BPC-157 FDA Status: Is It on the Category 2 List?

By Peptide Ecommerce · October 24, 2026

BPC-157 is not on FDA's current Category 2 list; FDA lists it on a separate table of substances "nominated but withdrawn" by their nominators, which by our count holds 17. That is how FDA's Category 2 page read on October 8, 2026, and neither of the two August 24, 2026 FDA warning letters we reviewed, to NuScience Peptides LLC and Peptide Partners LLC, names BPC-157.

To see which compounds FDA's letters to sellers have named, use the FDA warning letter tracker.

This guide is a complete status card for BPC-157 for founders and operators of research use only (RUO) peptide stores, built only from sources this site has captured: FDA's Category 2 and 503A pages, the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee pages, the two August 2026 warning letters, FDA's intended use regulation, and the policies of Stripe, PayPal, Braintree and Google Ads. It says what each source says, and just as plainly what none of them says. It does not describe what BPC-157 does, and it gives no amount and no route. Every quotation is copied from its source, and every recommendation is labeled as our judgment.

Talk through your BPC-157 listing with us: book a call

What you will be able to do after reading

By the end of this guide you will be able to:

1. Name the FDA table BPC-157 sits on and read what that table does and does not record. Delivered in Which FDA list is BPC-157 on? and What does category 2 mean on FDA's own page?.

2. Check whether the advisory committee agenda or either August 2026 warning letter names BPC-157. Delivered in Is BPC-157 on the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee agenda? and Does either August 2026 warning letter name BPC-157?.

3. Explain why a research use only label did not stop FDA from treating the products in those letters as drugs. Delivered in Did a research use only label stop FDA from treating peptides as drugs?.

4. Audit a BPC-157 listing line by line: titles, descriptions, images, FAQs, reviews, ads and links. Delivered in What should an operator listing BPC-157 check? and BPC-157 listing checklist.

5. Read what the captured Stripe, PayPal, Braintree and Google Ads policies say before you apply. Delivered in What do payment processors' captured policies say?.

The self check near the end tests each one.

Key Facts

FDA's Category 2 page lists BPC-157 under "Bulk drug substances nominated but withdrawn," not under "Bulk drug substances under category 2 of the interim policies." (FDA Category 2 page)
FDA describes that table as substances "previously in category 2 of the interim policies" that "were withdrawn by the nominators." (FDA Category 2 page)
The withdrawn table has no date column and no 503A or 503B column, so the page gives no date for BPC-157 and no section it applied under.
BPC-157 is not on the agenda of the meeting for which FDA wrote "FDA will host an advisory committee meeting before the end of February 2027." (FDA advisory committee meeting page)
Neither the NuScience Peptides LLC letter nor the Peptide Partners LLC letter, both dated August 24, 2026, names BPC-157 in its captured text.
Both letters said website evidence showed the products were drugs, despite research use only labeling.
TB-500 sits on the same withdrawn table, and the same two letters do not name it.

What does BPC-157's status card say?

Here is everything the captured sources hold on BPC-157, in one place. Each row is expanded, with its source, in the sections below.

| Question | What the sources show |

|:--|:--|

| Which FDA list? | The "nominated but withdrawn" table on FDA's Category 2 page |

| Which category? | Previously category 2, per FDA's description of that table |

| Date added or withdrawn | Not shown. The withdrawn table has no date column |

| 503A, 503B or both | Not shown. The withdrawn table has no such column |

| FDA's stated reasons | Quoted in full below, in FDA's words |

| On the February 2027 committee agenda? | No. Five other substances are |

| Named in the NuScience Peptides LLC letter? | No |

| Named in the Peptide Partners LLC letter? | No |

| Named by Stripe, PayPal, Braintree or Google Ads? | No. None of the captured pages names it |

| State law | Not in our sources |

Sources for the table: FDA Category 2 page, FDA advisory committee meeting page, FDA warning letter to NuScience Peptides LLC, FDA warning letter to Peptide Partners LLC.

We searched our evidence for three spellings: BPC-157, BPC 157 and BPC157. All three return the same FDA entries, plus the one entry of the site's own data noted below.

Which FDA list is BPC-157 on?

This section delivers outcome 1 of 5: name the FDA table BPC-157 sits on.

BPC-157 is not on FDA's current Category 2 table. It appears on FDA's separate table of "Bulk drug substances nominated but withdrawn," which FDA describes as substances "previously in category 2 of the interim policies" that "were withdrawn by the nominators." It is not one of the five substances on FDA's advisory committee agenda for the meeting FDA says will be held "before the end of February 2027." Neither of the two August 24, 2026 FDA warning letters this guide reviewed, to NuScience Peptides LLC and Peptide Partners LLC, names BPC-157. Sources: FDA Category 2 page, FDA advisory committee meeting page.

How FDA's page is laid out

FDA's page opens by saying "FDA has identified potential significant safety risks when reviewing nominations for bulk drug substances proposed to be included on the sections 503A or 503B bulks lists," and "Bulk drug substances that may present significant safety risks have been placed in category 2 under the interim policies." (FDA Category 2 page)

Below that sit two tables. The first, "Bulk drug substances under category 2 of the interim policies," has four columns: the substance, "503A category 2, 503B category 2, or both," "Date added to category 2," and "Potential significant safety risks." The second, "Bulk drug substances nominated but withdrawn," has only two: the substance and "Potential significant safety risks." BPC-157 is in the second table. (FDA Category 2 page)

What the withdrawn table does not tell you

Because the withdrawn table has only two columns, three facts an operator might want are simply not on the page:

1. When BPC-157 was added to category 2. The current table gives dates (for example, "Ipamorelin acetate 503B September 29, 2023"). The withdrawn table gives none.

2. When it was withdrawn, or by whom. FDA says only that the substances "were withdrawn by the nominators." No nominator is named.

3. Whether it was under 503A, 503B or both. That column exists only in the current table.

Our recommendation: do not put a date for BPC-157 in your copy unless you can link the FDA document it came from. Source: FDA Category 2 page.

Which substances share the withdrawn table

By our count, the withdrawn table lists 17 substances. In FDA's order: AOD-9604, BPC-157, cathelicidin LL-37, CJC-1295, dihexa acetate, emideltide (DSIP), epitalon, GHK-Cu, ipamorelin acetate, KPV, mechano growth factor pegylated (PEG-MGF), Melanotan II, MOTs-C, selank acetate (TP-7), semax (heptapeptide), thymosin-alpha 1 (Ta1), and thymosin beta-4 fragment, which FDA calls "Thymosin beta-4, fragment (LKKTETQ), also known as TB-500." (FDA Category 2 page)

One entry appears on both tables. FDA labels it "Ipamorelin acetate, which also appears in the table above because it is in category 2 under the 503B interim policy." In our reading, that shows a substance can sit on the withdrawn table and still be in category 2 under a different section. BPC-157 carries no such note: it appears once, on the withdrawn table only. (FDA Category 2 page)

For the whole current table and where every peptide on it stands, see FDA Category 2 list in 2026: where the peptides stand.

What reasons does FDA give for BPC-157, in FDA's words?

FDA gives one paragraph, quoted here in full: "Compounded drugs containing BPC-157 may pose risk for immunogenicity for certain routes of administration and may have complexities with regard to peptide-related impurities and active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) characterization. FDA has identified no, or only limited, safety-related information for the proposed routes of administration. Therefore, the agency lacks sufficient information to know whether the drug would cause harm when administered to humans." (FDA Category 2 page)

Three things about that paragraph matter for an operator, as our reading of its structure, not of its science:

It is written about compounded drugs. Its subject is "Compounded drugs containing BPC-157," in a compounding policy.
It is a statement of missing information. Its last sentence says the agency "lacks sufficient information to know." In our reading, it gives a seller nothing to quote in reassurance.

Our recommendation: if your product page refers to FDA's status at all, link FDA's page and quote this paragraph whole, or say nothing. Never summarize it in your own words. Source: FDA Category 2 page.

What does category 2 mean on FDA's own page?

The meaning of category 2 is set on a different FDA page, about the 503A bulks list. That page starts from the rule for compounders. State-licensed physicians and pharmacists compounding under section 503A may use bulk drug substances that meet one of three conditions, the third being that they "Appear on FDA's list of bulk drug substances that can be used in compounding (the 503A bulks list) if such a monograph does not exist and the substance is not a component of an FDA-approved drug product." (FDA 503A bulk drug substances page)

How the list is being built

FDA says it "solicited nominations for bulk drug substances in 2015 to include on the 503A bulks list" and "is consulting with the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee for and the U.S. Pharmacopeia Convention for input as it evaluates them." The page records two rulemakings. "A final regulation was issued in February 2019," in which "FDA placed six substances on the list, identified and did not place four other substances on the list, and established the criteria to evaluate substances for inclusion on the list." A proposed regulation followed in September 2019. The page does not name the substances in either rule, and it does not say BPC-157 was among them. (FDA 503A bulk drug substances page)

The interim policy and its three categories

While it evaluates nominations, FDA runs an interim policy. FDA describes it as "an interim policy describing conditions under which the agency does not intend to take action against state-licensed pharmacies, federal facilities and licensed physicians for compounding drug products from certain bulk drug substances that cannot otherwise be used under section 503A." It adds: "The interim policy describes three categories of bulk drug substances nominated for use in compounding." (FDA 503A bulk drug substances page)

In FDA's words, the three categories are:

| Category | FDA's description | FDA's enforcement position |

|:--|:--|:--|

| 1 | "These substances may be eligible for inclusion on the 503A bulks list, were nominated with sufficient supporting information for FDA to evaluate them, and do not appear on any other list." | "FDA does not intend to take action against a compounder for compounding drugs using bulk drug substances listed in category 1, provided that the conditions described in the guidance document are met." |

| 2 | "These substances were nominated with sufficient supporting information to permit FDA to evaluate them, and they may be eligible for inclusion on the 503A bulks list. However, FDA has identified significant safety risks relating to the use of these substances in compounding pending further evaluation and, therefore, does not intend to adopt the policy described for the substances in category 1." | "FDA would consider taking action against a compounder for compounding drug products with this bulk drug substance under its general enforcement policies." |

| 3 | "These substances may be eligible for inclusion on the 503A bulks list but were nominated with insufficient supporting information for FDA to evaluate them." | "These substances are not eligible for the policy that applies to substances in category 1." |

Source for the table: FDA 503A bulk drug substances page.

FDA also says what happens when a substance enters category 2: "If FDA adds a substance to category 2, we will publish the safety information describing the risks on FDA.gov and advise that the substance has been added to category 2 and is not within the scope of the policies regarding substances in category 1." (FDA 503A bulk drug substances page)

The 2025 change to the categories

The same page records a change. FDA says it issued a guidance document stating "the agency does not intend to place bulk drug substances nominated on or after January 7, 2025, into these categories." It also says "Bulk drug substances that appear in category 1 may continue to be within the scope of the interim enforcement policy described in FDA's guidance until the agency decides on inclusion of these substances on the 503A bulks list or unless the agency removes the substances from category 1 based on, for example, information about safety risks." (FDA 503A bulk drug substances page)

What the page does not say about a withdrawn substance

Here is the gap that matters most for BPC-157. FDA's 503A page defines categories 1, 2 and 3. It does not define a withdrawn status, and it does not say which category, if any, applies to a substance once its nominator withdraws it. The Category 2 page says only that the withdrawn substances were "previously in category 2." Neither page says BPC-157 is now in category 1, category 3 or no category. Our reading: the sources leave the current category of BPC-157 unstated, and an operator should not fill that gap in its own copy. Sources: FDA 503A bulk drug substances page, FDA Category 2 page.

What does BPC-157's withdrawn status decide?

The Category 2 pages govern compounders: FDA's enforcement language is about "taking action against a compounder." They are not a ruling on research suppliers. For a seller, what FDA weighs is intended use. Federal regulation 21 CFR 201.128 says intent "may be shown by such persons' expressions, the design or composition of the article, or by the circumstances surrounding the distribution of the article." Source: 21 CFR 201.128.

Our reading: the withdrawn table tells you how FDA's compounding policy treats BPC-157 as a bulk substance for pharmacies. It does not tell you whether a store's product is a drug. The two August 2026 warning letters show where that second question is decided: on the seller's own website, product by product, against the intended use regulation.

Is BPC-157 on the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee agenda?

This section delivers outcome 2 of 5: check the committee agenda for BPC-157.

No. FDA's meeting page says "FDA will host an advisory committee meeting before the end of February 2027." Its agenda reads: "The Committee will discuss the following bulk drug substances being considered for inclusion on the 503A bulks list: Cathelicidin (LL-37) GHK-Cu Dihexa acetate Melanotan II Mechano Growth Factor, Pegylated (PEG-MGF)." BPC-157 is not in that list, and the page does not mention it anywhere. (FDA advisory committee meeting page)

There is no fixed date. The page says "This meeting time and location will be scheduled in the coming months," and it was marked "Content current as of: 04/15/2026" when we captured it. It says "FDA intends to publish a Federal Register notice and establish a docket for public comment on this meeting in the near future," and that "Interested persons may present data, information or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee." It also explains the committee's role: "Advisory committees make non-binding recommendations to the FDA based on the expertise of their members." (FDA advisory committee meeting page)

A pattern worth noticing

All five agenda substances also appear on the same withdrawn table as BPC-157: cathelicidin LL-37, GHK-Cu, dihexa acetate, Melanotan II and PEG-MGF are each listed under "Bulk drug substances nominated but withdrawn." Sources: FDA advisory committee meeting page, FDA Category 2 page.

Our reading, which is judgment: being on the withdrawn table does not keep a substance off a committee agenda. It does not show that BPC-157 will be on a later one, and neither page says anything about its future.

Earlier meetings

FDA's main committee page links meeting materials for 2027, 2026, 2024 and 2022, and says "Meeting materials from 2021 and older are archived and can be accessed using the following hyperlinks: 2021, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015." We have not captured those materials, so whether any earlier meeting discussed BPC-157 is an open question. Source: FDA Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee page.

For what each committee outcome could mean for the five agenda substances, see peptides under PCAC review before the end of February 2027.

Does either August 2026 warning letter name BPC-157?

No. We read both letters in full, in captures taken on October 8 and again on October 25, 2026. Neither contains the letters BPC in any spelling. (FDA warning letter to NuScience Peptides LLC, FDA warning letter to Peptide Partners LLC)

What the NuScience Peptides LLC letter names

The letter lists the products FDA reviewed: "“GLP-2 Tirz Peptide,” “GLP-1 Sema Research Peptide,” “GLP-3 RT (Retatrutide) Research Peptide,” “Survodutide,” “Mazdutide,” “PT-141 Peptide (Bremelanotide),” “Tesamorelin Research Peptide,” “Tesamorelin Ipamorelin Blend,” and “Bacteriostatic water for Peptides (BAC Water)” are unapproved new drugs under section 505(a)." FDA says the violations "were identified and documented during a review of your website" in July 2026. (FDA warning letter to NuScience Peptides LLC)

What the Peptide Partners LLC letter names

This letter's list reads: "“GLP-1 S (Semaglutide),” “GLP-2 T (Tirzepatide),” “GLP-3 Reta (Retatrutide),” “SS-31 (Elamipretide),” “Tesa Peptide (Tesamorelin),” “PT-141 (Bremelanotide),” and “Reconstitution Solution (BAC)” are unapproved new drugs under section 505(a)." This review also took place in July 2026, according to the letter. (FDA warning letter to Peptide Partners LLC)

Why not named is not the same as not covered

Both letters warn that they are not complete. Each says "This is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of the violations that may exist in connection with your products or operations," and "It is your responsibility to ensure that your firm complies with all requirements of federal law, including FDA regulations." (FDA warning letter to NuScience Peptides LLC, FDA warning letter to Peptide Partners LLC)

Our reading, which is judgment: the letters tell you what FDA chose to cite, not whether either recipient sold BPC-157. The reasoning FDA used, website evidence of intended use, does not depend on which compound is on the page.

What this site's own tracker data shows

This is site data, not an FDA statement. The data behind our FDA warning letter tracker was collected from FDA's warning letter search using the terms "peptide, research use only, retatrutide, BPC-157, tirzepatide research, semaglutide research, lyophilized, peptides." It records 11 letters, dated December 8, 2025 through August 24, 2026. None of the product summaries in that data names BPC-157. That is a fact about those 11 summaries, and nothing more.

Did a research use only label stop FDA from treating peptides as drugs?

This section delivers outcome 3 of 5: explain why the label did not settle it.

In its letter to Peptide Partners LLC, FDA said "evidence obtained from your website establishes that your products are intended to be drugs for human use," and it said so "despite statements on your product labeling marketing your products 'for research use only' and 'not for human or veterinary use.'" Its letter to NuScience Peptides LLC says the same, despite labels reading "for laboratory, research, and analytical use" and "not intended for human or veterinary use." Sources: FDA warning letter to Peptide Partners LLC, FDA warning letter to NuScience Peptides LLC.

Where that sentence sits

In both letters, this sentence is footnote 1. It is attached to the paragraph where FDA says the products are drugs under section 201(g)(1) of the FD&C Act. The next sentence is the one an operator should read twice: "Examples from your product labeling, including on your website, that provide evidence of the intended use (as defined in 21 CFR 201.128) of these products as drugs include, but may not be limited to, the following." (FDA warning letter to NuScience Peptides LLC)

In our reading, FDA did not ignore the research label. It quoted it, then said the website evidence outweighed it.

What FDA quoted as evidence

The evidence FDA quoted was product page copy. For each product, the letters give the page and then quote sentences from it. In the Peptide Partners LLC letter, many of the quoted passages summarize studies, for example sentences that begin "This laboratory study" or "This lab study." In the NuScience Peptides LLC letter, the quoted passages include phrases such as "research peptide of significant interest" next to descriptions of results. Our reading, which is judgment: research framing in the copy did not change how FDA read what the copy said about outcomes. Sources: FDA warning letter to Peptide Partners LLC, FDA warning letter to NuScience Peptides LLC.

Evidence that was not a sentence

Three kinds of evidence in the letters are not claims at all:

1. A linked page. For one product, the NuScience Peptides LLC letter quotes a page on another website, noting it was "(hyperlinked from" the store's own product page. Our reading: a link out from your product page can be read as part of your page.

2. A companion product. Both letters treat the bacteriostatic water sold next to the peptides as a drug in its own right (NuScience Peptides LLC letter). The Peptide Partners LLC letter says "The sale of these products together demonstrates that you intend for your “Reconstitution Solution (BAC)” to be used in combination." Our reading: what you sell next to a product is part of the circumstances of distribution.

3. A tool. The NuScience Peptides LLC footnote names a "peptide calculator" marketed alongside the products. Our reading: a calculator or similar tool on your site is copy too.

Sources: FDA warning letter to NuScience Peptides LLC, FDA warning letter to Peptide Partners LLC.

For the full list of what FDA quoted from peptide sellers' copy, see what FDA warning letters say about peptide marketing. For what the RUO label can and cannot do, see research use only peptides: meaning and limits.

Each letter asked for a written reply "within fifteen (15) business days of receipt of this letter" (FDA warning letter to Peptide Partners LLC). For that process, see how to respond to an FDA warning letter for peptides.

How can copy about BPC-157 be read?

The regulation FDA cites in both letters sets the test, and it reaches further than a product title. The full text of 21 CFR 201.128 says intended use refers to "the objective intent of the persons legally responsible for the labeling of an article (or their representatives)." It goes on: "The intent may be shown by such persons' expressions, the design or composition of the article, or by the circumstances surrounding the distribution of the article. This objective intent may, for example, be shown by labeling claims, advertising matter, or oral or written statements by such persons or their representatives." (21 CFR 201.128)

Two more sentences in the same section speak directly to resellers. "Objective intent may be shown, for example, by circumstances in which the article is, with the knowledge of such persons or their representatives, offered or used for a purpose for which it is neither labeled nor advertised." (The sentence ends with a proviso about approved drugs.) And: "The intended uses of an article may change after it has been introduced into interstate commerce by its manufacturer. If, for example, a packer, distributor, or seller intends an article for different uses than those intended by the person from whom he or she received the article, such packer, distributor, or seller is required to supply adequate labeling in accordance with the new intended uses." (21 CFR 201.128)

Our reading of what that means for a BPC-157 listing, which is judgment and not legal advice:

Your supplier's label does not settle your intent. The regulation names the seller as a person whose intended use can differ from the manufacturer's.
Expressions is a broad word. It covers your copy, your support replies and what your representatives say.
Knowledge counts. What your store knows about how a product is used is part of the test.

The statute's definition of labeling points the same way. Under 21 U.S.C. 321, the term labeling "means all labels and other written, printed, or graphic matter (1) upon any article or any of its containers or wrappers, or (2) accompanying such article." The same section says that in judging whether labeling or advertising is misleading, account is taken of "not only representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the labeling or advertising fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations." (21 U.S.C. 321)

Our reading: images are in scope, and a page can mislead by what it leaves out.

What should an operator listing BPC-157 check?

This section delivers outcome 4 of 5: audit your listing line by line.

Everything in this section is our judgment, not a rule FDA or a processor wrote. Read your pages the way the letters did: one product at a time.

Product titles

The title travels furthest: into search results, carts, receipts and ads. Our recommendation:

Use the compound name and the factual identifiers printed on your COA, and nothing else.
No adjectives about outcomes, no body parts, no conditions, no words that describe a use.
No nicknames or slang. A name built to hint at a use is still a hint.

Descriptions

The letters quoted descriptions sentence by sentence. Read yours the same way. Our recommendation:

Delete every sentence that summarizes a study's results, however it is framed.
Keep what a buyer of a reagent needs: identity, sequence as published by your supplier, purity per the lot's COA, storage, packaging, lot number and the research use statement.
Do not suggest FDA has signed off on BPC-157 in any way. No source we hold says anything of the kind.

Images

The statute's definition of labeling includes "graphic matter." Our recommendation:

Show the vial, the label and the COA. Nothing else.
No people, no body imagery, no before and after shots, no gym or clinic scenes, no lifestyle staging.
Read the text inside every image, including supplier images, and the alt text. Both are copy.

FAQs

An FAQ is where operators most often answer the questions they should not. Our recommendation:

Answer questions about orders, shipping, storage, testing documents and refunds.
Do not answer questions about use, effects, amounts, routes or combinations, anywhere. A store that answers them shows it knows the product is used that way.

Reviews and user content

The intended use regulation counts the circumstances a seller knows about. Our recommendation:

Moderate reviews before they publish. Reject any review that describes personal use, effects or amounts.
Apply the same rule to comments, community pages and any group your store runs or links to.
Keep a dated log of what you rejected.

Ads and promotions

Ad copy is "advertising matter" in the regulation's words. Our recommendation:

Read every ad, keyword list and landing page against the same rules as the product page, and against the Google Ads policy quoted below.
Do not run promotions keyed to goals or events that imply a use.

Links, bundles and tools

The NuScience Peptides LLC letter quoted a page "hyperlinked from" the store, and both letters treated a companion product as a drug. Our recommendation:

Remove outbound links from product pages to third party research summaries, databases or articles.
Review every bundle, kit and frequently bought together pairing for what it implies about use.
Remove calculators and similar tools that only make sense for a use outside the research label.

Sources for the evidence this section draws on: FDA warning letter to NuScience Peptides LLC, FDA warning letter to Peptide Partners LLC, 21 CFR 201.128, 21 U.S.C. 321. For a page laid out this way, see anatomy of a compliant peptide product page.

What do payment processors' captured policies say?

This section delivers outcome 5 of 5: read the captured processor policies.

None of the captured policies of Stripe, PayPal, Braintree or Google Ads names BPC-157, peptides or research peptides. We read each page on October 8, 2026, and searched the captured text for those words. What follows is each page's own wording, with no conclusion drawn on the platform's behalf.

Stripe

Stripe's prohibited and restricted businesses page includes, under "Illegal weapons, explosives, and dangerous materials," the line "Incorrectly labeled research chemicals." Under "Nutraceuticals and pseudo-pharmaceuticals," it lists "Pseudo-pharmaceuticals or nutraceuticals that are not safe or make harmful claims." Under "Pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and telemedicine," it lists "Card-not-present prescription-only products and pharmaceuticals." Among prohibited uses of its products, it lists "Use of Stripe products with false, manipulated, inaccurate, or misleading information regarding your identity, business entity, the nature of the business, and any other information requested by Stripe," and "Evasion of card network chargeback monitoring programs." (Stripe prohibited and restricted businesses)

Our reading: the research chemicals line turns on labeling. See does Stripe allow peptides for more.

PayPal

PayPal's Acceptable Use Policy opens: "Violation of this Acceptable Use Policy constitutes a violation of the PayPal User Agreement." Under "Prohibited Activities," it says "You may not use the PayPal service for activities that:" and lists, among others, activities that "relate to transactions involving (a) narcotics, steroids, certain controlled substances or other products that present a risk to consumer safety." In a separate chart, under the heading Activities Requiring Approval, it lists "Prescription Items" as "The sale of any product(s) requiring a prescription or prescription dispensing services." (PayPal Acceptable Use Policy)

Braintree

Braintree's Acceptable Use Policy, section 2, "Certain Business Categories," says "You may not use the Payment Services in connection with any product, service, transaction or activity that involves:" and its list includes "prescription drugs, illegal drugs or substances designed to mimic illegal drugs," "pseudo pharmaceuticals," "online or other non-face-to-face pharmacies or pharmacy referral services," and "evading card association chargeback monitoring programs." Section 3 lists among Braintree's possible actions "Suspending, restricting or terminating your access to and use of the Payment Services." (Braintree Acceptable Use Policy)

Google Ads

Google's healthcare and medicines policy has a section headed "Unapproved substances." It covers certain products "regardless of any claims of legality," and its list includes "All items on this non-exhaustive list of unapproved pharmaceuticals and supplements," "Non-government approved products that are marketed in a way that implies that they're safe or effective for use in preventing, curing, or treating a particular disease or ailment," "Products that have been subject to any government or regulatory action or warning," and "Products with names that are confusingly similar to an unapproved pharmaceutical or supplement or controlled substance." (Google Ads healthcare and medicines policy)

Our captured page does not include the contents of that non-exhaustive list, so we cannot say whether BPC-157 is on it. The same policy, in its section on unauthorized pharmacies, says "Google may review information from multiple sources including your ad, website, accounts, and third-party sources," and "your Google Ads accounts will be suspended upon detection and without prior warning." (Google Ads healthcare and medicines policy)

For processor requirements in one table, use the payment processor requirements tool.

What is TB-500's FDA status?

FDA lists it on the same withdrawn table as "Thymosin beta-4, fragment (LKKTETQ), also known as TB-500." It is not on the February 2027 committee agenda, and neither of those two letters names it. Source: FDA Category 2 page.

What can this guide not tell you about BPC-157?

Our sources hold nothing on state law for either compound, and nothing on FDA's Category 1 list, which our captures do not include. Treat those as open questions for your attorney.

Here is every question this guide set out to answer that the captured sources leave open. An open question is not a no.

1. When BPC-157 was added to category 2. The withdrawn table has no date column.

2. When it was withdrawn, and by whom. FDA names no nominator.

3. Whether it applied under 503A, 503B or both. The withdrawn table has no such column.

4. Which category, if any, applies now. FDA's 503A page defines three categories and no withdrawn status.

5. Whether any earlier committee meeting discussed it. We have not captured the archived meeting materials.

6. Whether it will be on a future committee agenda. FDA has published one agenda, and BPC-157 is not on it.

7. Whether FDA has written to any seller about BPC-157. The two letters and the 11 tracker summaries do not name it. That does not show no such letter exists.

8. Whether it is on Google's non-exhaustive list. Our capture does not include that list.

9. How any processor's underwriting treats it. A policy page is not an underwriting decision.

10. Laws outside the United States. None of our sources covers them.

Sources: FDA Category 2 page, FDA 503A bulk drug substances page, FDA Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee page, Google Ads healthcare and medicines policy.

Our recommendation: bring this list to your attorney as written, and ask for answers in writing. See when to hire a peptide business attorney.

BPC-157 listing checklist

Work through this with your BPC-157 product page open. Each item is our recommendation. A no on any line is a page to fix before you send traffic to it.

1. Status. Does every reference to FDA on the page link FDA's Category 2 page and quote it accurately, or is there no reference at all?

2. No invented facts. Is the page free of any date, category or committee outcome for BPC-157 that FDA's pages do not show?

3. Title and description. Is the title the compound name plus factual identifiers only, and is every sentence about study results or outcomes gone?

4. Images. Do the images and alt text show only the vial, the label and the COA?

5. FAQ and support. Do the FAQ and support templates answer only order, shipping, storage, testing and refund questions, with one fixed reply to everything else?

6. Reviews. Is every review moderated before it publishes, with rejections logged?

7. Links, bundles and tools. Are outbound research links gone, and has every bundle and on site tool been reviewed?

8. Ads. Has every ad, keyword and landing page been read against the same rules and the Google Ads policy?

9. Processor. Have you read your processor's current policy page, and does your account application describe what you sell accurately?

10. Monitoring. Has someone been named to recheck FDA's Category 2 page and the committee meeting page, with a date?

11. Counsel. Has your attorney answered the open questions above?

Self check

Answer each question before reading its answer. If you miss one, reread the section named after it.

1. On FDA's Category 2 page, is BPC-157 on the current Category 2 table or on the withdrawn table?

The withdrawn table, which FDA describes as substances previously in category 2 that their nominators withdrew. See Which FDA list is BPC-157 on?.

2. What date and which statute section does FDA's page give for BPC-157?

Neither. The withdrawn table has no date column and no 503A or 503B column. See What the withdrawn table does not tell you.

3. Is BPC-157 on the agenda of the committee meeting FDA set for before the end of February 2027?

No. See Is BPC-157 on the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee agenda?.

4. Does either August 24, 2026 warning letter name BPC-157, and what does that prove?

Neither the NuScience Peptides LLC letter nor the Peptide Partners LLC letter names it in its captured text. Not being named is not the same as not being covered. See Why not named is not the same as not covered.

5. Did research use only wording on those sellers' labels settle the question for FDA?

No. Both letters said website evidence showed the products were drugs, despite the labeling. See Did a research use only label stop FDA from treating peptides as drugs?.

6. Does every line of the 11 item checklist read yes for your BPC-157 page?

If not, fix that page before you send traffic to it. See BPC-157 listing checklist.

What you should have when you finish

A one page BPC-157 status card in your files, each row linked to its FDA page and dated.
A product page that passes the checklist, with a dated screenshot.
A written review moderation rule and a rejection log.
One fixed support reply for use, amount and route questions.
Your attorney's written answers to the open questions.
A named person and a date for the next FDA page check.

Related guides

Frequently Asked Questions

Is BPC-157 on FDA's Category 2 list?

Not on the current table. FDA's Category 2 page lists it under "Bulk drug substances nominated but withdrawn," which FDA describes as substances "previously in category 2 of the interim policies" that "were withdrawn by the nominators."

When was BPC-157 added to or withdrawn from category 2?

FDA's page does not say. The withdrawn table has no date column and names no nominator, so the FDA Category 2 page gives no date for either event.

What reason does FDA give for BPC-157's listing?

FDA's page says compounded drugs containing it "may pose risk for immunogenicity for certain routes of administration" and that "the agency lacks sufficient information to know whether the drug would cause harm when administered to humans." Quote the full paragraph from the FDA Category 2 page, never a fragment.

Is BPC-157 on the February 2027 advisory committee agenda?

No. The FDA meeting page lists five substances: Cathelicidin (LL-37), GHK-Cu, Dihexa acetate, Melanotan II and PEG-MGF. The meeting has no fixed date yet.

Did FDA's August 2026 warning letters name BPC-157?

No. Neither the NuScience Peptides LLC letter nor the Peptide Partners LLC letter names it. Both say they are not "an all-inclusive list of the violations."

Does a research use only label protect a BPC-157 listing?

Not on its own, in our reading. In both August 2026 letters, FDA said "evidence obtained from your website establishes that your products are intended to be drugs for human use," despite research use statements on the labeling (Peptide Partners LLC letter).

Can reviews and images on my site count as evidence of intended use?

The regulation says intent may be shown by "the circumstances surrounding the distribution of the article" (21 CFR 201.128), and the statute's definition of labeling includes "graphic matter" (21 U.S.C. 321). Our reading: treat both as part of your page.

Do Stripe, PayPal or Braintree policies mention BPC-157?

No captured page names it. Stripe's list includes "Incorrectly labeled research chemicals," and Braintree's policy includes "pseudo pharmaceuticals." Read your own processor's current page before you list it.

Sources

This guide reports what FDA, Stripe, PayPal and Braintree published, as captured on October 8, 2026. It is not legal advice for your business.

Considering outside help? Questions to ask before choosing a peptide business coach