On September 15, WIRED reported the results of laboratory testing on four products purchased from a Brooklyn convenience store. The labels named PT-141, BPC-157, NAD+ and retatrutide.
WIRED paid $376.20 for the four INDR Labs products at Mr. Green, a bodega on Bedford Avenue. It submitted them through Finnrick, a testing service that sends samples to outside laboratories.
According to WIRED, none of the four tests identified the active ingredient named on the corresponding label.
That finding is significant. It is also narrower than the headline it produced.
Eight vials were tested across two Brooklyn stores
WIRED's purchase was not the first independent test of INDR Labs products from Brooklyn stores.
In August, Peptide Critic reported buying two retatrutide vials and two NAD+ vials from Smoker's World, another retailer near Mr. Green. Those four samples went to Analytical Formulations, a different laboratory.
The laboratory could not positively identify retatrutide in either retatrutide sample or NAD+ in either NAD+ sample. It reported unexplained peaks and left purity and quantity indeterminate because identity could not first be established.
Taken together, the two investigations cover eight vials purchased by separate parties from two stores and sent through different testing routes. None produced a confirmed match to the ingredient on its label.
The second set of results matters because it moves the evidence beyond one purchase, one store or one laboratory. It does not establish how frequently mislabeled products occur across the wider market. All eight vials carried the same brand and came from the same local retail channel.
The tests did not determine what was inside
A failed identity test does not necessarily mean a vial contained only water. It means the laboratory could not confirm the substance claimed on the label.
WIRED reported low levels of endotoxins and heavy metals in its samples. Those results answer two limited questions. They do not establish the identity or quantity of the main ingredient, prove sterility, or identify every unknown substance that may be present.
The reporting leaves several explanations open. The products could have been mislabeled, contaminated, improperly manufactured or degraded during storage. The available results do not distinguish conclusively among those possibilities.
That uncertainty is part of the finding. A purchaser could read the label, scan the packaging and still be unable to determine what the vial contained.
One terminology point is also worth preserving: NAD+ is a dinucleotide cofactor, not a peptide. It is commonly sold alongside peptides, but the four labels did not all describe substances from the same chemical class.
A certificate is only as strong as its chain of evidence
The laboratory results followed an earlier problem with the products' documentation.
In July, CBS News reported that INDR Labs advertised third-party testing and certificates of analysis. CBS said a certificate presented for retatrutide appeared to identify its sample as tirzepatide instead. A manager at Vanguard Laboratory, whose name appeared on the documents, told CBS that the laboratory had not issued them and did not have INDR Labs as a client.
INDR Labs did not respond to questions from CBS or WIRED. Access to the certificates was subsequently placed behind a password, according to both reports.
A certificate of analysis is not useful merely because a PDF exists. For it to provide evidence about a particular vial, a reader must be able to connect several links:
- The laboratory named on the report must confirm that it issued the document.
- The batch or lot number on the vial must match the tested sample.
- Identity, purity and quantity must be reported as separate measurements.
- The report must make its date, methods and results inspectable.
- Handling after testing must preserve the conditions under which the sample was evaluated.
A report for one sample does not automatically establish the contents of every vial carrying the same product name. A generic QR code leading to a company website is not the same thing as a batch-specific result.
A storefront is not a verification system
The most important development may be where the products were sold.
Research-use products have long been available online. The Brooklyn reports show the same category moving into ordinary retail stores, where a physical shelf and an in-person transaction can create a sense of legitimacy without adding pharmaceutical controls.
CBS reported purchasing a vial labeled retatrutide at Mr. Green without age verification, a medical questionnaire or a prescription. When WIRED returned in early September, the large storefront menu had been removed, but the products remained available inside the store.
The convenience store did not manufacture the products or produce the testing paperwork. That is precisely the verification problem: the retailer, distributor, brand and testing claim can each depend on another part of the chain having checked the product.
A physical storefront makes a product easier to obtain. It does not make the label more reliable.
The labels span different regulatory categories
The four product names should not be treated as legally or medically interchangeable.
FDA says retatrutide is not a component of an approved drug, has not been found safe and effective for any condition, and cannot be used in compounding under federal law. The agency specifically warns against products sold directly to consumers as retatrutide while labeled for research use.
FDA's 2026 review of BPC-157 found no approved product containing it in the United States or any other country.
Bremelanotide, the active ingredient associated with the name PT-141, is different. FDA approved a specific bremelanotide product, Vyleesi, in 2019 for a defined indication. That approval belongs to the reviewed drug product and its manufacturing controls. It does not transfer to an unrelated vial because its label says PT-141.
Those distinctions matter, but they arise only after identity is established. If the labeled ingredient cannot be confirmed, debate about that ingredient's approval status, evidence or expected effects is already one step ahead of the facts.
What the investigations establish
Eight vials cannot describe an entire market. They can describe the eight vials that were tested.
For these samples, the result was consistent across two retailers and two testing routes: no claimed ingredient received a confirmed identity match. The exact contents remained unresolved. Earlier testing documents attributed to the brand had already been disputed by the laboratory named on them.
The evidence does not support the conclusion that every research product is a dud.
The broader lesson is that packaging, a storefront and a certificate-shaped document are three different claims of credibility. None of them replaces independently verifiable, batch-specific evidence tied to the vial in hand.
Sources
- WIRED, "Those Viral Bodega Peptides Aren't Actually Peptides," September 15, 2026
- CBS News, "What a Brooklyn bodega reveals about the craze for an experimental weight-loss drug," updated July 2, 2026
- Peptide Critic, "The Peptide Market Has a Zero-Pep Problem," August 13, 2026
- FDA, concerns with unapproved GLP-1 drugs used for weight loss
- FDA, July 2026 BPC-157 briefing document
- FDA prescribing information for Vyleesi