Peptides in Canada: Understanding Health Canada Authorization, Clinical Research and Regulatory Status

Understanding peptides in canada requires separating scientific research from Health Canada authorization. Some peptide-based medicines are authorized for specific uses, while other peptides remain investigational or are sold without the required authorization. For Canadian consumers, the most reliable approach is to verify the regulatory status of the specific product rather than assuming that research interest, online availability or a “research use only” label means Health Canada has approved it.

Peptides have become increasingly visible in Canadian fitness, bodybuilding, recovery and wellness discussions.

Names such as BPC-157, TB-500, GHK-Cu, CJC-1295 and ipamorelin appear frequently on social media, podcasts, forums and online stores. Some are discussed in connection with legitimate scientific research. Others are promoted alongside claims involving recovery, body composition, performance or general health.

That can make one basic question surprisingly difficult to answer:

How can a Canadian consumer tell the difference between a peptide that is being researched and a drug that Health Canada has actually authorized?

The answer requires understanding a few terms—particularly DIN, authorized drug, unauthorized drug, clinical research and research use only.

These terms are not interchangeable.

And in 2026, Health Canada made the distinction especially clear through public advisories and enforcement actions involving unauthorized injectable peptide products, including BPC-157.

For Canadians, the most useful approach is practical:

Do not assume that something is authorized because it is available online, discussed in scientific papers, used by athletes, or labelled for research. Verify the regulatory status directly.

What peptides in canada means from a regulatory perspective

The first thing to understand is that peptide describes a type of molecule, not a single regulatory category.

Some peptide-based drugs are authorized medicines.

Other peptides are still being investigated.

Still others may appear online without having received the required authorization for sale as drugs in Canada.

That means the question “Are peptides approved in Canada?” is too broad to answer accurately.

A more useful question is:

What is the regulatory status of this specific product, formulation, route and intended use?

Health Canada evaluates specific drug products rather than treating every peptide as though it has the same legal or medical status.

The First Question Canadians Should Ask: Is This Drug Authorized by Health Canada?

When evaluating a drug product in Canada, the most important regulatory question is not:

“Have people used it?”

It is not:

“Are there studies about it?”

It is not:

“Can I find it online?”

And it is not:

“Does the website say it was tested?”

The question is:

Has Health Canada authorized this specific drug product for sale in Canada?

For prescription and over-the-counter drugs, one of the clearest ways to check is the Drug Identification Number, or DIN.

Health Canada states that authorized prescription drugs in Canada have an eight-digit DIN on the product label.

That eight-digit number is far more meaningful than marketing language.

What Is a DIN?

A Drug Identification Number is an eight-digit number assigned by Health Canada to an authorized drug product.

According to Health Canada, the DIN identifies specific characteristics of the product, including:

• the manufacturer;
• product name;
• active ingredient or ingredients;
• strength;
• pharmaceutical form; and
• route of administration.

For example, the DIN is not simply a number assigned to an ingredient in the abstract.

It identifies a particular drug product.

That matters because two products containing a similarly named ingredient should not automatically be assumed to have the same regulatory status.

The manufacturer, strength, dosage form and route all matter.

What Does Having a DIN Tell a Canadian Consumer?

Health Canada explains that a DIN indicates the product has undergone regulatory review of its formulation, labelling and instructions for use.

A drug product that requires a DIN but is sold in Canada without one is not compliant with Canadian law.

In practical terms, the DIN tells you that Health Canada has authorized that particular drug product for the Canadian market.

It does not mean:

• the drug works for every condition;
• every product containing the same ingredient is authorized;
• every route of administration is authorized;
• every claim made online is supported;
• there are no risks or side effects.

Authorization always needs to be interpreted within the specific product and indication.

How Do You Verify a DIN Yourself?

Canadian consumers do not have to rely on a seller’s statement.

Health Canada maintains an online Drug Product Database, commonly abbreviated as the DPD.

The database allows users to search by:

• DIN;
• product name;
• manufacturer;
• active ingredient;
• route of administration; and
• other product characteristics.

A simple verification process looks like this:

Step 1: Look for an eight-digit DIN on the label

It should be clearly identifiable as the product’s Drug Identification Number.

Step 2: Search the DIN in Health Canada’s Drug Product Database

Entering the eight-digit number allows you to see the corresponding authorized product record.

Step 3: Compare the database record with the product in front of you

Check:

• product name;
• manufacturer;
• active ingredient;
• strength;
• dosage form; and
• route of administration.

If those details do not line up, further verification is warranted.

Step 4: Check the product’s current status

Health Canada’s database contains status information because authorization can change over time.

The goal is not simply to find a familiar ingredient name.

The goal is to confirm the status of the specific product.

What Does “Unauthorized” Mean?

The word unauthorized is sometimes misunderstood.

It does not mean that Health Canada has necessarily proven that the underlying molecule has no biological activity.

It means that the product has not received the required Health Canada authorization for sale as a drug in Canada.

Health Canada emphasizes that unauthorized peptide products have not undergone its required assessment for safety, efficacy and quality.

That distinction matters.

Consider these two statements:

“Scientists are researching this compound.”

and

“Health Canada has authorized this product as a medicine.”

Both statements could theoretically be true for the same compound eventually.

But research alone does not establish authorization.

Clinical Research and Health Canada Authorization Are Not the Same Thing

This is one of the most common sources of confusion around peptides.

A molecule can have:

• animal studies;
• laboratory studies;
• published scientific papers;
• clinical-trial registrations;
• early human data; or
• ongoing human research

without being authorized as a marketed drug.

Clinical research exists precisely because researchers are still trying to answer important questions.

Those questions may include:

• Does the compound reach the intended tissues?
• What happens after it enters the body?
• What adverse effects occur?
• What doses or exposures have biological effects?
• Does it actually improve the clinical outcome being studied?
• Are the benefits greater than the risks?

A study being conducted does not mean that these questions have already been answered.

For a broader explanation of the Canadian research and authorization framework, see Peptides in Canada: Understanding Health Canada Authorization, Clinical Research and Regulatory Status.

“There Is a Human Study” Is Not the Same as “Health Canada Approved It”

This distinction is especially important when discussing emerging peptides.

Suppose a peptide has been administered to humans in an early clinical study.

That may be scientifically significant.

But it does not automatically mean the product is authorized for use by the Canadian public.

Researchers may study investigational drugs under controlled clinical protocols before those drugs ever reach the market.

Some experimental drugs eventually receive authorization.

Others do not.

Some may demonstrate effectiveness for one narrow indication but not for others.

Clinical investigation is a stage of evidence development—not a substitute for regulatory authorization.

Health Canada’s 2026 Peptide Warning

On April 9, 2026, Health Canada issued a national public advisory warning Canadians about unauthorized injectable peptide drugs being sold online.

The regulator specifically listed examples that had been seized, including:

• BPC-157;
• CJC-1295;
• DSIP;
• Epitalon;
• GHK-Cu;
• HCG;
• ipamorelin;
• KPV;
• Melanotan I and II;
• MOTS-C;
• NAD+;
• SS-31;
• TB-500; and
• retatrutide.

Health Canada stated that peptides are generally regulated as prescription drugs in Canada and that authorized peptide drugs should be used under the care of an appropriate licensed healthcare professional for specific conditions.

The regulator also emphasized that unauthorized drug products have not undergone Health Canada’s assessment for safety, efficacy and quality.

For Canadian consumers, that advisory is important because it directly addresses the idea that an injectable peptide sold online should be assumed to have gone through the same process as an authorized Canadian drug.

It has not.

BPC-157 Was Specifically Named

BPC-157 was not merely implied by Health Canada’s advisory.

It was explicitly listed among the examples of unauthorized injectable peptide drugs seized by the regulator.

Health Canada’s public bodybuilding-product guidance also identifies BPC-157 among injectable peptides encountered in the Canadian market and states that injectable peptide drugs are regulated as prescription drugs in Canada.

This is particularly relevant because BPC-157 receives considerable attention online for proposed effects involving:

• injury recovery;
• tendon healing;
• joint health;
• gastrointestinal effects; and
• exercise recovery.

The scientific research and the Canadian regulatory status need to be kept separate.

BPC-157 can be the subject of scientific research while products containing it remain unauthorized for sale as therapeutic drugs in Canada.

Those two facts do not contradict each other.

Readers who want to examine the recovery evidence separately can review BPC-157 Recovery Claims: What Human Evidence Actually Exists?.

What Happened Later in 2026?

Health Canada’s peptide enforcement continued after the April advisory.

On June 11, 2026, the Superior Court of Québec granted Health Canada a permanent injunction against Canlab Research and its representatives.

Health Canada publicly announced the injunction on July 29, 2026.

The injunction prevents the company from selling unauthorized injectable peptides in Canada and also restricts related manufacturing, distribution and advertising activity involving those unauthorized products.

Health Canada stated that selling unauthorized prescription drugs and making false or misleading therapeutic claims is illegal in Canada.

This is useful context for consumers because it shows that Canada’s peptide rules are not simply theoretical guidance.

Health Canada can take enforcement action.

“For Research Use Only” Does Not Create a Loophole

Canadian consumers may encounter peptide products labelled with phrases such as:

“For Research Use Only.”

“Not for Human Consumption.”

“Laboratory Use Only.”

Those labels can create the impression that the product exists in a separate regulatory category where ordinary drug rules no longer apply.

Health Canada has directly addressed this issue.

Its consumer guidance states that products marketed as “For Research Use Only – Not for Human Consumption” are not automatically made legal or exempt from Canadian regulatory requirements simply because that wording appears on the label.

Health Canada’s April 2026 advisory likewise told consumers not to use drugs carrying this kind of research-only labelling.

For Canadian buyers, the takeaway is simple:

A disclaimer is not the same thing as Health Canada authorization.

A Scientific Paper Does Not Override Canadian Drug Law Either

Another common misunderstanding is that scientific evidence somehow replaces authorization.

It does not.

Imagine that researchers publish an animal study showing an interesting biological effect.

That paper may be completely legitimate.

It could even provide a good reason to conduct human trials.

But it does not give an online product a DIN.

Likewise, a small human pilot study does not automatically authorize every commercially available version of the compound.

Scientific evidence and regulatory authorization serve different purposes.

Research asks:

What might this compound do?

Regulation asks:

Has sufficient evidence and product-specific information been provided to authorize this product under Canadian law?

Both questions matter.

Neither replaces the other.

Authorized Peptides Do Exist

Another misconception is that Canada has somehow prohibited all peptide medicines.

That is not accurate.

“Peptide” describes a broad scientific class of molecules.

Some peptide-based drug products have been authorized for particular medical uses.

Others remain investigational or unauthorized.

The correct question is therefore never simply:

“Are peptides legal in Canada?”

That is far too broad.

A better question is:

“What is the regulatory status of this specific product, for this specific use, in Canada?”

The Health Canada database is a much better source for answering that question than social media.

Why the Exact Product Matters

Suppose a Canadian consumer learns that a particular medicinal ingredient appears in an authorized drug.

That does not mean every product using that ingredient name has inherited the same authorization.

A DIN identifies a specific combination of product characteristics.

Health Canada states that the DIN identifies the manufacturer, product name, active ingredient, strength, pharmaceutical form and route of administration.

This matters because changing one of those elements can create a substantially different regulatory situation.

For example:

• an injectable product is not automatically equivalent to an oral formulation;
• one strength is not automatically equivalent to another;
• a product made by one manufacturer is not automatically the same authorized product as something made elsewhere;
• one therapeutic indication cannot automatically be extended to another.

Authorization should be verified product by product.

What About a Notice of Compliance?

Canadian consumers may also encounter the term Notice of Compliance, or NOC.

A Notice of Compliance is issued after Health Canada satisfactorily reviews a submission for a new drug and determines that the submission complies with the applicable requirements of the Food and Drug Regulations.

The NOC database can be searched by information such as:

• product name;
• DIN;
• medicinal ingredient;
• manufacturer; and
• NOC date.

Consumers generally do not need to become regulatory experts.

But understanding that formal databases exist helps distinguish regulatory evidence from marketing claims.

“Available in Canada” Does Not Mean “Authorized in Canada”

This may be the most practical lesson in the article.

The internet makes products accessible across borders.

That creates a temptation to equate availability with approval.

But these are different concepts.

A product can appear on a website.

A Canadian can encounter advertisements for it.

People can discuss using it.

Influencers can mention it.

Athletes can talk about it.

Scientific papers can examine the underlying compound.

None of those facts establishes Health Canada authorization.

If authorization matters, verify it.

What Should You Look For on a Canadian Drug Product?

For an authorized Canadian prescription or over-the-counter drug, consumers should expect to find an eight-digit DIN on the label.

When checking a product, look beyond the front label.

Compare the actual product with Health Canada’s database.

Questions worth asking include:

• Is there a DIN?
• Does that DIN exist in Health Canada’s database?
• Does the database product name match?
• Does the manufacturer match?
• Does the active ingredient match?
• Does the strength match?
• Does the dosage form match?
• Does the route of administration match?
• What is the product’s current status?

A number printed on a package is only useful if it corresponds to the correct regulatory record.

What If a Peptide Website Says the Product Is “Pharmaceutical Grade”?

Terms such as:

• pharmaceutical grade;
• clinical grade;
• research grade;
• laboratory tested;
• high purity;
• independently tested; or
• third-party tested

should not be confused with Health Canada authorization.

Laboratory testing can potentially answer certain analytical questions.

For example, it may provide information about the material tested in that sample.

But a laboratory certificate is not a DIN.

A purity result is not a Notice of Compliance.

A chromatogram is not market authorization.

And the presence of scientific-looking documents does not establish that Health Canada has reviewed the product for therapeutic use.

These are different forms of information.

What If the Product Says “Not for Human Consumption”?

Again, the statement itself does not settle the regulatory issue.

Health Canada specifically states that research-use-only or not-for-human-consumption labelling does not create an automatic exemption from regulatory requirements.

Consumers should therefore avoid assuming that a product is legally outside Canada’s drug framework because of a disclaimer printed on the bottle or website.

What Does All of This Mean for BPC-157 Specifically?

BPC-157 provides a useful real-world example.

There is a substantial preclinical research literature involving BPC-157.

There are also a small number of published human reports.

But as discussed in our separate evidence review, those human studies remain limited and do not establish broad effectiveness for tendon, muscle or ligament recovery.

At the same time, Health Canada has specifically identified BPC-157 among unauthorized injectable peptide drugs encountered in the Canadian market.

So a Canadian reader should keep two statements separate:

Statement 1: BPC-157 is the subject of scientific research.

Statement 2: Health Canada has authorized a particular BPC-157 therapeutic product for sale in Canada.

The first statement does not prove the second.

That distinction is central to understanding peptide regulation.

Readers looking for product-specific information can view BodyTechPharma’s BPC-157 10mg product page. The presence of a product reference does not imply Health Canada authorization, regulatory approval or demonstrated therapeutic effectiveness, and product information should remain clearly separated from scientific and regulatory claims.

Canadian Athletes Have an Additional Issue: Anti-Doping Rules

For Canadian competitive athletes, checking Health Canada status is not enough.

Athletes also need to consider the Canadian Anti-Doping Program and the World Anti-Doping Agency’s Prohibited List.

On April 27, 2026, Sport Integrity Canada specifically reminded the Canadian sport community that BPC-157 and other non-approved peptides are prohibited under the 2026 WADA Prohibited List.

BPC-157 falls under S0: Non-Approved Substances.

For athletes subject to anti-doping rules, Sport Integrity Canada states that use, administration, trafficking or possession of these substances can result in an anti-doping rule violation under the Canadian Anti-Doping Program.

This is a separate issue from Health Canada market authorization.

A substance can create anti-doping consequences regardless of whether an athlete believes it is being used for recovery rather than performance enhancement.

This Is Not Just a Theoretical Athlete Warning

Canadian anti-doping cases already demonstrate that BPC-157 can have real consequences in organized sport.

Sport Integrity Canada’s Canadian Anti-Doping Registry includes a U SPORTS volleyball case involving use of BPC-157 and TB-500.

The athlete received a four-year period of ineligibility.

The registry also includes a Canadian powerlifting case in which BPC-157 use formed part of the anti-doping violation.

Canadian athletes should therefore avoid relying on statements such as:

“It’s just a recovery peptide.”

That does not determine anti-doping status.

The Prohibited List does.

What Should a Canadian Athlete Do Before Using Any Medication or Peptide?

Athletes subject to anti-doping rules should verify the status of medications and substances independently.

Sport Integrity Canada recommends tools including:

• Global DRO for checking medication status;
• Sport Integrity Canada’s substance-inquiry service; and
• the Medical Exemption Wizard where relevant.

Another person’s use of a product is not proof that it is permitted.

A recommendation from a coach, teammate, influencer or training partner does not override anti-doping rules.

And a product being legally prescribed or medically indicated does not automatically mean it can be used in sport without considering the applicable anti-doping requirements.

Note About the 2026 and 2027 Anti-Doping Lists

As of October 2026, the 2026 WADA Prohibited List remains the applicable list through December 31, 2026.

Sport Integrity Canada has also announced that WADA published the 2027 Prohibited List, which takes effect on January 1, 2027.

Athletes should always check the current list rather than relying on an article, screenshot or social-media post that may become outdated.

Practical Checklist: How Canadians Can Evaluate a Peptide Product

1. Is it being represented for use in people?

If a product is promoted around recovery, body composition, performance, disease, symptoms or another human physiological effect, its regulatory context matters.

2. Does the product have an eight-digit DIN?

For authorized prescription and over-the-counter drugs in Canada, check the label for a DIN.

If there is no DIN on something being sold as a drug, do not assume it is authorized.

3. Can you verify that DIN in Health Canada’s database?

Search the Drug Product Database directly.

Do not rely only on a screenshot or a seller’s written claim.

4. Does the database entry actually match the product?

Confirm:

• manufacturer;
• product name;
• active ingredient;
• strength;
• formulation;
• route of administration.

A DIN belongs to a specific drug product.

5. Is the seller relying heavily on “research use only” wording?

Remember that Health Canada has specifically stated that this type of labelling does not automatically make peptide products legal or exempt from regulatory requirements.

6. Are animal studies being presented as proof of human results?

Ask whether the cited research actually involved humans.

Animal studies can be scientifically valuable without establishing clinical effectiveness.

7. Is one small human study being used to make broad claims?

Check:

• number of participants;
• whether there was a control group;
• whether the study was randomized;
• what outcome was measured;
• whether the findings were replicated.

A preliminary signal is not the same as established effectiveness.

8. Is availability being presented as proof of authorization?

It isn’t.

A product appearing online does not establish Health Canada approval.

9. Are laboratory results being confused with regulatory approval?

A certificate of analysis may provide analytical information about a sample.

It is not a DIN or Health Canada authorization.

10. Are you subject to anti-doping rules?

If yes, check Sport Integrity Canada and Global DRO before using medications or compounds relevant to your sport.

11. Has Health Canada issued an advisory about the ingredient?

Search Health Canada’s recalls and safety alerts.

The agency’s April 2026 peptide advisory specifically named BPC-157 and numerous other peptide products.

12. If something looks unclear, verify it independently

For health questions, speak with an appropriate licensed healthcare professional.

For drug authorization, use Health Canada’s official databases.

For anti-doping status, use Sport Integrity Canada’s official resources.

Different questions require different sources.

Five Common Peptide Claims Canadians Should Treat Carefully

Claim 1: “It’s being clinically studied, so it’s approved.”

Incorrect.

Clinical research and market authorization are different stages.

Claim 2: “It says research use only, so Canadian drug rules don’t apply.”

Not necessarily.

Health Canada has specifically stated that this wording does not automatically create a regulatory exemption.

Claim 3: “The ingredient has studies, so this product must be legitimate.”

Not necessarily.

Scientific research on an ingredient does not establish the authorization or quality of every commercial product bearing the same name.

Claim 4: “Someone I know used it successfully, so the effect is proven.”

Personal experiences can generate hypotheses.

They cannot establish causation.

Claim 5: “If Health Canada hasn’t authorized it, that means nobody is allowed to research it.”

Incorrect.

Investigational compounds can be studied under appropriate research and regulatory frameworks without being authorized for routine market use.

Regulation and Science Answer Different Questions

This is perhaps the most important concept for Canadian consumers.

Scientific research asks questions such as:

Does this compound affect a biological pathway?

Does it appear safe under the conditions studied?

Does it improve an outcome in a controlled trial?

Regulators ask additional questions:

Is the evidence sufficient for the proposed use?

Is the manufacturing process acceptable?

Is product quality adequately controlled?

Are the risks appropriately characterized?

Is the labelling accurate?

Does the overall benefit-risk assessment support authorization?

A product can therefore be scientifically interesting while remaining unauthorized.

There is nothing contradictory about that.

What Health Canada’s 2026 Actions Should—and Should Not—Be Taken to Mean

Health Canada’s peptide advisories should be interpreted accurately.

They do mean that the agency has identified unauthorized peptide drugs in the Canadian market, including BPC-157, and has warned consumers about them.

They do mean that Health Canada expects applicable drug authorization requirements to be followed.

They do mean that “research use only” wording does not automatically place a product outside those requirements.

They do not mean that all peptide science is invalid.

They do not mean that no peptide-based medicine can ever be authorized.

They do not mean that scientific research involving experimental peptides cannot continue.

The distinction is between research activity and authorized therapeutic products.

Bottom Line for Canadian Consumers

For Canadians evaluating peptide products, the safest way to understand the regulatory landscape is to separate five different concepts:

1. Scientific interest

Researchers may study a molecule because it shows potentially meaningful biological effects.

2. Preclinical evidence

Animal and laboratory experiments can generate hypotheses worth testing in humans.

3. Human clinical research

Human studies can begin establishing safety, pharmacology and potential effectiveness.

4. Health Canada authorization

A specific drug product must go through the applicable Canadian regulatory process before it is authorized for sale as a drug.

For prescription and over-the-counter drugs, an eight-digit DIN is one of the most practical verification tools available to consumers.

5. Anti-doping status

Competitive athletes also need to check whether a substance is prohibited under the Canadian Anti-Doping Program and WADA rules.

These categories overlap, but they are not interchangeable.

The clearest practical rule is:

Do not assume research interest equals regulatory approval. Do not assume online availability equals authorization. Do not assume a “research use only” label creates an exemption. And if you are an athlete, do not assume a recovery-related purpose makes a substance permissible in sport.

For Canadian consumers, verify drug authorization through Health Canada’s Drug Product Database.

For athletes, verify prohibited status through Sport Integrity Canada and Global DRO.

And when evaluating emerging peptides such as BPC-157, distinguish carefully between:

what is being researched, what has been demonstrated in humans, what Health Canada has authorized, and what anti-doping rules permit.

That framework is much more reliable than relying on marketing language or online popularity.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are peptides in Canada automatically approved if they are sold online?

No. Online availability does not establish Health Canada authorization. Canadians should verify the specific drug product through Health Canada’s official databases rather than assuming that a website listing means regulatory approval.

What is the easiest way to check whether a drug is authorized in Canada?

For prescription and over-the-counter drugs, look for an eight-digit Drug Identification Number and verify it in Health Canada’s Drug Product Database. The database record should match the manufacturer, active ingredient, strength, dosage form and route of administration.

Does a “research use only” label make a peptide exempt from Canadian drug rules?

No automatic exemption is created by that wording. Health Canada has specifically stated that “research use only” or “not for human consumption” language does not necessarily place a product outside Canadian regulatory requirements when its nature, marketing or sale brings it within drug regulation.

Is BPC-157 authorized by Health Canada for injury recovery?

Health Canada has specifically identified BPC-157 among unauthorized injectable peptide drugs encountered in Canada. Scientific research involving BPC-157 does not itself establish Health Canada authorization for tendon, muscle, ligament or general recovery claims.

Can a peptide have human studies without being an approved drug?

Yes. Investigational drugs can be studied in humans under appropriate clinical-research frameworks before market authorization is granted. A human study, trial registration or early clinical result should not be confused with regulatory approval.

What should Canadian athletes check before using a peptide?

Athletes should verify both the product’s regulatory status and its anti-doping status. Substances such as BPC-157 may be prohibited under WADA rules regardless of whether they are being considered for recovery rather than performance enhancement.

References and Further Reading

• Health Canada. Think Twice Before Injecting Peptides Bought Online: Unauthorized Products Can Seriously Harm You. April 9, 2026. Public advisory naming BPC-157 and multiple other unauthorized injectable peptide products.
• Health Canada. Using Bodybuilding Products. Canadian guidance on injectable peptide drugs, unauthorized products and “For Research Use Only” labelling.
• Health Canada. Drug Identification Number (DIN). Explanation of Canada’s eight-digit identifier for authorized drug products.
• Health Canada. Drug Product Database Online Query. Searchable database for Canadian drug authorization information.
• Health Canada. Drug Product Database Search Tips. Guidance on searching by DIN and other product information.
• Health Canada. Drug Product Database Terminology. Definitions of DIN and other regulatory terms.
• Health Canada. Notice of Compliance Database. Information on NOCs issued following satisfactory review of new-drug submissions.
• Health Canada. Health Canada Obtains Permanent Injunction Preventing Canlab Research’s Illegal Sale of Injectable Peptides in Canada. July 29, 2026.
• Sport Integrity Canada. Reminder: Non-Approved Peptides Included on the Prohibited List. April 27, 2026. Advisory specifically addressing BPC-157 and other non-approved peptides.
• Sport Integrity Canada. Canadian Anti-Doping Registry. Includes Canadian anti-doping violations involving BPC-157.
• Sport Integrity Canada. U SPORTS Volleyball Athlete Suspended for the Use of BPC-157 and TB-500. April 7, 2025.
• Sport Integrity Canada. Advisory Notes. Includes notice of the 2027 Prohibited List, effective January 1, 2027.