Volume 38 Issue 2

Naturopathic and herbal medicine sit in a difficult but important place. The profession draws from traditional knowledge, clinical experience, patient preference, ecological thinking and modern clinical research. It also works in a health system that increasingly asks for evidence, transparency and accountability.

That tension is not new. But it is becoming harder to ignore.

A current example is peptides. Once mainly discussed in pharmacology, endocrinology and biotechnology, peptides now appear in wellness clinics, online forums, anti-ageing programs, cosmetic marketing and social media feeds. They are promoted for weight loss, muscle growth, recovery, fertility, skin ageing, cognitive performance and general vitality.^1,2 Some are prescribed or compounded. Some are imported. Some are sold online in powders or vials with vague labels, code names or ‘research use only’ disclaimers.

This is not a fringe issue. In May 2026, the Therapeutic Goods Administration warned about the importation, compounding, supply and advertising of unapproved peptide products. The TGA noted concerns about products that may be poorly labelled, contaminated, incorrectly dosed or not assessed for therapeutic clams.³ It also reported serious adverse events, including severe allergic reactions, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and other systemic effects.³ Other serious long term concerns include potential carcinogenicity, genotoxicity and immunogenic responses.⁴

Peptides are appealing because they seem to sit at the boundary between natural medicine and pharmaceuticals. They are short chains of amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. They can mimic or stimulate biological processes involved in growth, metabolism and tissue repair. This makes them sound biological rather than chemical, restorative rather than suppressive, and individually targeted rather than blunt. For many consumers, that distinction matters.

There is a reasonable idea beneath some of this appeal. Peptides are not inherently illegitimate. Medicine has used peptide-based therapies for more than a century. Insulin, one of the most important medicines in modern healthcare, is a peptide hormone.⁵ Therapeutic peptides can act as growth factors, neurotransmitters, hormones, ion channel ligands or anti-infective agents. They can bind cell-surface receptors with high specificity and trigger intracellular effects.⁶ Peptides also occur in foods, plants and animal products, and research continues to explore their roles in metabolism, inflammation, muscle protein synthesis, gut health and immune modulation.^2,6 Some medicinal plants also contain bioactive peptides, including cyclotides and other plant defence peptides.⁷ This connection may partly explain why peptides are easily framed as natural. But it does not make isolated, synthesised, compounded or injectable peptide products equivalent to herbal medicines.

And that is exactly why the naturopathic and herbal medicine profession needs evidence-based clinical reasoning.

The problem is not that peptides are ‘unnatural’. The problem is that the peptide market is moving faster than public understanding, practitioner training, regulatory control and clinical evidence. This is where naturopaths and herbalists need to resist the old polarisation between tradition and science.

Many practitioners have good reasons to be wary of simplistic claims about ‘the evidence’. Traditional, complementary and integrative medicine has not always been treated fairly by dominant biomedical systems. Research funding is uneven. Pharmaceutical models often favour single products over whole-practice systems, whole herbal medicines and herbal combinations, lifestyle care or individualised prescribing. Traditional knowledge may be dismissed because it does not fit neatly into reductionist research designs. At other times, it is extracted, simplified and commercialised without proper recognition of its intellectual, cultural or clinical origins.

These concerns are real. So are the limits of evidence-based medicine especially when it is used poorly. A narrow reading of evidence can ignore clinical context, patient values, feasibility, therapeutic relationships and the difference between statistical and clinical significance. It can treat absence of evidence as evidence of no effect.

But these limitations do not make science the enemy of traditional medicine.

Peptides show the danger clearly. Wellness influencers can borrow the natural health language of biology, longevity and optimisation without carrying the responsibilities of a health profession. They can frame a product as natural because it acts through a biological pathway. They can imply safety because the body already contains peptides. They can imply evidence because approved peptide medicines exist. They can convert uncertainty into certainty, and complexity into sales.

Our profession cannot meet that problem by retreating into either scepticism or enthusiasm. It needs disciplined judgement.

A scientific approach does not require abandoning traditional knowledge. It asks better questions of it. What is the likely effect? For whom? At what dose? In what form? Compared with what? With what risks? In what context? How certain are we? What remains unknown?

These questions are essential to evidence-informed naturopathic care. Patients may not volunteer peptide use, particularly when products are obtained online, framed as ‘wellness’, or used for concerns that may carry vulnerability, including body image, fatigue, weight, gym performance, skin ageing, sexual confidence or anxiety about health. Non-judgemental questioning allows practitioners to assess efficacy claims, safety risks, interactions, product quality and the need for referral, without endorsing high-risk peptide use.⁸ That’s not endorsement, it is professional care.

Naturopaths and herbalists are well placed to do this work, but only if they remain evidence-literate. Patients already bring questions about products that sit between food, supplement, cosmetic, medicine and enhancement. Patients may ask whether these products are safe, compatible with herbs or drugs, or relevant to fertility treatment, menopause care, chronic illness, athletic performance, mental health, anti-ageing or wellbeing. These questions require knowledge of mechanisms, safety, evidence certainty, interactions and patient context as well as regulation.

The peptide issue also exposes a curriculum gap. Many naturopaths have not been trained to assess the evidence, medicine importation risks or biologic-style therapeutic claims. That is not a failure of individual practitioners. It reflects how quickly the wellness market has changed. But the profession cannot ignore the gap.⁹ If patients are using peptides, practitioners need enough knowledge to ask about them, understand the risks and refer appropriately.

The choice is not between tradition and science. This polarisation leaves the profession vulnerable. That gap is easily filled by an industry that profits from confusion. The peptide market is not a profession. It is part of a broader wellness industry in which legitimate research, clinical care, cosmetic innovation, commercial wellness and unregulated supply can easily blur. The public needs practitioners who can tell the difference.

That is one reason journals matter. Peer reviewed journals give the profession more than papers to cite. They give it a public method for thinking — question the claim, examine the evidence, name the uncertainty, identify the risk and bring the patient back into view.

Peptides are not the last wellness trend that will arrive wrapped in the language of biology and nature. They are a warning. The choice is not tradition or science. The choice is whether we use science to clarify tradition, protect patients and strengthen the profession, or leave the field open to those who profit from confusion.

This winter issue reflects that broader task. It includes a narrative review clarifying the traditional and contemporary use of raspberry leaf in pregnancy, and a review of bitter herbs that reframes their digestive effects through bitter receptors, autonomic regulation and dose-dependent responses. It also includes studies on multisensory foot reflexology path walking for blood pressure and autonomic variables in essential hypertension, yoga and naturopathy for glycaemic control and auditory reaction time in type 2 diabetes, and a narrative review revisiting the alkaline diet within naturopathic principles and contemporary physiology. Together, these papers show a profession working across tradition, mechanism, clinical observation and emerging evidence — exactly the space where careful, evidence-literate practice matters most. I hope you enjoy.

Author(s)

Susan Arentz PhD, BHSc (Hons)
Editor, Australian Journal of Herbal and Naturopathic Medicine
PO Box 696, Ashfield, NSW 2131, Australia
Email journal@nhaa.org.au

References

1. Zakir SK, Jawed B, Esposito JE, et al. The role of peptides in nutrition: insights into metabolic, musculoskeletal, and behavioral health: a systematic review. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2025;26(13):6043. doi: 10.3390/ijms26136043
2. Ferreira MS, Magalhães MC, Sousa-Lobo JM, Almeida IF. Trending anti-aging peptides. Cosmetics. 2020;7(4):91. doi: 10.3390/cosmetics7040091
3. TGA. TGA warning on the risks of importing unapproved peptide products. Department of Health, Disability and Aging, Therapeutic Goods Administration; 2026, May 7. https://www.tga.gov.au/safety/safety-monitoring-and-information/safety-alerts/tga-warning-risks-importing-unapproved-peptide-products
4. Mitra MS, DeMarco S, Holub B, Thiruneelakantapillai L, Thackaberry EA. Development of peptide therapeutics: A nonclinical safety assessment perspective. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 2020;117:104766. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2020.104766
5. Weiss M, Steiner DF, Philipson LH. Insulin biosynthesis, secretion, structure, and structure-activity relationships.  In K. R. Feingold KR, et al, eds. Endotext. MDText.com, Inc; 2014 https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25905258#free-full-text
6. Wang L, Wang N, Zhang W, et al. Therapeutic peptides: current applications and future directions. Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy. 2022;7(1):48. doi: 10.1038/s41392-022-00904-4
7. Thakur S, Punia A, Acharya V, et al. Bringing bioactive peptides into drug discovery: Challenges and opportunities for medicinal plants. Industrial Crops and Products. 2024;222:119855. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2024.119855
8. Piatkowski T, Ganson KT, Nagata JM. Responding to injectable synthetic peptide use among young people: priorities for clinicians and public health. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. 2026:online first. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(26)00099-4
9. Krishan K, Javed D, Parashar R, Saini M, Anwar S, Pandita K. Transitioning from co-location to collaboration in integrative medicine: a qualitative thematic analysis of focus group discussions aligned with the WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy (2014–2023). Cureus. 2026;18(4): : e107707 doi: 10.7759/cureus.107707