions dispensed/distributed unless the pharmacy's state has entered into an MOU with FDA, in which case the cap rises to 50%
• 503B Outsourcing Facility:
  • Governing authority: FDA registration + FDCA Section 503B + CGMP
  • Prescription requirement: Not required (may produce without Rx)
  • Production volume: Batch production permitted
  • FDA inspection: Regular FDA inspection (CGMP standard)
  • Eligible substances: 503B bulk drug substances list
  • FDA-approved status: Compounded products are NOT FDA-approved
  • Distribution: May ship interstate without the 503A 5%/50% cap, but distribution is restricted to substances on the 503B bulks list (or components of FDA-approved drugs) and subject to CGMP manufacturing standards and FDA registration requirements

FDA Category 1 and Category 2: What They Mean

When a bulk drug substance is nominated for compounding use, FDA places it in one of two interim categories while it evaluates the nomination. Category 1 substances are eligible for compounding while under review. Category 2 substances are those FDA has determined raise significant safety concerns and has placed on a "do not compound" list for 503A pharmacies. The Category designation applies specifically to compounding — it does not mean the substance is "FDA-approved" (Category 1) or "banned" (Category 2) in all contexts. Pinkerton and colleagues, in a 2016 review in Menopause, reviewed compounded vs. FDA-approved drug issues, including the legal conditions distinguishing lawful from unlawful compounding.

Category 1: eligible for compounding

Category 1 substances are those nominated for compounding that FDA has not prohibited. Pharmacies may compound Category 1 substances for patient-specific prescriptions under 503A. Being on the Category 1 list does not mean FDA has affirmatively approved the substance for any use — it means FDA's current evaluation has not identified grounds for prohibition. Category 1 status is subject to change; FDA may move substances to Category 2 after further review. Cabaleiro's 2021 analysis describes the evaluation framework that governs these determinations.

Category 2: restricted from compounding

Category 2 substances are those FDA has placed on a restricted list after determining they "present significant safety risks" or have insufficient evidence to support safe compounding under the interim framework. The FDA's stated rationale for most peptide Category 2 designations has included: insufficient published clinical safety data; immunogenicity risk; manufacturing and impurity concerns specific to peptide synthesis complexity; and in some cases, the existence of an FDA-approved alternative. Watson and colleagues, in a 2021 systematic review in the Journal of Medical Toxicology, documented 63 compounding errors between 1990 and 2020, affecting over 1,100 patients — the safety history that motivates the regulatory framework. Category 2 designation does not itself criminalize personal possession in most contexts, but the only lawful US source — compounding pharmacy supply — is closed. Gray-market alternatives carry separate legal and safety risks described below.

The September 2023 restriction and April 2026 update

On September 29, 2023, FDA moved nineteen peptide-based bulk drug substances to Category 2, restricting their compounding under Section 503A. This action was preceded by a draft guidance period and PCAC review processes and resulted in the removal of several widely compounded peptides — including BPC-157, TB-500, ipamorelin, and CJC-1295 — from the 503A eligibility list.

On February 27, 2026, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced intent to reclassify approximately fourteen of the nineteen Category 2 substances back to Category 1. This was a statement of regulatory intent — not an operative regulatory change. A HHS announcement is not an FDA rule; formal rulemaking requires Federal Register publication and, typically, a PCAC review period.

On April 15, 2026, FDA published an update to the 503A Category list removing twelve substances from Category 2 — the operative regulatory action, effective seven calendar days after publication. As of April 2026, formal PCAC review of remaining Category 2 substances is in process; no firm timeline for additional determinations has been published. Zettler and colleagues, in a 2026 analysis in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, analyzed the scope of FDA reform efforts under the current administration, providing context for the policy changes driving these reclassifications. For current status of specific compounds, verify directly at the FDA's 503A bulk drug substances page.

Research-Use-Only Peptides: What the Label Means and Does Not Mean

"Research use only" (RUO) is a commercial label applied by chemical suppliers to products sold for laboratory research purposes. It is not an FDA designation, and it does not authorize human use. O'Leary, in a 2011 commentary in Clinical Chemistry, questioned FDA oversight of RUO reagents — noting that the RUO label has historically been used to circumvent drug regulations. FDA's determination of whether a compound requires a new drug application is based on the product's intended use, not its label. A peptide sold as "research use only" with marketing materials that implicitly suggest human therapeutic use is subject to FDA enforcement as an unapproved new drug. Dmour and colleagues, in a 2022 analysis of FDA warning letters to compounding pharmacies issued between 2017 and 2022 in the Journal of Pharmaceutical Innovation, found unapproved drug violations in enforcement.

What RUO authorizes

RUO products may be sold to laboratories for in-vitro or animal research. The label does not authorize human administration. It does not exempt the product from FDA jurisdiction when intended for human use. Purchasing a peptide labeled RUO and administering it for personal therapeutic purposes falls outside the FDA's patient protection framework — adverse events are not captured in the MedWatch pharmacovigilance system, and the product may contain incorrect active ingredients, incorrect concentrations, or contaminants.

Why RUO products carry safety risks

Three specific risks apply to RUO peptide products used outside controlled research settings. First, no manufacturing standards: RUO products are not manufactured under pharmaceutical GMP standards; independent testing has found contamination, incorrect concentrations, and misidentified compounds. Watson and colleagues' 2021 review documented contamination incidents in the compounding context — the risk is amplified with completely unregulated production. Second, no dosing validation: RUO labeling carries no human dosage information because none exists from clinical studies. Third, no recourse: adverse events from self-administered RUO products are outside any patient reporting or pharmacovigilance system. Long and colleagues, in a 2022 systematic review in Pharmacy (Basel), found nearly half of online pharmacies selling prescription drugs are not properly regulated. Fantasia and colleagues, in a 2018 review in Nursing for Women's Health, documented counterfeit medication ingredient risks — a direct safety risk for consumers who cannot distinguish legitimate from counterfeit products.

Current Legal Status as of April 2026

The regulatory landscape reflects the status as of April 2026. Regulatory status changes — verify current FDA guidance at the FDA's compounding resource center for the most current compound-specific information.

FDA-approved peptides (legal with prescription)

As of April 2026, approximately 80–100 peptide drugs are FDA-approved (the higher 239 figure from Usmani and colleagues' THPdb includes both peptides and small proteins). These include semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus), tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Zepbound), liraglutide (Victoza, Saxenda), teriparatide (Forteo), insulin (multiple formulations), leuprolide (Lupron), exenatide (Byetta), and octreotide (Sandostatin), among many others. Tesamorelin (Egrifta) is FDA-approved but regulated as a biologic under the Public Health Service Act, meaning it cannot be lawfully compounded under Section 503A even when a prescriber orders it. These are dispensed by prescription from licensed pharmacies. Approval status, not molecular structure, determines legality. Xiao and colleagues, in a 2025 comprehensive review in Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy, reviewed the scale of peptide-based drug development and current clinical use, illustrating the breadth of the legal peptide therapeutics market.

503A Category 1 peptides (compoundable with prescription)

These are substances that a 503A pharmacy may compound for patient-specific prescriptions with a valid prescription from a licensed provider. As of April 15, 2026, twelve peptides previously in Category 2 were returned to Category 1 eligibility. Access requires a prescription from a licensed provider with a valid prescriber-patient relationship established through in-person or telehealth evaluation. Compounded products are not FDA-approved. Bays and colleagues, in a 2024 position statement FAQ in Obesity Pillars, identified supply, cost, and regulatory clarity as the three primary barriers to legal access for patients seeking compounded peptides — a patient-facing framing of the legal landscape.

Category 2 peptides (restricted from compounding, as of April 2026)

After the April 15, 2026 update, the remaining Category 2 peptides are those FDA has not yet reclassified. BPC-157, TB-500, and several others remain in Category 2 as of April 2026. PCAC review of additional substances is in process; no formal determination has been published for remaining compounds. Category 2 restricts compounding and pharmacy distribution; it does not itself address personal possession in most contexts, though compounds obtained outside regulated pharmacy channels carry separate legal and safety risks. For the current list, verify at FDA.gov. Combs and colleagues, in a 2025 analysis in the International Journal of Pharmaceutical Compounding, examined legal challenges facing compounding pharmacies producing peptides for weight management, with jurisdiction-specific risk analysis relevant to the current landscape.

Gray-market and RUO products (unregulated, no legal pathway for human use)

Products sold by online vendors without prescription requirements — typically labeled RUO or "not for human consumption" — have no legal pathway in the US for personal therapeutic use. Vendors operating outside the prescription and compounding frameworks may face FDA enforcement as misbranded and adulterated drug manufacturers. Dmour and colleagues' 2022 analysis of FDA warning letters issued to compounding pharmacies between 2017 and 2022 illustrated the enforcement pattern. There is no meaningful consumer protection for individuals purchasing from these sources: no pharmacovigilance system, no manufacturing oversight, no legal recourse for harm caused by contamination or incorrect labeling.

State-by-State Variation in Peptide Regulations

Federal law sets the floor for peptide regulation; state pharmacy boards set additional requirements. State law governs pharmacy licensure and inspection standards, telehealth prescribing requirements (including prescriber-patient relationship definitions and state prescriber licensure requirements), intrastate versus interstate dispensing restrictions, and, in some states, specific restrictions on controlled substances. The legal landscape for a specific patient depends on both federal and state law. Hoffman's 2020 analysis documented significant state variation in telehealth prescribing rules — a practical factor for patients seeking peptide prescriptions through telehealth platforms.

What varies by state

• Telehealth prescribing rules: State telehealth law governs whether an in-person visit is required to establish the prescriber-patient relationship before compounded peptide prescriptions may be issued; most states now permit an initial audio-video telehealth evaluation, subject to state-specific documentation and follow-up requirements. State requirements changed substantially during the 2020–2023 federal telehealth flexibilities period; current requirements vary and should be confirmed with your provider before initiating a telehealth prescription relationship.
• Pharmacy board compounding standards: State pharmacy boards may impose USP 797/795 compliance requirements, specific beyond-use dating rules, and sterility testing requirements beyond the FDA's 503A minimum standards. Pharmacies accredited by the Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board (PCAB) typically meet or exceed state board requirements. PCAB accreditation is voluntary — many compliant pharmacies meet state and federal requirements without seeking it.
• Controlled substance scheduling: DEA scheduling governs federally; some states schedule additional substances at the state level. Separately, the WADA Prohibited List includes most peptide hormones, growth factors, growth hormone secretagogues, and related compounds under Section S2 — meaning that athletes in WADA-compliant sports should assume most therapeutic peptides (including those that are lawful under US drug law with a prescription) are prohibited in competition. WADA-prohibited status is independent of US legal status; athletes should verify their sport's specific anti-doping regulations.

These variations make the prescriber-patient relationship a critical safeguard — a provider who holds prescribing authority in the patient's state and understands that state's pharmacy rules is a reliable source of guidance on what is legal for that patient specifically. For questions about specific state compliance requirements, consult a licensed healthcare regulatory attorney in your state.

What This Means for Consumers

The legal framework above has specific practical implications for anyone currently using, considering, or researching compounded peptides.

The legal pathway to compounded peptide access

Lawful access to compounded injectable peptides in the US generally requires four conditions: (1) a licensed healthcare provider (MD, DO, NP, PA) with prescribing authority in your state; (2) a valid prescriber-patient relationship, which may be established via telehealth in most states; (3) a prescription for a specific compound for a specific patient; and (4) a 503A-licensed compounding pharmacy that compounds Category 1 substances. Pinkerton and colleagues' 2016 analysis established the legal conditions distinguishing lawful from unlawful compounding in terms that apply to telehealth prescription models. Telehealth platforms that partner with licensed prescribers and 503A-compliant pharmacies — including Superpower — operate through this pathway for the specific compounded medications they offer, subject to the Category 1 eligibility of each substance.

Questions to ask your provider

• Is this peptide on the current FDA Category 1 list?
• Is the pharmacy 503A-licensed in my state?
• Does the pharmacy meet state board and USP 797/795 sterility standards?
• Is there an FDA-approved alternative I should consider first?
• What does the evidence show for this compound specifically?

A provider who cannot answer these questions may not be well-positioned to guide a legally compliant prescribing pathway. For legal questions about specific compounding compliance in your jurisdiction, consult a licensed healthcare regulatory attorney.

What This Means for Providers

Prescribers and compounding pharmacies face distinct legal obligations. This is an educational overview, not legal advice. For specific compliance questions, providers should consult with a healthcare regulatory attorney familiar with both federal and state pharmacy law.

Prescriber obligations

A prescriber who writes for compounded peptides must: hold an active license with prescribing authority in the patient's state; have an established prescriber-patient relationship meeting state telehealth requirements where applicable; verify the substance is on the current Category 1 list before prescribing; maintain documentation consistent with state medical board standards; and not prescribe a compounded copy of an FDA-approved drug without a legitimate clinical rationale. Prescribers should monitor FDA compounding guidance proactively, as the Category 1/2 status of substances changes and a prescription for a newly Category 2 compound may expose both prescriber and pharmacy to enforcement risk. For specific compliance guidance, consult a healthcare regulatory attorney.

Pharmacy obligations

A 503A compounding pharmacy must: hold a current state pharmacy license and any required 503A registration; compound only from the current Category 1 bulk drug substances list; prepare patient-specific prescriptions (not batch production without Rx); comply with USP 797/795 sterility standards; maintain records of prescriptions, beyond-use dates, and ingredient sources; and ensure ingredient sources are from FDA-registered suppliers. Watson and colleagues' 2021 systematic review documented 63 compounding errors between 1990 and 2020 that caused patient harm — the historical record that motivates current standards. Gudeman and colleagues, in a 2013 review in Drugs in R&D, characterized pharmacy compounding risks including contamination and subpotency.

When to Take the Regulatory Landscape Seriously

The legal framework described above exists because compounded drugs are not subject to FDA premarket safety review. Every patient protection in the compounding system depends on the quality of the prescriber's evaluation, the pharmacy's manufacturing practices, and the accuracy of the underlying evidence. When those standards are not met — as documented in the 2012 multistate meningitis outbreak that directly motivated the DQSA — patients are harmed. This is why the Category 2 designation, the 503A eligibility requirements, and state board oversight are not administrative formalities. They represent the minimum infrastructure that distinguishes pharmaceutical-grade from uncontrolled.

For individuals considering any peptide therapy, understanding your baseline biomarkers before starting provides the clinical context that makes the prescriber's evaluation more precise. A provider evaluating a patient who presents with objective IGF-1, metabolic, and hormonal data has more information to assess both the indication for a peptide and the appropriate monitoring plan than one working from symptoms alone.

That principle — data before decisions — is foundational to Superpower's approach to preventive health. Whether you are considering a prescription peptide or trying to understand what the regulatory changes mean for your current protocol, a comprehensive biomarker baseline gives any telehealth provider more to work with during evaluation.

Regulatory Information Notice

This article reflects the regulatory landscape as of April 2026. Regulatory status of peptides changes frequently, including through FDA guidance documents, Federal Register publications, Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee recommendations, and judicial decisions. Superpower makes no representation that the information above is current as of any date after its publication. Always verify current FDA guidance at FDA.gov — Human Drug Compounding.

This article does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific compounding compliance, prescribing requirements, or regulatory questions in your jurisdiction, consult a licensed healthcare regulatory attorney or your state pharmacy board.

Superpower Health does not provide legal advice. Superpower's care model operates through licensed healthcare providers and 503A-compliant compounding pharmacy partners. For information about Superpower's services, visit superpower.com/how-it-works.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Regulatory status of peptides changes frequently. For guidance specific to your situation, consult a qualified healthcare provider or regulatory attorney. Superpower does not provide legal advice.