The announcement has sent shockwaves through the industry.

BPC-157, MOTS-c, Ipamorelin, AOD-9604—these peptides, named with letters and numbers and once operating in a regulatory gray area—have overnight become the focus of heated discussion among licensed compounding pharmacies and functional medicine clinics. If the policy is finalized, demand will flow back from overseas gray-market channels to the compliant compounding system.

This is only the prelude.

Behind Kennedy’s podcast remarks, a peptide industry transformation spanning China and the U.S. and affecting trillions of dollars in market value is accelerating.

A critical question emerges:

As the U.S. begins to “ease restrictions” on emerging peptides, where are Chinese pharma companies?

The logic behind Kennedy’s push for regulatory shift is straightforward:

the ban never truly eliminated demand—it merely pushed it into regulatory blind spots.

Over the past five years, online advertising, e-commerce listings, and social media content for unapproved peptide products have exploded.

In 2025 alone, search interest for “peptides” on U.S. Google Trends officially surpassed that for “Ozempic”, moving peptides from professional circles into the public eye.

Behind these figures lies a massive gray market operating outside FDA oversight.

More than a dozen unapproved peptides—including BPC-157, AOD-9604, MOTS-c, TB-500, and Tesamorelin—are openly sold on major platforms like Amazon under labels such as “research chemicals,” “laboratory reagents,” or even “cosmetic products,” with social media acting as a powerful catalyst.

Although BPC-157 lacks high-quality published clinical trial data, it is widely used in regenerative medicine clinics and among professional athletes.

MOTS-c is viewed by biohackers as an “exercise mimetic.”

Pep19 achieved a 17% reduction in visceral fat without affecting lean body mass in a 60-day clinical trial.

More disturbingly, patients can even purchase experimental drugs still in Phase III trials online.

Eli Lilly’s triple agonist retatrutide (not yet fully trialed) and Novo Nordisk’s CagriSema (still under FDA review) are both readily available on the gray market.

The boom of the gray market is essentially a direct reflection of unmet demand through official channels.

This demand did not arise randomly.

Long overlooked by mainstream pharma—sports recovery, metabolic health, cognitive enhancement, and anti-aging—are being transformed from “latent needs” into “visible markets” driven by peptides.

Turning to China:

Over the past five years, China’s peptide industry has shifted from a wasteland to a red ocean, yet this transformation has centered almost entirely on one molecule: semaglutide.

In March 2026, Novo Nordisk’s core compound patent for semaglutide officially expired in China, opening a legal window for domestic generics.

As of now, according to NMPA public information, at least 10 domestic pharma companies—including Huadong Medicine (Jiuyuan Gene), Livzon Group, and Qilu Pharmaceutical—have submitted semaglutide generic applications for approval.

More than 11 additional companies have generics in Phase III.

Industry forecasts predict the first batch of domestic generics will be approved in Q3 2026, with the number reaching 20 by 2028.

Novo Nordisk has already launched defensive price cuts: the antidiabetic version of semaglutide injection now costs over 70% less on e-commerce platforms than before inclusion in medical insurance.

Yet problems have emerged.

Nearly all Chinese peptide pipelines are heavily concentrated in metabolic diseases, especially GLP-1 and its derivatives.

While U.S. functional medicine clinics are boldly using BPC-157 for recovery, MOTS-c for metabolic optimization, and Semax for cognitive enhancement, Chinese companies have almost no presence in these “non-mainstream” peptides.

Our follow strategy has excelled in semaglutide generics, but we still lack forward-looking answers to the question:

What will be the next GLP-1?

Nevertheless, it is unfair to label China’s peptide industry merely as “followers.”

In upstream supply chains and midstream CDMOs, Chinese firms have built global competitiveness.

According to Frost & Sullivan, the global peptide drug market grew from $60.7 billion in 2018 to $89.5 billion in 2023, and is projected to reach $261.2 billion by 2032.

China’s domestic peptide CDMO market is expected to reach ¥18.5 billion by 2030, driven largely by GLP-1 drugs.

Chinese top-tier CXOs excel in know-how, cost control, human resources, capacity infrastructure, delivery speed, and reliability—any one of which confers global competitiveness.

With ~65% of global peptide API production outsourced, China’s capacity advantage is poised to dominate the global GLP-1 capacity race.

On March 18, Johnson & Johnson’s oral macrocyclic peptide icotrokinra was approved by the FDA, marking a critical leap from platform validation to commercialization for the entire oral macrocyclic peptide sector.

China’s macrocyclic peptide leader YuanSi Bio quickly followed with a $150 million Series B, having previously secured a $3.4 billion macrocyclic platform collaboration with AstraZeneca.

From GLP-1 to oral macrocyclic peptides, Chinese peptide firms are moving from “generic exports” to “technology exports.”

Yet challenges in globalization are also escalating:

tariff pressures, emerging biotech export controls, and fundamental U.S.-China regulatory divergence require a shift from “product export” to “global capability building.”

Ted Therapeutics has earmarked IPO funds to expand U.S. local production to mitigate policy risks.

Localized capacity is becoming a new standard in overseas strategy.

To be sure, China’s rapid follow on GLP-1, CDMO capacity expansion, and accelerated overseas breakthroughs are commendable.

But nearly all these achievements revolve around already validated molecules and tracks.

BPC-157, MOTS-c, Semax, macrocyclic peptides—still in regulatory gray areas or technical validation in the U.S.—target global clinical needs:

sports recovery, metabolic optimization, cognitive enhancement, and oral delivery.

When the FDA opens the door to legal compounding for these peptides, demand will shift to regulated, legitimate channels.

Those who can supply safe, compliant, cost-effective products will seize the first-mover advantage.

Kennedy stated in his podcast:

“These peptides should return to compliant suppliers.”