{"id":10445,"date":"2026-11-12T20:07:28","date_gmt":"2026-11-12T20:07:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/silvybrand.com\/?p=10445"},"modified":"2026-11-12T20:07:28","modified_gmt":"2026-11-12T20:07:28","slug":"peptides-american-manufacturing-maha","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/silvybrand.com\/?p=10445","title":{"rendered":"Meet the people who want peptides to be made in America"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n

This is<\/em> Optimizer<\/a>, a weekly newsletter sent from<\/em> Verge senior reviewer<\/em> Victoria Song<\/em><\/a> that dissects and discusses the latest gizmos and potions that swear they\u2019re going to change your life. We\u2019ll be taking a break next week and will be back on November 25th. Opt in for<\/em> Optimizer here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The SS Jeremiah O\u2019Brien is a World War II Liberty ship. The hulking vessel was built in 56 days. It made 11 trips to Normandy, France, to supply the Allied powers in the fight against German U-boats. Last week, it was the site of a black-tie peptide party thrown by a trio of Gen Z venture capitalists.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Roughly 150 people attended the event, where four types of peptide samples were provided to guests \u2014 no injections. One was a topical cream with GHK-Cu, while the other three were dissolvable sublingual strips from peptide startup Afterglow. GHK-Cu is a popular skincare ingredient, but it\u2019s unclear how well sublingual peptide strips work. The topic of the night wasn\u2019t just the state of peptides. The venue was a deliberate reference to American industrial prowess \u2014 and why the pharmaceutical supply chain ought to be centered in the United States.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The timing couldn\u2019t have been more pointed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sourcing is one of the biggest question marks with gray-market peptides \u2014 something the US Department of Health and Human Services is trying to address with its recent interim policy decision<\/a> allowing certain unapproved peptides for compounding.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The decision is a controversial one. FDA career scientists haven\u2019t endorsed it, though to the average person it might seem like they have. In fact, at a public hearing in July, FDA scientists categorically stated that there wasn\u2019t enough evidence proving safety or efficacy for the experimental peptides in question. Some industry experts have cautioned that the HHS\u2019s decision threatens the current clinical trial framework<\/a>. By circumventing gold-standard clinical trials, it arguably allows telehealth providers and compounding pharmacies to bypass the approval process and create a parallel, dubiously regulated market.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

But for the party\u2019s organizers Roxana Grunenwald, Yuva Krishnapillai, and Elia Ahmadi \u2014 all three are from Haus Fund, a biotech accelerator \u2014 this was an opportunity to make the case for American peptides. Hence the party on a wartime cargo ship, where guests left with stickers and hats emblazoned with \u201cMy Peptides Are Made in America.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"four<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Haus Fund\u2019s Gen Z VCs talk \u201cBiological Dynamism.\u201d <\/em><\/figcaption>Photo: Haus Fund<\/cite><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Listening to the three speak, they wouldn\u2019t strike you as typical hooah patriots or MAHA activists \u2014 though there\u2019s some overlap in their talking points. They\u2019re venture capitalists promoting a certain viewpoint that\u2019s trending in Silicon Valley<\/a> right now. But it\u2019s not just them making this argument. Hims & Hers \u2014 one of the most recognizable telehealth brands right now \u2014 is also hopping on the American peptide bandwagon.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The push for American manufacturing is a thorny one. Last year, President Donald Trump\u2019s tariff policies also reignited the American manufacturing argument, though the reality is it\u2019s difficult to return to \u201cmade in America\u201d<\/a> after decades spent shaping the country into a services-based economy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Pharmaceuticals have also globalized. According to the US<\/a> Pharmacopeia, 51 percent of all US prescription active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) comes from India and the European Union. China accounts for 10 percent. But when it comes to gray-market peptides, there\u2019s a reason they\u2019re commonly referred to as \u201cChinese peptides.\u201d<\/a> The vast majority of these research chemicals sold online come from Chinese manufacturers.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cRight now, Americans are buying consumer peptides from gray-market sellers in China. And that concerns me because American consumers have little recourse if something goes wrong,\u201d Ahmadi said in response to a panel question. \u201cThis is not a blanket criticism of China. This is not a criticism of Chinese people. America needs to be able to make its own medicines.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cI think this is a really good first step in solving the gray market problem,\u201d Krishnapillai tells me, referring to the HHS\u2019s interim decision. While building industrial infrastructure is a lengthy, complicated, and expensive process, he argues that this decision opens the door for compounding pharmacies to build a supply chain that adheres to US consumer safety laws. That in turn could give the FDA more insight into how to more effectively regulate the market. \u201cThe FDA [will be] able to see from a bird\u2019s-eye view a lot more clarity, which will allow for structure to be built out and eventually a new path to API classification,\u201d he adds.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cWe\u2019re taking the stance that if people will be purchasing these peptides and taking them, sometimes even injecting, we want them to be American peptides,\u201d adds Grunenwald. \u201cWe want them to be both compounded, produced, and verified on American soil.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cThe hardware industry \u2014 semiconductors, the compute industry, electronics \u2014 have all recognized that the reliance on China for critical minerals is a huge issue. That\u2019s very clear. The bio industry has not yet had that same pushback and the same epiphany about our reliance on Chinese APIs. We aim to bring this onshore. It\u2019ll take a lot of money and a lot of time, but it\u2019s not impossible,\u201d says Grunenwald.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

For Ahmadi, onshoring peptides back to America is also a matter of regulatory consistency.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cThat made-in-America stamp is really only the beginning,\u201d he says. \u201cIf we don\u2019t have our own domestic production, we won\u2019t be able to enforce our own regulations. Our markets are always going to be flooded by foreign imports and we won\u2019t be able to have accountability to American consumers. So, we see this as the first step in a larger conversation to have America set the global standard for quality and safety in this new space.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Broadly speaking, these points have some merit. Several gray-market peptide users I\u2019ve spoken with for an upcoming story stated that the mere act of importing \u201cresearch drugs\u201d and worrying about customs was a significant source of anxiety. That said, cost is another major reason why my sources tell me they opted to seek Chinese suppliers. It\u2019s too soon to tell, but American-made peptides will likely be more expensive. That\u2019s because an end-to-end US supply chain for these drugs is no easy feat.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Even so, for some, that extra expense is worth it if it means signaling a higher-quality product.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cWe purchased an API manufacturing facility in California recently \u2026 Our intention is to leverage that capability to provide US-made API, and as a result, US-made product through the whole supply chain,\u201d says Dr. Anant Vinjamoori, chief medical officer at Hims & Hers. The company purchased the facility last year<\/a>, though it does partner with other companies globally to deliver compounded medications outside the US.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"two<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Hims is launching Peptide Plus just as they purchased a new California manufacturing facility.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

But in this particular case, Vinjamoori is also specifically referring to Peptides Plus, a forthcoming service from Hims & Hers announced in the wake of the HHS interim policy. In a blog<\/a> announcing Peptides Plus, Hims & Hers CEO Andrew Dudum writes that the company \u201cspent years building the infrastructure we need in our very own U.S.-based peptide manufacturing facility.\u201d At launch, the company plans to provide access to \u201cSermorelin, Glutathione, B12, NAD+, and L-carnitine, with BPC-157 and TB-500 to follow when allowable.\u201d Notably, some of these substances, like vitamin B12 and NAD+, aren\u2019t peptides at all. Meanwhile, sermorelin and glutathione are already legal. All of these, with the exception of BPC-157 and TB-500, are currently available through legal pathways.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cI think it\u2019s important not just to be able to say, \u2018Oh, this is US made,\u2019 but because it gives us direct oversight into the whole process,\u201d says Vinjamoori, who says that he had prescribed peptides to patients in the past before the Biden administration moved certain research peptides to the no-compounding list.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cEven then, there was inconsistency between compounding pharmacies. Everyone knew this,\u201d he says, noting that doctors would individually recommend pharmacies based on what they were prescribing. \u201cThat to me, is still not ideal. That\u2019s why we really felt it was worth making this investment \u2014 and to be clear, this is not easy.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

When asked about how this might affect Peptide Plus pricing, Vinjamoori demurred, stating that the company would have more to share in \u201cdue time.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

There are yet many unknowns with regard to the HHS decision and how it\u2019ll impact the peptide economy at large. The decision is most notably an interim<\/em> policy. It\u2019s not necessarily a permanent or lasting change. It was also made before the midterm elections, so who can say how the policy winds will shift concerning tariffs and whether the zeal for \u201cmade in America\u201d will fizzle as a result.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

But for now, it\u2019s more than likely that you\u2019ll start seeing some vendors touting that their peptides are proudly made in America. It\u2019s entirely possible that they might imply that makes their product \u201csafer.\u201d That might be true with regard to sourcing and, to a degree, accountability. But it\u2019s not the whole story. After all, in peptide America, sourcing is only part of the problem.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Follow topics and authors<\/strong> from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.<\/span><\/p>\n