Mostly true Scientifically well supported Certainty of evidence: moderate provisional C-CHK-06

Broiler chickens are not injected with hormones; the common belief about 'hormonised chicken' is wrong - the real issue is antibiotics in feed.

In short: This statement is correct in its main point: broiler chickens are not routinely injected with hormones, and their fast growth comes from breeding and feeding; hormone use is banned in the EU and not approved for poultry in the USA. Elawady contradicted this in other videos.

Conclusion: Correct: broilers are not given hormones; they grow fast because of breeding and feed. Elawady contradicted this in other videos.

Original statement
Scientific assessment
Scientific evidence in detail
In plain language
Studies on this claim
Regional context
What applies in my country?
References

Original statement

الفراخ متهرمنه لا ما فيش حاجه اسمها متهرمنه مبدئيا عشان غاليه جدا جدا ... ومش همسك كل فرخه حقنها ولا كل بيضه حقينها هرمون

verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.

Translation

Broiler chickens are not injected with hormones; the common belief about 'hormonised chicken' is wrong - the real issue is antibiotics in feed.

Origin

Source status: Video transcript (own words)
Attribution: Elawady (machine transcript)
Video: ودي الحلقه التانيه من البودكاست…حلقه استثنائيه وقولولي رأيكوا (Open source)
Published: 10 April 2026
Timestamp: 1:17:20 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
Attribution uncertainty: Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); wording may contain transcription errors; no timestamps available.

Claimed mechanism: Fast growth results from genetics, feeding and (in his view) antibiotics, not hormone injections.
Claimed health effect: None (correction of a myth).
Population concerned: general population (not specified)
Geographic restriction by Elawady: none found

Diverging source versions

Source status: Video transcript (own words)
Attribution: Elawady (machine transcript)
Video: Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! مفيش حاجه سعرات مفيش حاجه اسمها نشويات (Open source)
Published: 7 August 2025
Timestamp: not available (transcript has no timings)
Attribution uncertainty: Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); wording may contain transcription errors; no timestamps available.

Source status: Video transcript (own words)
Attribution: Elawady (machine transcript)
Video: ارتفاع السكر والأسيتون ؟خطر والا ده الطبيعي ؟#ضياء_العوضي (Open source)
Published: 23 December 2025
Timestamp: not available (transcript has no timings)
Attribution uncertainty: Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); wording may contain transcription errors; no timestamps available.

Source status: Video transcript (own words)
Attribution: Elawady (machine transcript)
Video: Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! الموت المفاجيء (Open source)
Published: 14 July 2025
Timestamp: not available (transcript has no timings)
Attribution uncertainty: Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); wording may contain transcription errors; no timestamps available.

Scientific assessment

Mostly true – Correct at its core, but with limitations or minor inaccuracies.

Certainty of evidence: moderate – Further research may still affect the assessment.

1. What was claimed?

Chickens are not hormone-injected; antibiotics in feed are the issue.

2. What is demonstrably correct?

The fast growth of broilers (he mentions 40 g to 2 kg in about 33 days) is widely attributed to breeding and feed; injecting individual birds would be impractical, as he notes. The review on woody breast (I-CHK-11) links modern broiler problems to genome, nutrition and management.

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

In other videos he lists 'injected hormones' among food problems, which contradicts this statement.

4. What remains unclear?

Whether illegal hormone use occurs anywhere in Egyptian poultry; no confirmatory (LC-MS/MS) residue survey exists. One Egyptian ELISA study (I-RES-09) measured natural hormones that occur in all meat.

5. Which studies support it?

I-CHK-119 (FDA), I-CHK-120 (poultry-science extension), I-RES-02 (EU ban), I-INTA-11 and I-CHK-11 (growth from genetics and nutrition).

6. Which studies contradict it?

No evidence of practice found. I-CHK-121 (feasibility experiment in Egypt) and I-CHK-122 (a steroid used as 'growth promoter' actually reduced growth) concern feasibility only.

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

Hormonal growth promoters are prohibited in EU stockfarming (Directive 96/22/EC, I-RES-02).

8. What is known about Egypt?

The Ministry of Agriculture was reported in January 2026 as stating that hormone use in poultry is untrue and legally prohibited; no legal text was found (the project's research files). No study documents hormone administration in Egyptian broilers.

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

This is one point where Elawady corrected a popular myth; the claim is consistent with mainstream knowledge.

Assessment details

Rationale for certainty of evidence: Primary regulatory sources agree: the FDA states that no steroid hormone implants are approved for growth in poultry (I-CHK-119), and the EU prohibits hormonal growth promoters (I-RES-02). Poultry scientists explain that fast growth comes from breeding and that hormone injections would be impractical (I-CHK-120; I-INTA-11: +400% growth from genetics). The Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture denies hormone use in poultry (press report, January 2026; the project's research files), and no study documents it. A small Egyptian experiment showed that oral hormones can increase chicken weight (I-CHK-121), so feasibility cannot be fully excluded, and confirmatory residue monitoring in Egypt is missing.
Source quality: Own words (machine transcript, podcast 2026-04-10); contradicted in passing in other videos.
Regional transferability: Applies broadly to modern broiler production.
Individual exceptions: Not applicable.
Regional scope of the claim: depends on production conditions
Last reviewed: 26 October 2026 provisional

Scientific evidence in detail

Scientifically well supported – The claim agrees with consistent, high-quality evidence.

Research question: Are broiler chickens (in Egypt, the EU and elsewhere) given hormones to promote growth, or is their fast growth due to genetics, feed and (where used) antibiotics?

Research question in detail (PECO)

Population

Commercial broilers

Intervention or exposure

Hormone administration for growth

Comparison

No hormones (genetics, nutrition, management)

Geographic scope

production-dependent; regulatory facts by country

Outcomes

legal status
evidence of practice
residue findings
biological plausibility

Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.

What speaks for the claim?

US: hormone implants allowed in beef cattle, not in poultry

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA web page 2024 Guideline / position statementfull text checkednewly added

FDA regulatory page.

Actual result
'No steroid hormone implants are approved for growth purposes in ... pigs, or poultry'; approved only for beef cattle and sheep.
Methodological quality
high (primary regulatory source)
Relevance
direct for USA
Limitations
US only.

Original publication
Why do modern chickens grow so fast?

Zuidhof MJ et al.. Poultry science 2014 · PMID 25260522 · DOI 10.3382/ps.2014-04291 Otherabstract checked

Comparison of 1957, 1978 and 2005 broiler strains on the same feed.

Actual result
Growth +400% and FCR -50%, from genetic selection.
Methodological quality
moderate
Relevance
direct for the cause of fast growth
Limitations
Single experiment.

Original publication
EU hormone ban in livestock

Council of the EU. Official Journal of the EC 1996 Guideline / position statementabstract checked

EU Directive 96/22/EC.

Actual result
Prohibits hormonal substances for growth promotion in farm animals.
Methodological quality
high (law)
Relevance
direct for EU
Limitations
Article text not extracted in earlier phase.

Original publication

What speaks against the claim?

Egyptian experiment: hormone pills made chickens heavier and stressed the liver

Badr MO et al.. Vet Ital 2009 · PMID 20391405 Animal studyabstract checkednewly added

Egyptian experiment giving oral contraceptive hormones to chickens.

Actual result
Both drugs increased body weight and liver enzymes; residues in liver and muscle.
Methodological quality
very low (n = 60; 'Duplicate Publication')
Relevance
indirect: feasibility only
Limitations
No evidence of farm use.

Original publication
Hormones in Egyptian meat (ELISA)

Kamaly HF & Sharkawy AA. Food Chem Toxicol 2023 · PMID 37956705 · DOI 10.1016/j.fct.2023.114172 Measurement / residue studyabstract checked

Egyptian ELISA study of hormone residues in chicken and cattle meat.

Actual result
Estradiol intake above ADI in almost all samples (authors).
Methodological quality
low (ELISA cannot distinguish natural from administered hormones)
Relevance
indirect
Limitations
Natural hormones occur in all meat.

Original publication

What does the overall evidence say?

Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.

Which position is better supported?

Broilers are not routinely given hormones; fast growth is explained by genetic selection and nutrition; hormone use is prohibited in the EU and not approved in the USA, and the Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture denies it (the project's research files).

Why some studies weigh more

Regulatory sources and genetic data weigh more than one small Egyptian feasibility experiment and an ELISA study that cannot identify administered hormones.

Is a causal relationship established? Not applicable Question of practice, not of a health effect.

Remaining uncertainty

No Egyptian monitoring data with confirmatory methods; illegal use cannot be fully excluded anywhere.

Justified conclusion

Elawady's statement that broilers are not hormone-injected is correct; his statement that antibiotics are 'the real issue' is partly correct for Egypt (routine use, C-CHK-05) but antibiotics are not the main cause of fast growth.

Why do studies seem to disagree?

I-CHK-121 shows oral hormones can raise chicken weight experimentally, contrary to the extension claim that feed hormones 'would not be effective' (I-CHK-120). This concerns feasibility; neither shows actual use.

Does this depend on the country?

General biological effects: Fast growth of modern hybrids is genetic (same breeding companies worldwide).
Eating habits: Not relevant.
Origin of the food: Imported and domestic broilers use the same genetics.
Contaminants: Natural sex hormones occur in all meat; ELISA screening cannot separate them from administered ones.
National production conditions: Egypt: Ministry of Agriculture statement (January 2026, reported in press) denies hormone use in poultry and says it is legally prohibited; no legal text found (the project's research files, RS-EG-12).
Legal rules: EU: Directive 96/22/EC; USA: no approved implants for poultry; Egypt: NFSA Decision 13/2020 lists Codex residue limits but does not authorise use.
Actual monitoring data: No confirmatory hormone residue monitoring for Egypt found.

A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.

Statistical re-check

Recalculation possible? – No: abstract reports only percentage changes without variance; not recalculable. not recalculable from the published data

Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)

Main outcome

Routine hormone administration in broiler production

Starting level

low (observational studies)

Reasons for upgrading

consistent regulatory and genetic evidence

Result

moderate

Simplified assessment by a single reviewer, following the GRADE approach; not a formal GRADE panel. GRADE rates the body of evidence for one outcome, not individual studies.

Clinical guidelines and official statements checked

FDA: Steroid Hormone Implants Used for Growth in Food-Producing Animals (2024) · Original publication
Steroid hormone implants are approved for beef cattle and sheep; none are approved for growth in dairy cows, veal calves, pigs or poultry.
EU: Council Directive 96/22/EC (hormonal substances and beta-agonists in stockfarming), as recorded in the project's research files (RS-EU-15) (1996) · Original publication could not be retrieved; content not used

Search strategy

Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).

Database	Date	Search	Looking for	Hits
Europe PMC	26 October 2026	`(TITLE:broiler OR TITLE:chicken OR TITLE:poultry) AND (TITLE:hormone OR TITLE:hormones OR TITLE:estradiol OR TITLE:steroid OR TITLE:anabolic) AND (TITLE:residue OR TITLE:residues OR TITLE:myth OR TITLE:"growth promot" OR TITLE:meat)`	contradicting evidence	13
PubMed	26 October 2026	`(broiler[tiab] OR chicken meat[tiab]) AND (hormone residue[tiab] OR steroid residue[tiab] OR anabolic[tiab] OR estradiol[tiab]) AND (LC-MS[tiab] OR "mass spectrometry"[tiab] OR consumer*[tiab])`	contradicting evidence	5
PubMed	26 October 2026	`(boldenone[tiab] OR trenbolone[tiab] OR zeranol[tiab] OR anabolic[tiab]) AND (residue[tiab]) AND (Egypt[tiab] OR Arab[tiab] OR Saudi[tiab] OR Iraq[tiab])`	contradicting evidence	3
Web search	26 October 2026	`FDA steroid hormone implants used for growth in food-producing animals poultry hogs not approved`	supporting evidence	9

Open questions

Confirmatory (LC-MS/MS) hormone residue survey in Egyptian poultry.

How deeply was this checked?

8 linked studies: 2 checked in full text (0 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 6 on the basis of the abstract, 0 bibliographically only. No formal assessment with two independent reviewers and no independent human expert review has taken place yet.

Last scientific review: 26 October 2026

History of the verdict

25 October 2026 · Phase 1 · Initial assessment: Mostly true (low)
26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Verdict changed: Mostly true (low) → Mostly true (moderate)
Certainty raised: a primary regulatory source (FDA) was fetched, expert extension material agrees, and the Egyptian regulatory situation is documented in the project's research files (ministry denial, no evidence of use). Verdict unchanged because Elawady's statements were inconsistent and Egyptian confirmatory residue data are missing.
New sources: I-CHK-119 I-CHK-120 I-CHK-121 I-CHK-122

In plain language

In one podcast Dr. Elawady said that the popular belief that chickens are injected with hormones is wrong, because it would be far too expensive. This agrees with what poultry experts say: chickens grow fast because of breeding and feeding. In some other videos, however, he mentioned injected hormones again.

Studies on this claim

Studies supporting the claim (5)

Woody breast in modern chickens

Greene ES et al.. Avian Pathol 2025 · PMID 40658058 · DOI 10.1080/03079457.2025.2533454

Narrative reviewindependent cross-checkabstract checked

Muscle disorders such as woody breast are widespread in fast-growing broilers.

Broiler chickens are not injected with hormones; the common belief about 'hormonised chicken' is wrong - the real issue is antibiotics in feed.

Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

Original publication · Scientific details

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?
Current knowledge on broiler breast myopathies
How was the study done?
Expert narrative review
How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable; Modern broilers
What was actually found?
Breast myopathies emerged at large scale; among the most significant economic and welfare challenges; no effective prevention; unknown aetiologies involving broiler genome, nutrition and management.
How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
What do the results mean in everyday life?
A meat quality and welfare issue.
What are the study's limitations?
Narrative
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports the observation.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
No human health data.
Scientific details →
US: hormone implants allowed in beef cattle, not in poultry

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA web page 2024

Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkfull text checked

FDA approves hormone implants for beef cattle and sheep, but none for poultry or pigs.

No hormone implants are approved for growth in poultry in the USA.

Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

Original publication · Scientific details

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?
For which food-producing animals are steroid hormone growth implants approved in the USA?
How was the study done?
Regulatory agency information page
How many people, animals or samples were studied?
not applicable
What was actually found?
FDA 'has approved a number of steroid hormone drugs for use in beef cattle and sheep', including natural estrogen, progesterone, testosterone and synthetic versions such as trenbolone acetate and zeranol. 'No steroid hormone implants are approved for growth purposes in dairy cows, veal calves, pigs, or poultry.' FDA sets acceptable safe limits for hormones in meat.
How large was the observed effect?
FDA 'has approved a number of steroid hormone drugs for use in beef cattle and sheep', including natural estrogen, progesterone, testosterone and synthetic versions such as trenbolone acetate and zeranol. 'No steroid hormone implants are approved for growth purposes in dairy cows, veal calves, pigs, or poultry.' FDA sets acceptable safe limits for hormones in meat.
What do the results mean in everyday life?
Hormones are a real practice in US beef, but not in chicken.
What are the study's limitations?
US-specific
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports the broiler statement; partly supports hormone use in cattle (other countries).
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
EU bans hormonal growth promoters (Directive 96/22/EC, I-RES-02).
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Says nothing about illegal use in other countries.
Scientific details →
Poultry scientists: chickens are not given growth hormones

Tabler T, Wells J, Zhai W. MSU Extension Service 2023 (date not stated; code POD-05-23)

Narrative reviewindependent cross-checkfull text checked

US extension experts state that hormones have been banned in poultry since the 1950s and would not work in feed.

States that hormones are not used in broilers and would be impractical (multiple daily injections).

Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

Original publication · Scientific details

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?
Are broilers given growth hormones, and why do they grow fast?
How was the study done?
University extension publication (expert narrative)
How many people, animals or samples were studied?
not applicable
What was actually found?
'Hormone use in poultry production was banned in the United States in the 1950s'; 'growth hormones added to chicken feed would NOT be effective'; birds 'would need to receive growth hormone injections several times each day'; fast growth is attributed to genetic selection, nutrition and management, none related to hormones.
How large was the observed effect?
'Hormone use in poultry production was banned in the United States in the 1950s'; 'growth hormones added to chicken feed would NOT be effective'; birds 'would need to receive growth hormone injections several times each day'; fast growth is attributed to genetic selection, nutrition and management, none related to hormones.
What do the results mean in everyday life?
Fast growth comes from breeding and feed.
What are the study's limitations?
Extension (non-peer-reviewed) text; Possible industry-friendly framing; Publication date not stated
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports Elawady's corrected statement; matches his reasoning that injections would be impractical.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Breeding stock is the same internationally.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Does not prove absence of illegal use anywhere.
Scientific details →
Why do modern chickens grow so fast?

Zuidhof MJ et al.. Poultry science 2014 · PMID 25260522 · DOI 10.3382/ps.2014-04291

Otherindependent cross-checkabstract checked

Modern broilers grew over four times faster than 1957 birds on the same feed, showing the role of breeding.

Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

Original publication · Scientific details

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?
Broiler genetics and growth
How was the study done?
Strain comparison on identical diet
How many people, animals or samples were studied?
180 chicks per strain
What was actually found?
Growth +400% from 1957 to 2005
How large was the observed effect?
FCR -50%
What do the results mean in everyday life?
Fast growth is mostly bred into the birds
What are the study's limitations?
One experiment
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Qualifies 'antibiotics make chickens grow' (C-RES-05)
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Whether antibiotics are still used in Egypt
Scientific details →
EU hormone ban in livestock

Council of the EU. Official Journal of the EC 1996

Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkabstract checked

The EU prohibits hormonal growth promoters in farm animals.

Does the study support the specific claim? Unclear · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

Original publication · Scientific details

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?
Ban hormones.
How was the study done?
Directive.
What was actually found?
Prohibition.
What do the results mean in everyday life?
No legal hormone fattening in EU.
What are the study's limitations?
Title only read.
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts claim for EU.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
Scientific details →

Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (1)

Hormones in Egyptian meat (ELISA)

Kamaly HF & Sharkawy AA. Food Chem Toxicol 2023 · PMID 37956705 · DOI 10.1016/j.fct.2023.114172

Measurement / residue studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked

A small study reported high hormone levels, but its method cannot tell natural from added hormones.

Does the study support the specific claim? Unclear · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

Original publication · Scientific details

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?
Measure hormones.
How was the study done?
ELISA.
How many people, animals or samples were studied?
148 samples.
What was actually found?
High estimated intake.
How large was the observed effect?
HI > 1.
What do the results mean in everyday life?
Data gap in Egypt.
What are the study's limitations?
Weak method.
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Unclear.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Low.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Illegal use.
Scientific details →

Studies with mixed or unclear results (2)

Egyptian experiment: hormone pills made chickens heavier and stressed the liver

Badr MO et al.. Vet Ital 2009 · PMID 20391405

Animal studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked

In 60 chickens, oral contraceptive hormones increased weight and liver enzymes and left residues.

Oral contraceptive hormones increased chicken weight in an Egyptian experiment, so feasibility cannot be fully excluded; no evidence of use on farms.

Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: very low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

Original publication · Scientific details

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?
What are the effects of orally given oestrogenic contraceptive drugs on chicken growth, biochemistry and tissue residues?
How was the study done?
Experimental feeding study (3 groups x 20 chickens)
How many people, animals or samples were studied?
60 chickens
What was actually found?
Both drugs caused a gain in body weight; ALT +410% and +300%, AST +278% and +262%, creatinine +62% and +42%; oestrogen residues higher in liver (+26% and +71%) and muscle (+17.5% and +43%) vs controls; some changes not significant 15 days after stopping.
How large was the observed effect?
Both drugs caused a gain in body weight; ALT +410% and +300%, AST +278% and +262%, creatinine +62% and +42%; oestrogen residues higher in liver (+26% and +71%) and muscle (+17.5% and +43%) vs controls; some changes not significant 15 days after stopping.
What do the results mean in everyday life?
Hormones can work in chickens in an experiment, but this does not show farms use them.
What are the study's limitations?
Small; methods for residues not described in abstract; PubMed labels it 'Duplicate Publication'; Does not show use in practice
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Weakens the argument that hormones would not work; does not show hormonised chicken exists.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
EU bans such use.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot estimate any real-world use.
Scientific details →
A steroid sold as a growth promoter made broilers grow less

Islam R et al.. Poult Sci 2022 · PMID 35523031 · DOI 10.1016/j.psj.2022.101904

Animal studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked

Dexamethasone reduced weight gain and feed efficiency in broilers.

Shows that a steroid is reportedly used in some settings, but it did not promote growth.

Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

Original publication · Scientific details

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?
Does dexamethasone, described as a commonly used growth promoter, improve broiler growth and meat quality?
How was the study done?
Experimental feeding trial (4 groups x 20 chicks, 28 days)
How many people, animals or samples were studied?
80 chicks
What was actually found?
Dexamethasone substantially decreased (P < 0.05) feed intake, feed efficiency and overall weight gain; breast and thigh weight decreased; relative meat weight increased; residues detected by TLC at the high dose.
How large was the observed effect?
Dexamethasone substantially decreased (P < 0.05) feed intake, feed efficiency and overall weight gain; breast and thigh weight decreased; relative meat weight increased; residues detected by TLC at the high dose.
What do the results mean in everyday life?
Steroid 'boosters' do not make chickens grow faster; fast growth comes from breeding.
What are the study's limitations?
Small; TLC residue method; Country of practice not stated in abstract
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports that hormones are not the cause of fast growth; notes possible misuse.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Not authorised in the EU.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Does not quantify use anywhere.
Scientific details →

Regional context

Germany / EU

Hormonal growth promoters are prohibited in EU stockfarming (Directive 96/22/EC, I-RES-02).

Egypt

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

Mostly true Correct: broilers are not given hormones; they grow fast because of breeding and feed. Elawady contradicted this in other videos.

The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:

Pesticides and pesticide residues
Veterinary medicines and antibiotics
Hormonal growth promoters
Contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, PCBs, dioxins, nitrate)
Pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter, etc.)
Animal husbandry and feed
Controls, imports, recalls, labelling

Eggs · Poultry · Dairy · Fish and seafood · Red meat · Fruit and vegetables

Choose a country to see the checked information for it.

Limits: legal rules describe what is allowed, not what every single food contains. Measurement data come from samples and are meaningful only together with their method details.

Country of residence or purchase Compare with another country

References

Breast muscle myopathies: twists and turns in modern broilers.. Greene ES et al.. Avian Pathol 2025 · PMID 40658058 · DOI 10.1080/03079457.2025.2533454
FDA: Steroid Hormone Implants Used for Growth in Food-Producing Animals (content current as of 24 October 2024). U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA web page 2024
Chickens Do Not Receive Growth Hormones: So Why All the Confusion? (Mississippi State University Extension, Publication P2767). Tabler T, Wells J, Zhai W. MSU Extension Service 2023 (date not stated; code POD-05-23)
Growth, efficiency, and yield of commercial broilers from 1957, 1978, and 2005.. Zuidhof MJ et al.. Poultry science 2014 · PMID 25260522 · DOI 10.3382/ps.2014-04291
Council Directive 96/22/EC concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists. Council of the EU. Official Journal of the EC 1996
Hormonal residues in chicken and cattle meat: A risk threat the present and future consumer health.. Kamaly HF & Sharkawy AA. Food Chem Toxicol 2023 · PMID 37956705 · DOI 10.1016/j.fct.2023.114172
Effect of oestrogenic compounds on performance and biochemical parameters of chickens in Egypt.. Badr MO et al.. Vet Ital 2009 · PMID 20391405
Role of steroid growth promoter on growth performance and meat quality traits in broiler.. Islam R et al.. Poult Sci 2022 · PMID 35523031 · DOI 10.1016/j.psj.2022.101904

← Back to overview

Broiler chickens are not injected with hormones; the common belief about 'hormonised chicken' is wrong - the real issue is antibiotics in feed.

Original statement

Translation

Origin

Diverging source versions

Scientific assessment

1. What was claimed?

2. What is demonstrably correct?

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

4. What remains unclear?

5. Which studies support it?

6. Which studies contradict it?

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

8. What is known about Egypt?

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

Assessment details

Scientific evidence in detail

What speaks for the claim?

US: hormone implants allowed in beef cattle, not in poultry

Why do modern chickens grow so fast?

EU hormone ban in livestock

What speaks against the claim?

Egyptian experiment: hormone pills made chickens heavier and stressed the liver

Hormones in Egyptian meat (ELISA)

What does the overall evidence say?

Which position is better supported?

Why some studies weigh more

Remaining uncertainty

Justified conclusion

Open questions

How deeply was this checked?

In plain language

Studies on this claim

Studies supporting the claim (5)

Woody breast in modern chickens

US: hormone implants allowed in beef cattle, not in poultry

Poultry scientists: chickens are not given growth hormones

Why do modern chickens grow so fast?

EU hormone ban in livestock

Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (1)

Hormones in Egyptian meat (ELISA)

Studies with mixed or unclear results (2)

Egyptian experiment: hormone pills made chickens heavier and stressed the liver

A steroid sold as a growth promoter made broilers grow less

Regional context

Germany / EU

Egypt

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

References