Biohacking, Peptides, And The Grey Market – Analysis

April 26, 2026
 Observer Research Foundation
By Lakshmy Ramakrishnan


In 2023, the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) restricted the use of certain peptides by compounding pharmacies—facilities that produce medications tailor-made to patients—owing to safety concerns. Most of these peptides are promoted by social media influencers as purported to offer health and wellness benefits, from speeding up recovery after injury to slowing down the ageing process.

While these peptides are popularised in wellness circles, there is limited scientific evidence supporting their use. In February 2026, however, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), proposed removing these restrictions. The FDA said it would review in July, under the aegis of an advisory committee, whether some of these peptides could be produced within the US. These steps could make molecules with little scientific evidence of safety and efficacy more readily available to the public.

From Insulin to Semaglutide

Peptides are short chains of amino acids naturally produced by the body that contribute to functions such as metabolism, immunity, and structural support of tissues. Owing to their wide applications in diagnostics and therapeutics, synthetic forms of naturally occurring peptides have been developed using biotechnology tools. Clinical management of type 1 and type 2 diabetes—characterised by high blood glucose levels—relies on synthetic forms of insulin that mimic natural human insulin by reducing blood glucose levels. More recently, synthetic peptides such as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, including semaglutide, have gained popularity for treating type 2 diabetes and obesity. This demonstrates how peptides can be transformative when they are based on scientific evidence and used within regulated healthcare systems.

Biohacking for Optimisation

While these peptides are approved for clinical use by drug regulators such as the US FDA, the health and wellness space is increasingly filled with synthetic peptides that are not approved for clinical use. Popular peptides in this space include GHK-CU, BPC-157, CJC-1295, and SS-31, most of which are injectable. Biohackers employ a do-it-yourself (DIY) approach to self-improvement by experimenting with lifestyle practices using technical knowledge and scientific tools. A central aim of biohacking is to identify how the body and mind can function better. Biohacking exists on a spectrum, with low-risk approaches including changes to eating patterns, fasting, and sleep tracking using wearables, while higher-risk approaches include self-administration of injectable peptides. Catalysed by social media influencers and proponents of the ‘Make America Healthy Again’ (MAHA) movement, biohackers are increasingly experimenting with peptides for weight loss, enhancement of sports performance, productivity, and longevity.

For instance, BPC-157 is reported to aid tissue repair and stimulate collagen production, slowing down the effects of ageing. The combination of BPC-157 with another peptide, TB-500, is used by athletes for performance and recovery and is popularly referred to as the ‘Wolverine stack,’ referencing the healing properties of the pop culture icon in the Marvel Comics series. Further, the injectable form of GHK-Cu, a copper-containing peptide reportedly linked to wound healing and collagen regeneration, contributes to the anti-ageing trend within the cosmetic industry. GHK-Cu is used as an ingredient in topical cosmetics, but its injectable form is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), raising the risk of immune reactions. These examples illustrate how rapidly these molecules form part of wellness narratives.

Most scientific studies available for these unregulated peptides are preclinical—in vitro or animal studies—with little or no clinical trial data. Often, the mechanisms of action of these peptides remain unclear, while long-term downstream effects on the body are poorly understood. Safety risks include immune reactions, infections at the injection site, disruptions to metabolism, effects on hormone signalling and cardiac function, and the promotion of tumour growth. For example, MK-677 (ibutamoren) is a non-peptide synthetic molecule commonly used in biohacking circles that stimulates the production of growth hormone (GH). It is marketed as a molecule that can enhance muscle mass, reduce body fat, and increase energy. MK-677 is banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency and is listed as a poison in the Australian Poisons Standard. Limited clinical trials showed that it was associated with hypertension and heart failure, resulting in the termination of clinical research. In addition, incorrect dosing and the presence of endotoxins and other impurities pose significant quality control risks for injectable peptides. Owing to the lack of robust clinical data, clinicians and healthcare systems may not be equipped to identify or manage adverse effects associated with these molecules.

What Drives Consumers?

Unregulated peptides appeal to consumers because they are marketed as cutting-edge therapeutics and offer alternatives to those dissatisfied with conventional treatments. Doctors in sports medicine have observed that patients turn to peptides after sports injuries because traditional treatments take time to work and can be painful and expensive. Others may be drawn to the culture of optimisation, where the pressure to appear in a certain manner or remain productive and energetic takes primacy. This culture is intensified by social media, where peptides are promoted as shortcuts to self-improvement. In addition, the use of the term ‘peptides’ implies that they are natural and thus ‘safe,’ in contrast to ‘drugs,’ which carry a negative connotation. Further, the GLP-1 receptor agonist wave has reduced the psychological block to self-injection. Injectable forms of treatment are now increasingly normalised rather than viewed solely as medical interventions.

The Grey Markets

While regulatory agency-approved peptides are available through pharmacies, unregulated ones are made available to the public through grey markets—a legal and regulatory grey zone—including e-commerce platforms, compounding pharmacies (in the US), and wellness clinics. E-commerce platforms lower barriers to access, and consumers can make purchases without the involvement of clinicians, prescriptions, or any form of monitoring. Although they are marketed by online sellers as ‘research-grade’ molecules not intended for human consumption, they can be purchased for that very purpose. Unregulated peptides are sourced primarily from Chinese manufacturers, linking drug regulation to cross-border supply chains and enforcement challenges.

Proposed Regulatory Changes

In a podcast last month, the Secretary of HHS remarked that he intends to ease restrictions on previously banned peptides by enabling pharmacies to compound these peptides. The FDA later announced that it will consider—in July this year—whether these peptides can be produced within the US. If the current restrictions are eased, it may result in the production of potentially unsafe peptides that lack adequate scientific evidence to support safety and efficacy in humans, and in reduced barriers to access if compounding pharmacies begin to produce them.

The Way Forward

Synthetic peptides in the unregulated space capture a unique tension in health and wellness. There is limited scientific evidence that these products offer meaningful health benefits, and very little information exists on their safety. The existing restrictions by the FDA on certain peptides are based on these concerns; they may be reconsidered. If access to these peptides expands, products intended for ‘research-use only’ should not be marketed for human self-experimentation. Stronger communication is critical, and health messaging must clearly state that these peptides are not linked to evidence-based science. Cognisance must also be taken that the peptide boom fuels wider social and mental health concerns, such as anxiety over body image, productivity, and ageing. Experimentation with these peptides encourages individuals to treat their physical health as a site of informal laboratory experiments. These lessons are relevant not only for the US but also for countries like India, where these trends are rapidly expanding. Given the influence of US drug regulation globally, such a shift may also alter consumer dynamics elsewhere. Healthier narratives on wellbeing are needed.

About the author: Lakshmy Ramakrishnan is an Associate Fellow with the Centre for New Economic Diplomacy at the Observer Research Foundation.

Source: This article was published by the Observer Research Foundation.