What 'FDA approved,' 'WADA banned,' and the 503A compounding labels actually mean

Every peptide page on Pepdex shows a Status panel with five categories: Natty, FDA, Compounding, WADA, and Prescribed. Each one answers a different real world question. Here's what each label means and how to read them.

Natty status

"Natty" is shorthand from athletics, short for natural, meaning your physique and performance are achieved without performance-enhancing drugs. In tested sport, "natty" specifically means you'd pass a federation drug test.

Three labels you'll see on Pepdex:

Not natty. The peptide is universally treated as performance-enhancing or as a prescription drug. Tested athletes will fail. Examples: BPC-157, TB-500, all GH-axis peptides, IGF-1 LR3, GLP/GIP class drugs.

Grey area. Federations differ on whether the peptide disqualifies natty status. Often the case for FDA-approved drugs used off-label, naturally-occurring peptides used exogenously, and topical compounds. Examples: GHK-Cu, KPV (small fragment of natural alpha-MSH), MOTS-c (mitochondrial-derived), Setmelanotide (FDA-approved for genetic obesity), PT-141 (FDA-approved for HSDD).

Considered natty. Topical or non-performance compounds federations don't address. Rare. Examples: SNAP-8 (topical Botox-mimic), Octreotide (suppresses GH rather than enhancing).

What this category does NOT tell you: safety, legality, or whether your doctor would prescribe it. It only tells you whether you'd pass a drug test in tested sport.

FDA

This row tells you the regulatory status of the compound under U.S. drug law. There are roughly five buckets you'll see:

Approved drug. The FDA has approved the compound for at least one specific medical indication, with brand name(s) and a label specifying dose, contraindications, and warnings. Available by prescription. Examples: Tirzepatide (Mounjaro/Zepbound), Semaglutide (Ozempic/Wegovy/Rybelsus), Liraglutide (Saxenda/Victoza), MT-1 (Scenesse), PT-141 (Vyleesi), Tesamorelin (Egrifta), Pramlintide (Symlin), Setmelanotide (Imcivree), Teduglutide (Gattex), Octreotide (Sandostatin), Teriparatide (Forteo), HGH (multiple brand names).

Investigational. In active clinical trials. Manufacturer is pursuing approval but hasn't gotten it yet. Trial participants may have access; commercial availability is restricted. Examples: Retatrutide, Cagrilintide, Survodutide, Mazdutide, Pemvidutide, Petrelintide, Amycretin.

Not approved (for any indication). The compound exists, was studied, but never approved. Sold as research-use-only chemicals via vendor channels. Examples: BPC-157, TB-500, Ipamorelin, CJC-1295, MK-677, MOTS-c, Selank, Semax, Epitalon.

Approved abroad, not in the US. The compound has approval in other major regulatory jurisdictions but not the FDA. Examples: Cerebrolysin (approved in 50+ countries), Selank and Semax (approved in Russia), Thymosin Alpha-1 (approved in 30+ countries as Zadaxin).

Discontinued / withdrawn. Was once approved, then pulled, sometimes for commercial reasons rather than safety. Example: Sermorelin (approved as Geref in 1997 to treat pediatric GH deficiency, discontinued by the maker around 2008 for business reasons, not for safety or efficacy).

What this category does NOT tell you: whether something is safe, whether you can buy it, or whether you should use it. FDA approval is a regulatory threshold, not a complete safety verdict.

Compounding (FDA Bulks Lists)

This label moved a lot in 2026 and it is the one most often reported wrong, so read the mechanics before you read the label.

Section 503A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act governs compounding by state-licensed pharmacies, by licensed physicians, and in federal facilities. Under it, a drug cannot be compounded from just any raw ingredient. A bulk substance qualifies in one of three ways: it has a USP or NF monograph, or it is a component of an FDA-approved drug, or it appears on the 503A bulks list at 21 CFR 216.23. Most research peptides are none of those three, which is the whole answer to "is it legal to get this compounded."

Separately from that list, FDA ran an interim policy that sorted substances *nominated* for the list into holding categories while it evaluated them. FDA stopped assigning new nominations to those categories as of January 7, 2025, so the categories are now a legacy label that still applies to substances sorted before that date.

Category 1. FDA is still evaluating the substance and has said it does not intend to take action against compounding with it meanwhile, provided conditions are met (the bulk manufacturer is registered, there is a valid certificate of analysis, and every other 503A condition holds). Two things it is not: it is not the 503A bulks list, and it is not a finding that the substance is safe or works.

Category 2. FDA identified significant safety risks for compounding with the substance.

Category 3. Nominated without enough supporting information for FDA to evaluate it at all.

Approved drug. Sold as an FDA-approved drug rather than compounded from bulk. Examples: tirzepatide, semaglutide, liraglutide.

Investigational. Still in trials, and not on the 503A list.

Not on 503A list. The plain answer for most peptides in this catalog: whatever has happened around it, the substance is not at 21 CFR 216.23, so it does not qualify for compounding from bulk by that route. Where a compound has a specific history worth knowing, its status panel carries that under the badge.

Not classified. FDA has not sorted it into an interim category. That is not the same as FDA having no view: the agency has published safety analyses on plenty of substances it never categorized.

These labels are separate axes, not one ladder. A compound can be investigational, absent from the 503A list, and the subject of a favorable advisory vote all at once, and none of those cancels the others. Pepdex shows one badge per compound, the one that answers the compounding question most directly, so treat it as the headline rather than the whole file.

What actually happened in 2026

Four separate events keep getting merged into one headline.

In February 2026, HHS announced an intent to move a set of peptides off the Category 2 restricted list.

In April 2026, FDA removed a group of peptides from Category 2 because the nominations behind them had been withdrawn. FDA said plainly that removal from Category 2 does not by itself put a substance on the 503A bulks list or into Category 1, and in the same action it removed GHK-Cu from Category 1. FDA also continues to publish the safety concerns it had identified for substances that left the category this way, so the removal is not a retraction of those concerns.

In May 2026, FDA reversed part of that. The nominator for GHK-Cu clarified that it had meant to withdraw only the injectable route, so on May 14 FDA restored GHK-Cu, except for injectable routes of administration, to Category 1. Injectable GHK-Cu did not come back with it, which is why the same compound can carry one status topically and another as a shot.

On July 23 and 24, 2026, FDA's Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee reviewed seven peptides and voted to recommend six of them for the 503A bulks list: BPC-157, KPV, TB-500, MOTS-c, epitalon, and semax. Emideltide (DSIP) was voted down. The margins were narrow, and the committee voted against the recommendation of FDA's review staff.

That vote is advisory. It does not bind FDA, and it changed nothing on its own. Before any of the six can be compounded from bulk under 503A, FDA has to act through notice-and-comment rulemaking: a proposed rule, a public comment period, then a final rule. As of August 2026 none of the six appears in 21 CFR 216.23.

Worth knowing for the compounds that are not in that six: several peptides people assume are in the queue already went through it and lost. FDA's committee reviewed ipamorelin in October 2024 and CJC-1295, thymosin alpha-1, and AOD-9604 in December 2024, and voted against all of them.

So if you read that a peptide is "FDA cleared for compounding" because of the July vote, the article got ahead of the process. The full breakdown of that vote walks through what each outcome does and does not mean.

Why this matters: the compounding label tells you where a substance sits in a regulatory queue. It does not tell you the substance works, does not supply approved prescribing information, and says nothing at all about products sold by research-chemical websites, which are outside the compounding system entirely.

WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency)

If you compete in any tested sport (Olympics, NCAA, USADA-tested, etc.) the WADA Prohibited List is what governs whether a substance gets you banned.

Banned (S0, Non-Approved Substances). Compounds with no current approval by any governmental health authority for human use, plus a few specifically named compounds. The most relevant: BPC-157 was added in 2022 and remains on S0.

Banned (S1, Anabolic Agents). Steroids and SARMs. Pepdex doesn't catalog these (out of spec).

Banned (S2, Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors). The big one for peptide users. Covers GH and analogs (HGH, Tesamorelin, Sermorelin, Hexarelin, Ipamorelin, CJC-1295, GHRP-2/6), IGF-1 and analogs (IGF-1 LR3, IGF-1 DES, MGF, PEG-MGF), erythropoietins, and GHRH variants. Also TB-500 (thymosin β4 fragment).

Banned (S4, Hormone and Metabolic Modulators). Aromatase inhibitors, SERMs, and myostatin inhibitors. Follistatin and ACE-031 fall here.

Banned in-competition. Some compounds are only banned during competition, not year-round. Most Pepdex peptides are NOT in this category, peptide bans are usually whole-year.

Not listed. The compound isn't on the current WADA list. GLP-class drugs (Tirz, Sema, Liraglutide, Reta) are notably NOT on the WADA list as of the 2026 list. Topical cosmetic peptides (SNAP-8) and most nootropics (Selank, Semax, DSIP) aren't either.

What this category does NOT tell you: safety. WADA bans for competitive advantage, not danger. Plenty of WADA-banned compounds are safe; plenty of WADA-permitted compounds (alcohol, cigarettes) are not. WADA status ≠ safety profile.

Prescribed

This row tells you whether real medical providers prescribe the compound and for what.

Yes, widely prescribed. Doctors regularly prescribe this for one or more indications. Examples: Tirzepatide for diabetes/obesity, Semaglutide for the same, Vyleesi for HSDD, Egrifta for HIV-associated lipodystrophy, Forteo for severe osteoporosis.

Yes, for narrow indications only. Approved for very specific patient populations. Off-label use happens but is rare and tightly scrutinized. Examples: Setmelanotide (only for monogenic obesity), Teduglutide (only for short bowel syndrome), Octreotide (acromegaly, carcinoid, VIPomas).

Yes, by specialty providers via compounding. Some longevity, anti-aging, and functional medicine providers prescribe via compounding pharmacies, off-label. Examples: Ipamorelin, CJC-1295, BPC-157, GHK-Cu (post-2026 reclassification), Sermorelin.

Yes, outside the US. Approved abroad. US users would have to travel or use international clinics. Examples: Cerebrolysin (Mexico, EU, Russia, China), Thymosin Alpha-1 (35+ countries), Selank/Semax (Russia).

Trial-only access. Investigational compounds, patients can sometimes access through clinical trials. Examples: Retatrutide, Survodutide, Mazdutide, Petrelintide, Pemvidutide, Amycretin.

Not prescribed in conventional medicine. No medical pathway exists. The compound is sold as research-use-only via vendor channels. Examples: most experimental peptides, Russian bioregulators, MT-2, MK-677.

Why this matters: if you want medical oversight for what you're doing, "prescribed" tells you whether that pathway exists at all. For investigational compounds, an authorized trial is the only legitimate path. For the research peptides sitting outside the 503A list, no prescription pathway exists in the US today, which is the honest answer even though it is not the popular one.

How to read all five together

When you open a peptide entry, scan the Status panel left to right:

1. Natty? First, answers "can I use this and stay competitive?" 2. FDA, answers "is this a real approved drug or research only?" 3. Compounding, answers "can a pharmacy legally make this for me?" 4. WADA, answers "will this fail a drug test?" 5. Prescribed, answers "do real doctors deal with this compound?"

Together they paint the regulatory and athletic picture of the compound. Combine that with the Evidence tier (Strong / Moderate / Limited / Anecdotal) and you have the full "is this real and serious" verdict before you ever read the dose section.

Related reading: Evidence tiers explained, Spotting scam vendors, Peptides vs steroids, SARMs, supplements.