Why Peptides Could Become More Accessible in the U.S.

SPEAKER_1 (0:00)

This podcast is brought to you by ReliaQuest. Cyber criminals are constantly attacking. They want your data, they want your identity, they want your innovation. ReliaQuest fortifies your business with agentic defense, AI that detects, contains and eliminates cyber threats in minutes. It helps your security team move faster at the work that matters most to protect the business now and delivers insights to help them predict what's next. ReliaQuest, agentic defense for the enterprise. Learn more at reliaquest.com. That's reliaquest.com.

Alex Ossola (0:34)

The US has seen more measles cases this year than it has for any in the past three decades. Plus, peptides could soon become more accessible in the US if the FDA follows recommendations from an advisory panel.

Alex Janin (0:47)

People who take them are really interested in optimizing their health. Maybe they are taking them for purported muscle recovery, anti-aging purposes, or more youthful skin.

Alex Ossola (0:58)

And the trade wars heat up as President Trump threatens new tariffs on the European Union. It's Friday, July 24th. I'm Alex Ossola for the Wall Street Journal. This is the PM Edition of What's News, the top headlines and business stories that move the world today.

We begin today with a grim statistic. Measles cases in the US have reached a new three decade high. The CDC today reported more than 2300 confirmed cases of measles so far this year. That's more than in all of last year. The disease has spread because falling vaccination rates have made more communities vulnerable. Outbreaks in Utah and South Carolina contributed to around half of the country's total cases, and cases are also rising in Pennsylvania and Virginia.

We're exclusively reporting that the Agriculture Department is lifting a ban on importing cattle from Mexico.

Cattle imports were cut off last year to try to stop the spread of a parasite called a screw worm. It's not a food safety risk, but it's deadly to animals. Mexico typically sends about a million calves across the border each year, and losing those cattle has made a livestock shortage in the US even worse. That shortage has sent prices for ground beef and steak to record levels. Now, lifting the ban could lower those prices, but the move is contentious, as US ranchers are concerned about the spread of the parasite. The US plans to resume imports in 30 days.

For the past two days, an FDA advisory committee has held hearings about peptides. They voted on a series of seven peptides, an injectable substance that promises physical transformations. These substances haven't undergone regulatory approval. They're very popular on social media, and these days are usually obtained through an online gray market. The FDA panel has voted in favor of easing restrictions on six of the seven peptides in question. Alex Janin covers health and wellness for the journal and has been watching the meetings. Alex, the peptides that the panel voted on, what are they supposed to do?

Alex Janin (2:58)

They have been marketed for all sorts of reasons. A majority of people who take them are people who are really interested in optimizing their health. They're really interested in performance. Some might even refer to themselves as biohackers. Maybe they are taking them for purported muscle recovery, anti-aging purposes or more youthful skin. These haven't been rigorously evaluated claims.

So a lot of the evidence is anecdotal thus far.

Alex Ossola (3:28)

Why was the panel considering this now?

Alex Janin (3:32)

Secretary Kennedy himself has talked about being not only a supporter, but a patient and a user of some of these peptides.

There are recently appointed members to this advisory committee to the FDA, that were appointed under his tenure. And some of them have direct ties to businesses that use peptides.

So six of seven of the peptides are going to the FDA with a yes vote from this committee. And FDA has a history of following what the advisory committees recommend.

In each case, the committee members are encouraged to explain their vote. In the no cases, they tend to say, look, we don't have enough data on these compounds. We don't know how safe they are. We don't know how efficacious they are. In the yes cases, generally they are saying, yes, it's true, we don't know a lot about these peptides, but we have a pretty good sense based on how many patients are already using them, getting them through the gray market, that they're pretty safe, and we would like to gather more data on their efficacy, and the only way we'll be able to gather more data is by making them more accessible, and just by having more oversight, the proponents argue it will be a safer system.