What misconceptions do consumers hold when searching “what are peptides”, and which sources most shape them?

Abstract

This dissertation examines the prevalent misconceptions held by consumers who search for information about peptides online, and identifies the primary sources responsible for shaping these misunderstandings. Employing a systematic literature synthesis methodology, this study analyses peer-reviewed research, regulatory frameworks, and contemporary scholarship concerning peptide communication in commercial and digital contexts. The findings reveal four dominant misconceptions: that peptides are inherently safe and natural; that health claims possess robust clinical validation; that all peptide products are functionally equivalent; and that online peptide weight-loss products constitute regulated medicines. The investigation identifies commercial supplement marketing, online sellers of compounded glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) products, social media advertisements, and general wellness discourse as the principal sources propagating these misunderstandings. The analysis demonstrates that marketing strategies consistently overstate benefits whilst underplaying safety uncertainties and regulatory distinctions. These findings carry significant implications for public health communication, regulatory policy, and consumer education. The dissertation concludes by proposing recommendations for improved health literacy initiatives and more stringent oversight of peptide-related marketing claims.

Introduction

The term “peptide” has transitioned from specialised biochemical nomenclature to mainstream consumer vocabulary, driven largely by the exponential growth of the wellness industry and the emergence of peptide-based therapeutics such as GLP-1 receptor agonists for weight management. When consumers enter “what are peptides” into search engines, they encounter a complex information landscape where rigorous scientific discourse intersects with aggressive commercial marketing and social media influence. This intersection creates fertile ground for misconceptions that can have tangible consequences for public health decision-making.

Peptides, by definition, are short chains of amino acids linked by peptide bonds, typically comprising between two and fifty amino acid residues (Daliri, Oh and Lee, 2017). However, this simple biochemical definition belies the extraordinary diversity of peptide molecules, which range from food-derived bioactive compounds to highly sophisticated pharmaceutical agents. The conflation of these distinct categories in popular discourse has contributed to widespread consumer confusion regarding safety profiles, efficacy claims, and regulatory status.

The academic and public health significance of this investigation cannot be overstated. Misconceptions about peptides can lead consumers to make uninformed decisions about supplements, self-administer unregulated compounds, or develop unrealistic expectations about therapeutic outcomes. The proliferation of online peptide sellers, particularly those offering compounded GLP-1 agonists, has intensified these concerns, as regulatory authorities struggle to monitor rapidly evolving digital marketplaces (Chetty et al., 2025). Furthermore, social media platforms have emerged as powerful vectors for health misinformation, with algorithmically amplified content often prioritising engagement over accuracy (Rad and Melendez-Torres, 2025).

This dissertation addresses a critical gap in the literature by systematically examining both the nature of consumer misconceptions and the sources that propagate them. Understanding this relationship is essential for developing effective interventions to improve health literacy and protect consumers from potentially harmful misinformation.

Aim and objectives

Aim

The primary aim of this dissertation is to identify and analyse the misconceptions that consumers develop when searching for information about peptides online, and to determine which information sources most significantly shape these misunderstandings.

Objectives

To achieve this aim, the following specific objectives guide this investigation:

1. To systematically identify the principal misconceptions that consumers hold regarding peptides, including beliefs about safety, efficacy, equivalence, and regulatory status.

2. To evaluate the scientific evidence that contradicts these misconceptions, drawing upon peer-reviewed literature concerning bioactive peptides, peptide therapeutics, and regulatory frameworks.

3. To identify and categorise the primary sources of information that shape consumer understanding of peptides, including commercial marketing, online sellers, social media platforms, and wellness discourse.

4. To analyse the mechanisms through which these sources propagate misconceptions, including specific marketing strategies, framing techniques, and communication patterns.

5. To propose evidence-based recommendations for improving consumer health literacy regarding peptides and enhancing regulatory oversight of peptide-related marketing.

Methodology

This dissertation employs a systematic literature synthesis methodology to address the research aim and objectives. This approach involves the comprehensive identification, analysis, and integration of existing scholarship to construct a coherent understanding of consumer misconceptions regarding peptides and their informational sources.

Search strategy

Literature was identified through systematic searches of academic databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Search terms included combinations of “peptide,” “bioactive peptide,” “peptide supplement,” “GLP-1 agonist,” “consumer misconception,” “health misinformation,” “marketing claims,” and “regulatory framework.” Searches were conducted between 2015 and 2025 to ensure contemporary relevance whilst capturing foundational scholarship.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Included sources comprised peer-reviewed journal articles, systematic reviews, regulatory documents from government agencies, and publications from established international health organisations. Sources were excluded if they originated from commercial entities with potential conflicts of interest, non-peer-reviewed blogs, or websites lacking verifiable institutional affiliation. This approach ensured that the synthesis drew exclusively upon high-quality, authoritative sources.

Analytical approach

The analytical framework employed thematic synthesis, whereby identified literature was coded according to emergent themes related to misconception types and source categories. This process involved iterative reading, coding, and categorisation to develop a comprehensive typology of misconceptions and their informational origins. Critical appraisal of included studies considered methodological rigour, sample characteristics, and potential biases.

Limitations

As a literature synthesis, this methodology is inherently limited by the scope and quality of existing published research. The dynamic nature of online content means that some marketing practices may evolve more rapidly than academic publication cycles can capture. Additionally, consumer misconceptions were inferred from published studies rather than primary data collection, which may introduce interpretive limitations.

Literature review

Defining peptides: biochemical fundamentals and categorical diversity

Peptides constitute a vast and heterogeneous class of molecules characterised by their composition of amino acid chains. The biochemical literature distinguishes peptides from proteins primarily by chain length, with peptides typically containing fewer than fifty amino acid residues (Daliri, Oh and Lee, 2017). However, this structural definition encompasses extraordinary functional diversity, from simple dipeptides found in fermented foods to complex therapeutic molecules engineered for specific receptor interactions.

Daliri, Lee and Oh (2018) emphasise that bioactive peptides represent a particularly significant subset, defined by their ability to exert physiological effects beyond basic nutrition. These molecules can derive from food proteins through enzymatic hydrolysis, fermentation, or gastrointestinal digestion, and have been studied for potential antihypertensive, antioxidant, antimicrobial, and immunomodulatory properties. However, the transition from “bioactive in vitro” to “therapeutically effective in humans” involves substantial hurdles that marketing materials frequently obscure.

The regulatory landscape further complicates categorical boundaries. Zakir et al. (2025) distinguish between food-derived peptides in functional foods, dietary supplements containing peptide ingredients, and strictly regulated peptide drugs such as insulin and GLP-1 analogues. These categories differ dramatically in purity requirements, manufacturing standards, regulatory oversight, bioavailability characteristics, and risk profiles. Musaimi (2024) provides a comprehensive overview of FDA-approved peptide analogues, demonstrating the rigorous clinical development pathway that distinguishes pharmaceutical peptides from unregulated supplements.

The evidence base for peptide health claims

A critical examination of the scientific literature reveals a substantial gap between marketed claims and established evidence. Bouglé and Bouhallab (2017) conducted a systematic review of human studies on dietary bioactive peptides and found that whilst numerous in vitro and animal studies demonstrate promising biological activities, relatively few well-designed randomised controlled trials have confirmed these effects in human populations. This evidence hierarchy is frequently inverted in marketing communications, where preliminary findings receive prominence whilst acknowledging limitations receives minimal attention.

Li-Chan (2015) highlighted persistent challenges in translating bioactive peptide research into commercial applications with substantiated health claims. Key obstacles include demonstrating bioavailability—the extent to which ingested peptides survive digestion and reach target tissues in active form—and establishing dose-response relationships in human subjects. Many marketed peptide supplements contain doses and formulations that differ substantially from those used in research settings where positive effects were observed.

Duffuler et al. (2022) traced the pathway from basic research to clinical trials and commercialisation, noting that many bioactive peptides remain at early developmental stages despite aggressive marketing. The authors documented numerous instances where commercial products cite research conducted on different peptide sequences, different doses, or different delivery methods than those actually sold to consumers. This practice constitutes a form of misleading extrapolation that contributes directly to consumer misconceptions.

Safety considerations and regulatory frameworks

The assumption that peptides are inherently safe because they are “natural” represents a fundamental misunderstanding of toxicological principles. Patil et al. (2022) conducted an extensive review focusing on regulatory requirements, safety, and bioavailability of food-derived bioactive peptides. Their analysis revealed that allergenicity, cytotoxicity, and toxic peptide formation can occur during production processes, and that safety profiles depend critically on specific sequences, chain lengths, and administered doses.

Chalamaiah et al. (2019) examined regulatory requirements for bioactive peptides across multiple jurisdictions, finding that regulators explicitly require substantial human evidence before approving health claims. The authors documented significant international variation in regulatory stringency, with some markets permitting claims that would be rejected in more strictly regulated jurisdictions. This regulatory heterogeneity creates opportunities for cross-border marketing of products with inadequately substantiated claims.

Quality control represents another underappreciated concern. Brown et al. (1986), in research that remains relevant despite its vintage, documented problems with peptide quality in research supply chains, including incorrect sequences and contamination. More recent scholarship confirms that these issues persist in commercial contexts, where cost pressures may compromise quality assurance processes.

The GLP-1 phenomenon and digital marketing

The emergence of GLP-1 receptor agonists as highly effective weight-loss medications has created unprecedented commercial interest in peptide-based interventions. Medications such as semaglutide and tirzepatide have demonstrated substantial efficacy in clinical trials, leading to widespread media coverage and consumer demand. However, this legitimate pharmaceutical development has been accompanied by a proliferation of unregulated alternatives marketed through digital channels.

Chetty et al. (2025) conducted a systematic analysis of online advertising for compounded GLP-1 receptor agonists. Their investigation revealed that websites selling these products frequently omit that they are not FDA-approved, blur distinctions with branded pharmaceutical products, and make unauthorised efficacy claims whilst providing limited safety information. The study documented specific deceptive practices, including the use of pharmaceutical imagery and language that implies regulatory approval where none exists.

Rad and Melendez-Torres (2025) employed critical discourse analysis to examine social media advertisements for GLP-1 weight-loss drugs. Their findings revealed that these advertisements predominantly emphasise emotional transformation narratives, ease of use, and credibility cues such as apparent medical endorsement, whilst systematically downplaying side effects and risks. The authors argue that these communication strategies shape overly positive public perceptions that diverge significantly from balanced clinical evidence.

Source typology and influence mechanisms

The literature enables identification of four primary source categories that shape consumer misconceptions about peptides. Each employs distinct mechanisms of influence that warrant separate consideration.

Commercial supplement and nutraceutical marketing constitutes the most pervasive source of peptide misinformation. Daliri, Oh and Lee (2017) and Patil et al. (2022) document how these materials systematically overstate benefits, emphasise natural origins as safety proxies, and underplay both limited human data and safety uncertainties. Marketing communications frequently cite research selectively, present in vitro findings as clinically validated, and employ scientific terminology to create impressions of authority without substantive evidence.

Online sellers of compounded GLP-1 products represent a more recent but rapidly growing influence. The investigation by Chetty et al. (2025) demonstrates how these vendors exploit regulatory ambiguities, consumer demand for expensive medications, and the relative anonymity of digital commerce to market products that may pose significant health risks. Their marketing typically mimics legitimate pharmaceutical communication whilst omitting crucial regulatory and safety information.

Social media platforms function as powerful amplifiers of peptide misconceptions through their algorithmic prioritisation of engaging content over accurate content. Rad and Melendez-Torres (2025) demonstrate how advertisement formats on these platforms favour emotional appeals and transformation narratives that compress complex medical information into simplistic success stories. The peer-to-peer sharing dynamics of social media further extend the reach of misleading content beyond paid advertisements.

General wellness and functional food discourse provides a broader ideological framework within which specific misconceptions flourish. This discourse, documented across numerous sources including Wang et al. (2025) and Zakir et al. (2025), promotes an expansive definition of “bioactive” that equates biological activity with beneficial health effects, ignoring crucial considerations of context, dose, and individual variation.

Discussion

Analysing the misconception landscape

The evidence synthesised in this dissertation reveals that consumer misconceptions about peptides cluster around four interrelated themes: exaggerated perceptions of inherent safety; overestimation of clinical validation; failure to distinguish between peptide categories; and confusion regarding regulatory status of online products. These misconceptions do not arise independently but rather form a coherent, if erroneous, belief system that marketing sources actively cultivate and exploit.

The first misconception—that peptides are inherently safe because they are natural—reflects a broader tendency in health discourse to conflate natural origin with safety. This naturalistic fallacy ignores fundamental toxicological principles and the substantial evidence that food-derived peptides can present allergenicity, cytotoxicity, and other safety concerns depending on their specific characteristics (Patil et al., 2022). Marketing materials exploit this misconception by emphasising natural derivation whilst avoiding specific safety disclosures that might complicate the safety narrative.

The second misconception—that peptide health claims possess robust clinical validation—demonstrates the success of marketing strategies that cite research selectively and present preliminary findings as established facts. The systematic gap between in vitro or animal research and human clinical evidence documented by Bouglé and Bouhallab (2017) is consistently obscured in commercial communications. This misrepresentation is particularly consequential because it leads consumers to expect therapeutic benefits that current evidence does not support.

The third misconception—that all peptide products are functionally equivalent—reflects failure to communicate the dramatic differences between food-derived peptides, dietary supplements, and pharmaceutical peptides. The rigorous development, manufacturing, and oversight processes that distinguish approved peptide drugs such as insulin from unregulated supplements remain poorly understood by consumers who encounter these products through undifferentiated wellness marketing (Chalamaiah et al., 2019).

The fourth misconception—that online peptide weight-loss products constitute regulated medicines—has emerged as particularly concerning given the rapid growth of compounded GLP-1 markets. The investigation by Chetty et al. (2025) demonstrates how vendors deliberately blur regulatory distinctions through visual and linguistic cues that suggest pharmaceutical legitimacy. Consumers who purchase these products may believe they are obtaining equivalent medications at lower cost when they are actually receiving unregulated compounds of uncertain quality and safety.

Mechanisms of misinformation propagation

Understanding how misconceptions propagate requires attention to the specific communication strategies employed by identified source categories. Commercial marketing employs several consistent techniques: emphasis on natural origins and traditional use; selective citation of research findings; use of scientific terminology and imagery to project authority; and minimisation or omission of limitations, uncertainties, and risks. These strategies exploit cognitive biases including naturalistic fallacy, confirmation bias, and authority heuristics.

Social media platforms amplify these effects through algorithmic mechanisms that favour engaging content regardless of accuracy. The critical discourse analysis by Rad and Melendez-Torres (2025) demonstrates how transformation narratives, before-and-after imagery, and testimonial formats generate high engagement whilst providing minimal substantive information. Platform architectures that prioritise shareability over accuracy create structural incentives for misleading content.

The digital environment further complicates regulatory enforcement. Websites can be established, modified, and relocated rapidly in response to enforcement actions. Cross-border commerce enables vendors to exploit jurisdictional gaps and regulatory heterogeneity. The volume of online peptide marketing vastly exceeds regulatory capacity for monitoring and enforcement, creating an environment where misleading claims face minimal consequence.

Implications for public health

The misconceptions documented in this dissertation carry significant public health implications. Consumers who believe peptide supplements are inherently safe may fail to disclose their use to healthcare providers, potentially creating unrecognised drug interactions or adverse effects. Those who expect clinical benefits from products without adequate evidence may delay seeking proven treatments for conditions requiring medical attention.

The compounded GLP-1 market presents particularly acute risks. Consumers who purchase these products may receive compounds of inadequate purity or incorrect dosage, without the monitoring that accompanies legitimate medical treatment. The weight-loss context adds urgency, as individuals with obesity-related health conditions may be especially vulnerable to products promising rapid results without medical oversight.

Beyond individual harms, peptide misconceptions may undermine public trust in legitimate biomedical research and regulation. When marketed products fail to deliver promised benefits, consumers may become sceptical of genuine scientific advances. Conversely, widespread use of unregulated peptides that cause adverse effects could generate regulatory backlash affecting legitimate research and therapeutic development.

Meeting the research objectives

The analysis presented in this dissertation addresses each stated objective. The first objective—identifying principal misconceptions—has been achieved through systematic examination of the literature, revealing four dominant themes concerning safety, efficacy, equivalence, and regulatory status. The second objective—evaluating contradicting evidence—has been addressed through detailed analysis of peer-reviewed research documenting the gaps between common beliefs and scientific understanding.

The third and fourth objectives—identifying source categories and analysing propagation mechanisms—have been fulfilled through the typology presented in the literature review and discussed above. Commercial marketing, online vendors, social media platforms, and wellness discourse each employ distinct strategies that collectively reinforce the identified misconceptions. The fifth objective—proposing recommendations—is addressed in the following section.

Recommendations

Addressing peptide misconceptions requires coordinated action across multiple domains. Regulatory agencies should strengthen oversight of online peptide marketing, with particular attention to compounded GLP-1 vendors making claims that blur distinctions with approved medications. International cooperation is essential given the cross-border nature of digital commerce.

Healthcare providers should proactively discuss peptide use with patients, recognising that many consumers may use supplements without disclosure. Professional education should address the peptide landscape to enable informed clinical conversations.

Public health communication should develop accessible resources that explain peptide diversity, evidence hierarchies, and regulatory distinctions in consumer-friendly language. These resources should be optimised for search visibility to compete with commercial content in digital environments.

Platform governance represents a crucial intervention point. Social media companies should apply health misinformation policies to peptide marketing, particularly claims that imply regulatory approval or clinical validation without adequate basis. Advertising policies should require disclosure of regulatory status for health-related products.

Conclusions

This dissertation has systematically examined consumer misconceptions regarding peptides and identified the sources that most significantly shape these misunderstandings. The investigation achieved its stated objectives through comprehensive literature synthesis, revealing that misconceptions cluster around four themes: exaggerated perceptions of inherent safety; overestimation of clinical validation; failure to distinguish peptide categories; and confusion regarding regulatory status of online products.

The analysis demonstrates that these misconceptions do not arise spontaneously but are actively cultivated by commercial marketing, online vendors, social media advertisements, and general wellness discourse. Each source category employs specific strategies that exploit cognitive biases and knowledge gaps, creating a coherent but erroneous understanding of peptides that can have tangible public health consequences.

The significance of these findings extends beyond academic interest. As peptide-based therapeutics assume increasing prominence in medical practice, and as online markets continue expanding access to unregulated peptide products, the gap between consumer understanding and scientific reality poses growing risks. Individuals making health decisions based on misconceptions may expose themselves to harm whilst missing opportunities for beneficial interventions.

Future research should investigate consumer misconceptions through primary data collection, including surveys and interviews that directly assess understanding and its sources. Longitudinal studies tracking how misconceptions evolve in response to changing market conditions and communication interventions would provide valuable evidence for policy development. Comparative analysis across different national contexts could illuminate how regulatory frameworks and cultural factors influence misconception prevalence.

The peptide information landscape will continue evolving as new products emerge, marketing practices adapt, and digital platforms develop. Maintaining accurate public understanding requires ongoing vigilance, adaptive regulatory responses, and sustained investment in health literacy. The stakes—consumer safety, public trust, and the integrity of biomedical communication—demand nothing less.

References

Bouglé, D. and Bouhallab, S., 2017. Dietary bioactive peptides: Human studies. *Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition*, 57(2), pp.335-343. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2013.873766

Brown, J., Hunter, J., Jordan, C., Tyers, M., Ward, P. and Whittington, A., 1986. Problems with peptides—all that glisters is not gold. *Trends in Neurosciences*, 9, pp.100-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-2236(86)90033-0

Chalamaiah, M., Ulug, S., Hong, H. and Wu, J., 2019. Regulatory requirements of bioactive peptides (protein hydrolysates) from food proteins. *Journal of Functional Foods*, 58, pp.123-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2019.04.050

Chetty, A., Chillakanti, M., Ramachandran, R., Ross, J. and Chen, A., 2025. Online Advertising of Compounded Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists. *JAMA Health Forum*, 6(1), e245018. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5018

Daliri, E., Lee, B. and Oh, D., 2018. Current trends and perspectives of bioactive peptides. *Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition*, 58(13), pp.2273-2284. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2017.1319795

Daliri, E., Oh, D. and Lee, B., 2017. Bioactive Peptides. *Foods*, 6(5), 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods6050032

Duffuler, P., Bhullar, K., De Campos Zani, S. and Wu, J., 2022. Bioactive Peptides: From Basic Research to Clinical Trials and Commercialization. *Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry*, 70(13), pp.3585-3595. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.1c06289

Li-Chan, E., 2015. Bioactive peptides and protein hydrolysates: research trends and challenges for application as nutraceuticals and functional food ingredients. *Current Opinion in Food Science*, 1, pp.28-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2014.09.005

Musaimi, O., 2024. Exploring FDA-Approved Frontiers: Insights into Natural and Engineered Peptide Analogues in the GLP-1, GIP, GHRH, CCK, ACTH, and α-MSH Realms. *Biomolecules*, 14(3), 264. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom14030264

Patil, P., Usman, M., Zhang, C., Mehmood, A., Zhou, M., Teng, C. and Li, X., 2022. An updated review on food-derived bioactive peptides: Focus on the regulatory requirements, safety, and bioavailability. *Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety*, 21(2), pp.1732-1776. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12911

Rad, J. and Melendez-Torres, G., 2025. Critical discourse analysis of social media advertisements for GLP-1 receptor agonist weight loss drugs: implications for public perceptions and health communication. *BMC Public Health*, 25, 127. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-24197-8

Wang, M., Xia, H., Wang, C., Zhang, T., Zhang, M., Li, X., Peng, C., Jing, T., Wang, Y., Peng, L. and Wang, P., 2025. From Precision Synthesis to Cross-Industry Applications: The Future of Emerging Peptide Technologies. *Pharmacological Research*, 203, 107839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2025.107839

Zakir, S., Jawed, B., Esposito, J., Kanwal, R., Pulcini, R., Martinotti, R., Ceci, E., Botteghi, M., Gaudio, F., Toniato, E. and Martinotti, S., 2025. The Role of Peptides in Nutrition: Insights into Metabolic, Musculoskeletal, and Behavioral Health: A Systematic Review. *International Journal of Molecular Sciences*, 26(13), 6043. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26136043

—

LINK_JUICER_KEYWORDS_START
peptide supplements, GLP-1 weight loss drugs, bioactive peptides, consumer health misinformation, nutraceutical marketing
LINK_JUICER_KEYWORDS_END