WASHINGTON — The Food and Drug Administration has released its list of participants for an upcoming July meeting to reconsider several controversial peptide drugs, including injections praised by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., marking a significant shift in how the agency evaluates unapproved medications.
The two-day meeting will review popular injectable peptides such as BPC-157 and TB-500, substances that have been promoted for muscle building, injury healing and anti-aging benefits despite limited scientific evidence of their safety or effectiveness. The FDA has warned Americans about risks associated with these chemicals for several years.
Previous FDA panels on drug compounding — the group that reviewed peptide ingredients — voted against all such submissions brought forward by compounding pharmacies, declaring them too risky for patients. Those panels were primarily composed of experts from universities including Duke, Harvard and Johns Hopkins.
The new panel includes more than a half-dozen members who run clinics, online businesses or pharmacies specializing in peptides. Dr. Haleem Mohammed operates Florida clinics that sell peptide injections alongside vitamins, testosterone and weight loss medications as part of Gameday Men's Health. Another member, Dr. Gabriel Alizaidy, charges $500 for consultations on "peptide and hormone" therapies and promotes BPC-157 and GHK-Cu to thousands of followers on Instagram and TikTok.
Bobby Harshbarger, a Tennessee state senator and pharmacist at his family's Premiere Pharmacy, also serves on the panel. His mother is Rep. Diana Harshbarger, R-Tenn., who sent Kennedy a letter last year calling on him to relax FDA restrictions on several peptides.
What the Left Is Saying
Democratic lawmakers and public health advocates say the new panel composition raises serious concerns about regulatory capture and the integrity of scientific review processes. They argue that including individuals with direct financial stakes in peptide products undermines the FDA's ability to protect public health.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said the panel changes represent "a fundamental betrayal of science-based regulation." He called for the Government Accountability Office to investigate whether the new composition violates federal transparency and conflict-of-interest requirements.
The nonprofit Public Citizen issued a statement saying the move "puts industry profits ahead of patient safety." The organization pointed out that BPC-157 and TB-500 are classified as doping substances by international sports authorities precisely because their effects on human health remain unstudied.
Former FDA officials aligned with Democratic administrations have expressed alarm at the direction of peptide policy under Kennedy. Dr. Peter Lurie, who served as an associate FDA commissioner during the Obama administration, noted that "the agency spent decades building panels free from commercial influence. Dismantling those protections in favor of industry promoters is deeply troubling."
What the Right Is Saying
Conservatives and Make America Healthy Again supporters argue that the new panel reflects a necessary break from what they characterize as an overreaching regulatory establishment. They contend that previous FDA panels were dominated by interests aligned with pharmaceutical giants who wanted to suppress competing treatments.
Rep. Diana Harshbarger, R-Tenn., defended her son's participation, saying in a statement that "patients deserve access to wellness therapies that the federal government has unfairly blocked for years." She pointed to Kennedy's stated goals of addressing chronic disease through lifestyle and preventive approaches.
President Trump has praised Bobby Harshbarger's support of his agenda, having pardoned Harshbarger's father last year. Robert Harshbarger Jr. had served prison time after pleading guilty to substituting an unapproved drug from China for one used by dialysis patients more than a decade ago.
Kennedy told podcast host Joe Rogan earlier this year that he is "a big fan of peptides" and described using them to recover from injuries. His allies argue that the MAHA movement represents a democratization of health care decisions away from what they describe as entrenched academic elites with ties to Big Pharma.
Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., posted on social media that the panel changes represent "common-sense healthcare reform" and accused critics of "protecting a broken system that serves no one but drug company executives."
What the Numbers Show
The FDA maintains more than 30 advisory panels evaluating drugs, vaccines, food ingredients and medical products. Federal transparency rules require disclosure of financial relationships and mandate that regulators explain why an expert's expertise outweighs potential conflicts of interest.
Peptides like BPC-157 and TB-500 have not undergone extensive human clinical trials. The compounds are considered doping substances by the World Anti-Doping Agency and are specifically prohibited in competitive athletics.
Compounding pharmacies — which mix custom medications outside traditional manufacturing — represent a significant sector of the peptide market. These operations often label products as "for research use only" to sidestep FDA regulations, since the agency does not regulate research chemicals.
The number of FDA advisory committee meetings declined substantially during the tenure of former Commissioner Marty Makary, who resigned in May. Makary had been critical of panels as expensive and potentially conflicted. During his time leading the agency, the FDA relied more heavily on ad hoc meetings with handpicked experts on topics including talc powder risks and antidepressant concerns.
Last year, Kennedy fired the CDC's entire 17-member vaccine advisory panel and replaced it with members including several voices skeptical of routine immunization. A federal judge later ruled that action likely violated federal rules governing advisory committee composition.
The Bottom Line
The July FDA meeting represents a concrete manifestation of the MAHA movement's effort to reshape federal health policy, raising fundamental questions about how regulatory decisions should balance scientific evidence against access to unproven treatments. The panel's new composition signals a departure from decades of precedent in how the agency evaluates compounds that fall outside traditional drug approval pathways.
What happens at the meeting could have significant implications for consumers who obtain peptides through wellness clinics and online sellers, many of whom have embraced these substances based on influencer endorsements rather than medical evidence. If the panel approves any of the seven peptide ingredients under review, it would effectively legitimize their use despite ongoing safety concerns.
Both critics and supporters agree that patients are already obtaining these compounds in large numbers. The central dispute is whether federal oversight should accommodate that reality or continue treating unapproved peptides as inherently risky medications. Watch for potential legal challenges if the panel votes to approve ingredients previously rejected by academic-majority panels, as public health advocates have suggested they may seek judicial review of any such decisions.