Convenience store Mr. Green is situated on a bustling stretch of Bedford Avenue in Brooklyn, New York. Near the checkout, patrons can find a typical assortment of sweets, chewing gum, rolling papers, and soft drinks. However, there is also a more controversial offering: small vials of injectable peptides. This is exactly what we purchased before sending them off to a laboratory for analysis.
Mr. Green is one of several establishments that gained notoriety this summer for selling peptides, a broad category of amino acids touted for their potential benefits, ranging from weight loss to injury recovery. For a total of $376.20, we procured four different types from a supplier known as INDR Labs: PT-141, aimed at addressing low libido; BPC-157, linked to healing and muscle recovery; NAD+, for cellular repair; and retatrutide, purportedly for weight loss. The vendor discreetly packaged the items in an unlabelled paper bag and sent us on our way.
Laboratory Analysis of Peptide Purchases
We dispatched the vials to Finnrick, an Austin-based startup specialising in independent peptide analysis. Consumers can request purity tests to determine whether samples contain common contaminants and verify if they match the stated quantities. Finnrick does not operate its own laboratories but acts as a liaison between labs and individuals. They assured us that we would receive confirmation regarding the authenticity of our purchased peptides within a few weeks.
In August, the results arrived. The somewhat reassuring news was that the samples contained low levels of heavy metals and endotoxins, indicating they were likely not actively harmful. The disappointing revelation, however, was that they did not contain any peptides at all. Each substance was found lacking its indicated active ingredients; for instance, the BPC-157 sample contained none of that compound. The negative results suggested that the vials were either mislabelled or had deteriorated to the point of being unrecognisable. Peptides are typically sensitive to temperature fluctuations and require refrigeration; thus, improper storage could lead to degradation of the ingredients.
The Uncertain Contents of the Vials
Determining the actual contents of the vials proved challenging, according to Marco Krause, the CEO of the laboratory that conducted the tests for Finnrick. “What we provide is simply an analysis of the information listed on the label. You send us what you believe it is, and we compare it against a reference standard to ascertain whether it is indeed the correct compound,” Krause explained.
Peptides have surged in popularity in recent years, bolstered by endorsements from figures like US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and podcaster Joe Rogan. While some of these substances are legitimate medications, such as GLP-1 and insulin, many of the trending peptides have not undergone the standard regulatory approval process. Despite the buzz surrounding them, the sale of many of these products for human consumption remains illegal in the US, primarily because they have not been subject to the requisite drug approval processes. Furthermore, evidence supporting their purported benefits is scant.
Legal Loopholes and Consumer Risks
The signage at Mr. Green indicated that the peptides were “for research purposes only,” a term that some laboratories may use to shield themselves from legal liability. However, as the testing results reveal, there is no guarantee regarding the contents of the vials, and in some cases, there are real dangers for consumers. Raphaël Mazoyer, CEO of Finnrick, noted that the samples analysed appeared to be “simply defective products.” In the past three months, his company has seen an uptick in similar results. Although he cannot definitively explain the trend, he points to the rising popularity of “turnkey” services that enable almost anyone to launch a peptide business.
“A plethora of brands are emerging that all utilise the same supplier,” he emphasised. While not all peptides tested by Finnrick exhibit poor quality, the nature of the industry allows companies to source from the same substandard supplier across multiple brands.
Widespread Testing Yields Concerning Results
Finnrick is not the only entity to encounter irregular lab results after sending peptide samples purchased without prescription for analysis. Jeff Colhoun, founder of the peptide supplier directory Peptide Critic, procured peptides from INDR Labs at a nearby tobacco shop called Smoker’s World and sent them to a different independent lab for testing. Colhoun purchased two vials of retatrutide and two of NAD+ and had them analysed by Analytical Formulations, based in Texas. The laboratory “could not definitively identify” the substances. This does not imply that the samples were entirely devoid of the indicated compounds, but it suggests they may have been contaminated or otherwise too degraded for accurate identification.
Colhoun has learned of research peptide suppliers encountering similar results when testing their products prior to sale, highlighting the significant risks consumers face when sellers “completely bypass meaningful batch testing.” INDR Labs did not respond to requests for comment, but shortly after our inquiry, their website began requiring login credentials. Prior to this, they had already restricted public access to their certificates of analysis, which attest that a product meets certain standards. The company claimed these certificates were provided by Vanguard Laboratory; however, a spokesperson from Vanguard denied having issued such documentation.
The Growing Peptide Market and Regulatory Challenges
INDR Labs represents just one facet of this burgeoning ecosystem, which is estimated to be worth up to $3 billion according to investor assessments. While the FDA has recently taken steps to relax regulations, many major telehealth platforms, such as Hims and Mochi, are preparing to market a wide array of peptides. Nevertheless, most individuals currently using these substances obtain them through dubious channels.
“The FDA must put an end to these black markets,” urges Fred Mills, an experienced pharmacist and executive with the non-profit organisation Americans for Safe and Effective Medicines. Based in Louisiana, Mills has recently discussed the dangers of individuals purchasing peptide products at convenience stores and advises anyone considering it to consult a physician first.
Potential Hazards of Unregulated Peptide Sales
If a vial of peptides contains little more than water or saline solution, the worst consequence might be financial loss due to purchasing a useless product. However, improperly labelled peptides could potentially contain harmful ingredients; this year, for instance, a woman died after receiving a peptide injection at an unlicensed medical spa in the Bronx.
“What concerns me about the peptide industry is that we are legitimising products without any understanding of what they contain. We have no idea of their safety, their efficacy profile, or whether they are adulterated or mislabelled,” expresses Darshan Kulkarni, a lawyer specialising in pharmaceutical regulatory compliance. In traditional pharmaceutical sales, measures are taken to ensure prescription accuracy and product safety, from visual inspections to barcode usage.
Regulatory Actions and Ongoing Concerns
“A person selling a product in a convenience store does not know how to do it,” Kulkarni points out. “The FDA has warned companies selling products labelled ‘for research purposes’ or ‘not for human consumption’ when such products are marketed directly to consumers for human use,” an FDA spokesperson, who preferred to remain anonymous, communicated via email. “Additionally, the FDA has cautioned telehealth companies for marketing medications directly to consumers and for making false or misleading claims about GLP-1 compound products offered on their websites. The FDA will continue to take action when necessary to safeguard public health.”
The agency did not respond to inquiries about whether they had contacted physical peptide vendors labelled “for research use only,” such as those sold at Mr. Green, or whether they had taken any enforcement actions against them.
Some enforcement actions have indeed taken place. Earlier this summer, a man from South Bend, Indiana, was sentenced to six years in prison for selling peptides “for research use” that had been illegally imported from China (a major source of peptide ingredients) and were adulterated with steroids. Nonetheless, regulatory oversight remains lax enough that it continues to be easy to purchase unauthorised peptides both online and at physical aesthetic medicine centres and other establishments.
Kulkarni believes the relatively low number of enforcement actions taken against the research peptide industry is linked to the Trump administration’s attitude that “regulation stifles innovation, and therefore they believe it benefits patients to allow them to decide which products to take.”
As for Mr. Green, they did not respond to a list of written questions submitted. When we visited in early September, the menu advertising the peptides had vanished. However, a smaller version was still displayed near the checkout, and peptides remained available for purchase.
Additional information provided by Caroline Haskins.