10
Loading video...
By Melissa Fleur Afshar
Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The beauty-meets-wellness industry has taken on a life of its own and is now worth a combined $6.8 trillion—but one of its most prized compounds, found in anything from complicated injections to viral, low-cost lip balms, may not be as "well" as it seems.
Academics at Northeastern University have voiced concerns about the pace of peptide usage racing ahead of its safety and efficacy track record. Their comments come after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a meeting to determine the future of a group of peptide compounds, something that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), with enormous personal influence over U.S. public health, has been championing.
Newsweek reached out to the FDA for comment via email.
Read More on Health
The debate cuts to the core of the booming industry, with pharmaceutical experts now questioning whether peptides—tiny protein fragments marketed as everything from wrinkle vanishers to weight shedders by binding cell receptors—were even ready for the mainstream, or whether regulators, and patients, are being asked to trust products that have not done the work to earn it.
Peptides and the Future of Biohacking and Wellness
Former buzzwords like "biohacking" and "longevity" have entered the mainstream personal care conversation, with peptides leading the way as the latest compound craze, ahead of other trendy creations like NAD infusions, gut health retreats and DNA-coded skincare.
U.S. peptide-related searches hit 10.1 million per month in January, a fivefold jump since 2020, and roughly 1 in 8 Americans now take GLP-1 drugs, the class of drugs behind Ozempic and Mounjaro, which are among the more notorious FDA-approved peptides. Even teenagers are under the spell, with some expressing willingness in national polls to go to greater lengths for their appearance than prior generations.
The fever could boil over if the FDA loosens restrictions on peptide drugs that agency scientists say remain insufficiently studied. Its Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee met on July 23 to consider broadening access to at least four previously banned peptides, letting specialized pharmacies compound customized medications for prescribed patients.
HHS press secretary Emily G. Hilliard spoke with Newsweek about the meeting.
"The FDA convened the committee to evaluate available evidence, including newly submitted information, on the potential benefits, risks, and safety of each peptide under review," she said. "The committee's recommendations will help inform the agency's decision-making process.
...
She added: "FDA will consider the committee's recommendations, consult with the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), and use these considerations, along with other information available to the agency, to develop a proposed rule. After the proposed rule is published, the public will have an opportunity to submit comments to the docket. FDA will consider those comments before issuing a final rule...The final rule may include all, some, or none of the substances proposed for inclusion on the 503A Bulks List."
Back in February, Kennedy Jr. had announced that roughly 14 of 19 banned peptides could be moved off the FDA's restricted list—the largest reversal in U.S. peptide regulatory history.
Certified cosmetologist, aesthetician and more recently, biochemist, Valerie Aparovich of OnSkin, offered an optimistic view of the amino acid chains on everyone's radar.
She told Newsweek that that topical peptides—signal, carrier, enzyme-inhibitor and neurotransmitter-inhibitor types like Matrixyl and Argireline—carry "a high safety profile" and support collagen production, though she cautioned much research comes from the companies actually selling the ingredients rather than independent investigators.
Why Are Some Experts Worried?
On a similar note, the enthusiasm, from users, sellers, and RFK Jr., is shadowed by rare cases of real-world harm.
In 2025, authorities were called to investigate why two women fell critically ill after receiving peptide injections at a booth run by a California physician, who did not have a license in Nevada, at the "Revolution Against Aging and Death" festival in Las Vegas.
Karthik Achari, clinician and founder of PepMD, who spoke at the recent FDA meeting, told Newsweek the core problem is structural.
"Being authorized to prescribe a peptide and being qualified to prescribe one are two different things, and nothing in the current system tells you which is which," he said.
He added that abundant anecdotal evidence exists but "usable," controlled data does not, and stressed the vote "doesn't authorize anything." After all, formal rulemaking could take over a year. Still, Achari, who founded PepMD in 2026 to address the rapid growth of peptide medicine, argued that a regulated pathway "is categorically safer than a grey market."
Dr. Neil Panchal, chief medical officer of Longevitix, agreed. He told Newsweek that a regulated pathway beats the status quo, noting that when peptides are not available through licensed pharmacies, "patients do not stop seeking them; they migrate to gray-market vendors selling material of unverified purity" instead.
Related Story
America’s Cyclospora Outbreak Foreshadows a Biosecurity Nightmare
But Northeastern's professor of pharmaceutical sciences and chemical engineering, Mansoor Amiji, was blunter, telling Newsweek: "Except for GLP-1 agonists by Eli Lilly and Novo, and other FDA-approved peptides, there are no preclinical or clinical studies showing safety and effectiveness of these 'hyped' peptides."
FDA-approved examples include some GLP-1 drugs and collagen supplements. Wellness influencers often claim broader peptides can speed injury recovery, boost performance and slow aging, due to how they can trigger tissue regeneration.
But even topical use risks dangerous systemic absorption, Amiji warns, countering Aparovich, and calling placebo responses the "best-case scenario" and serious reactions the worst.
His colleague Steve Kates said the approval bar—efficacy, manufacturing validation, toxicology—has not been cleared.
"These products haven't gone through any of that," Kates noted in a public statement, adding that peptides' complex manufacturing has historically made them hard to produce at scale.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Kara Dolman and Emma Lee-Sang
Update 7/30/26, 4:21 a.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines