The recent Washington Post investigation (https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2026/07/24/peptide-boom-has-states-scrambling-protect-consumers-post-investigation-finds/) and the New York Times opinion essay (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/25/opinion/peptides-fda-health-supplements.html) both raise legitimate concerns about the rapid growth of unapproved injectable peptide products and efforts to sidestep drug review of these products. CRN shares these concerns.
Consumers deserve products that are backed by sound science and companies that comply with the law. They also deserve a truthful characterization of the regulatory framework that provides assurance for the safety of dietary supplements.
Where both pieces fall short is by blurring the distinction between unapproved peptide drugs sold through gray-market channels and the lawful dietary supplement marketplace governed by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA).
They are worlds apart.
Injectable peptides are often sold with label panels touting “Research Facts” and “For Research Uses Only,” to mimic the FDA-regulated “Supplement Facts” and “Drug Facts” panels for those respective categories. There is no such mandated labeling as “Research Facts” and that’s a first sign to consumers that something is amiss.
The Washington Post documents a marketplace filled with medspas selling unapproved peptides, injectable products sourced through gray channels, and state regulators who often lack authority over those businesses. Those findings reinforce—not undermine—the need for strong enforcement against illegal products operating outside legally-recognized categories.
Likewise, The New York Times argues that peptide products should not bypass FDA's drug approval process, and that strong consumer demand is not an excuse to shortcut scientific research. We agree. If a product is intended to function as a drug, it should be regulated as a drug. If it qualifies as a dietary supplement, it should follow all legal requirements for these products.
But neither article should be read as an indictment of the responsible dietary supplement industry. Responsible supplement manufacturers operate under mandatory Good Manufacturing Practices, ingredient safety standards, labeling requirements, and serious adverse event reporting requirements. FDA already has broad authority to remove adulterated, misbranded, and illegally marketed products from the marketplace.
CRN advocates for practical reforms that further strengthen oversight without restricting consumer access to safe, beneficial supplements—including a mandatory supplement label registry, more targeted inspections, increased FDA enforcement resources, and aggressive legal action against companies making unlawful disease claims or selling adulterated products.
CRN welcomes innovation paired with evidence-based claims and safety reviews. Today’s mature dietary supplement industry lives by these standards, and we believe peptides can, and should, too.
###
The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), founded in 1973 and based in Washington, D.C., is the leading trade association representing the dietary supplement and functional food industry. Bringing together manufacturers, ingredient suppliers, and service providers, CRN unites its member companies around a shared commitment to science, transparency, and responsible business practices—advancing a strong, credible marketplace that supports consumer health and industry growth.
In an increasingly complex regulatory and media environment, CRN serves as the industry’s front line—shaping science-based policy, defending market access, and countering misinformation. Through strategic advocacy, self-regulatory leadership, voluntary guidelines, and evidence-based communications, CRN ensures that responsible companies are recognized, protected, and positioned to innovate and compete. Learn more at crnusa.org and follow @CRN_Supplements on X and LinkedIn.