Almost if not every pharmaceutical either uses something that is 'conventional' and done in a way that it doesn't need to be questioned if the species can use it or not (usually being tailored for one specific species or group), or is made within one of the companies that already falls under the FM in question's review, so it still ends up getting FM approval anyway.
And I'm going to be honest, your 'perception' of the situation is no excuse to be onery. Even if what you were perceiving was true two wrongs don't make a right, and you'd be the one ending up with an article not approved. So just relax. There is a reason why I made you list species that it works with, and there is a reason I'm making you get FMs for those species to sign off on it. And that reason essentially comes down to this is a complex chemical compound that has had zero FM oversight to say whether it would work in the species or not. And we're not talking about small quantities either like a tiny dose of pheromones. Even if species do things the same way, with the dosage level, and different biochemestries, it's well within possibilities that some species it's not enough, and for other's it's too much. It's as you said,like putting Nos in a car engine, even engines that work the same way, the specifics of details in design can cause a difference in effect.