Explainer
How do I spot a fake peptide COA?
Short answer · as of 2026-10-05
No visual check proves a COA is fake or genuine, because altered documents can look flawless and genuine ones can look sloppy. Documented cases involved omitted or replaced manufacturer names and tests reported but not run. Missing identifiers, mismatched lots or dates, and results without methods or limits are reasons to verify with the lab, not proof of forgery.
By Peptide Industry Gossip · Published · General explanation, not legal or medical advice. Disclaimer.
Documented cases (pharmaceutical materials, not peptide sellers)
FDA's April 2017 warning letter to Sal Pharma said the firm's COAs omitted the original manufacturers' names and addresses, which FDA said compromises traceability. A trade-press report said the original producer's name was replaced with the firm's letterhead.
FDA's January 2018 warning letter to Daito Kasei Kogyo said the firm falsified a COA by signing it without running all the reported tests.
WHO's Medical Product Alert 4/2024 covered falsified propylene glycol found in Pakistan and said at least one falsified manufacturer COA had been identified.
These are allegations in regulator documents about other industries. Nothing here says any peptide seller forged a COA.
Warning signs that justify a closer look
- No laboratory address or contact, or contact details only through the seller.
- No unique report number, sample identification or lot number. ISO/IEC 17025 expects these on an accredited lab's report.
- A lot number or date that does not match the product, such as a test date before the manufacture date.
- Results with no method, unit or limit. WHO's model pairs results with acceptance criteria.
- Only a purity figure, with no identity result. 21 CFR 211.84 treats an identity test as the minimum for drug components.
- No named person authorizing the report.
- No raw data on request. Lab records for drug testing are expected to hold the chromatograms and spectra (21 CFR 211.194).
- A reseller's COA with no original manufacturer's COA attached, which WHO guidance expects.
- A claim of ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation that you cannot find in an accreditation body's directory, or tests outside the listed scope.
What does not prove forgery
- An unfamiliar laboratory name. Check the directory instead.
- Plain formatting, a scanned copy or a screenshot.
- A result that differs from another lab's. Methods, samples and sample handling differ, and a 2015 study found COA and in-house results diverging without claiming forgery.
What to do with a suspicious COA
Follow the steps in our verification guide: contact the lab through details you found yourself and ask it to confirm the report. If you hold a document you think is altered, you can send it to our tip line.
Sources
- FDA warning letter to Sal Pharma, Apr. 20, 2017 · captured 2026-10-05 · tier 1
- FDA warning letter to Daito Kasei Kogyo Co Ltd, Jan. 18, 2018 · captured 2026-10-05 · tier 1
- WHO Medical Product Alert N°4/2024: falsified USP/EP propylene glycol (Oct. 10, 2024) · captured 2026-10-05 · tier 1
- WHO, Model certificate of analysis · captured 2026-10-05 · tier 1
- WHO TRS 996, Annex 6: Good trade and distribution practices for pharmaceutical starting materials (third-party host) · captured 2026-10-05 · tier 2
- 21 CFR 211.84: Testing and approval or rejection of components (Legal Information Institute) · captured 2026-10-05 · tier 1
- 21 CFR 211.194: Laboratory records (Legal Information Institute) · captured 2026-10-05 · tier 1
- PJLA, Reporting results under ISO/IEC 17025 (webinar slides, Oct. 9, 2024) · captured 2026-10-05 · tier 2
- Verbeke et al., Quality evaluation of synthetic quorum sensing peptides used in R&D, J Pharm Anal 2015 · captured 2026-10-05 · tier 2
Quotes are from the FDA documents above, retrieved Oct. 5, 2026. FDA can revise those pages. See something wrong? Request a correction.