Chickens were fed arsenical drugs (roxarsone) that raise carcinogenic inorganic arsenic in chicken meat and in consumers.
Original statement
تتغذى على أعلاف مخلوطة بمضادات حيوية وقائية، وحتى وقت قريب جداً بعقار الزرنيخ روكسارسون ... الدجاج التقليدي يحوي ضعفي إلى ثلاثة أضعاف الزرنيخ غير العضوي السام مقارنة بالعضوي، وأن الطهي يرفع تركيزه
verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.
Translation
Chickens were fed arsenical drugs (roxarsone) that raise carcinogenic inorganic arsenic in chicken meat and in consumers.
Origin
- Source status
- Archive editors
- Attribution
- Archive editors (not Elawady)
- Origin
- https://eltayebat.com/rule/industrial-chicken/
- Attribution uncertainty
- Narrative and study selection written by the archive operators; the archive states the forbidden section is documented independently of Dr. Diaa's words.
- Claimed mechanism
Organoarsenical feed additives degrade to inorganic arsenic.
- Claimed health effect
Bladder and lung cancer risk.
- Population concerned
general population (not specified)
- Geographic restriction by Elawady
none found
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?
Arsenical drugs in feed raise inorganic arsenic in chicken; conventional chicken had 2-3 times the inorganic arsenic of organic chicken; cooking concentrated it.
2. What is demonstrably correct?
Nachman et al. 2013: inorganic arsenic GM 1.8 ug/kg in conventional vs 0.6 ug/kg in organic cooked chicken; roxarsone detected in 20/40 conventional samples (A-CHK-04). NHANES: highest poultry quartile 1.12-fold urine total arsenic (A-CHK-16). The practice was not US-only: in China, organoarsenicals were detected in over 90% of market chicken samples and raised inorganic arsenic (I-CHK-126, I-CHK-127). FDA withdrew US approvals in 2013-2015 (I-CHK-03).
3. What is wrong or exaggerated?
Absolute risk was small: estimated +0.11 ug/day inorganic arsenic per 82 g serving and 3.7 additional lifetime bladder/lung cancers per 100,000 exposed persons under lifetime exposure assumptions. The practice has ended in the US; the archive's general framing ('raised on arsenical drugs') does not apply to the EU.
4. What remains unclear?
Status in Egypt and other countries that may still allow arsenicals (the FDA notes some countries still allow their use in other contexts [secondary]).
5. Which studies support it?
A-CHK-04, A-CHK-16, I-CHK-126, I-CHK-127.
6. Which studies contradict it?
I-CHK-03 (withdrawal: current US exposure via this route ended).
7. What applies to Germany and Europe?
Roxarsone is not authorised as a feed additive in the EU (secondary sources date the exclusion to 1999; primary EU instrument not verified). Under Regulation 1831/2003 only authorised feed additives may be used.
8. What is known about Egypt?
Not verified.
9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?
Correct as a historical US issue; not relevant to current EU supply.
Assessment details
- Rationale for certainty of evidence
The US market-basket study and NHANES analysis support higher inorganic arsenic exposure from roxarsone-treated chicken (historical). Regulatory facts: US approvals of roxarsone, carbarsone and arsanilic acid were withdrawn in 2013/2014 and nitarsone by end of 2015 (FDA). In the EU, roxarsone is reported not to be authorised; the 1999 date is from secondary sources only. Thus true historically for the US; largely outdated today.
- Source quality
Archive editorial; numbers correct; the archive itself says 'until very recently', which is accurate for the US.
- Regional transferability
Low for the EU (not authorised); low for the US today (withdrawn). Egypt: regulatory status of arsenical feed additives was not verified.
- Individual exceptions
Not applicable.
- Regional scope of the claim
- depends on production conditions
- Last reviewed
- 26 October 2026 provisional
Scientific evidence in detail
True only under certain conditions – The claim holds only for certain doses, groups of people, preparations or circumstances.
Research question: Did arsenical feed drugs (roxarsone and related compounds) raise inorganic arsenic in chicken meat and consumers, and is this still relevant today?
Research question in detail (PECO)
- Population
- Chicken consumers
- Intervention or exposure
- Chicken raised with organoarsenical feed additives
- Comparison
- Chicken raised without them
- Geographic scope
- production-dependent (USA historical, China, EU not authorised, Egypt unknown)
- Outcomes
- inorganic arsenic in meat
- estimated cancer risk
- regulatory status
Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.
What speaks for the claim?
Arsenic in US chicken from feed drugs
Nachman KE et al.. Environ Health Perspect 2013 · PMID 23694900 · DOI 10.1289/ehp.1206245 Measurement / residue studyfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentUS market basket study.
- Actual result
- iAs GM 1.8 ug/kg conventional vs 0.6 organic; roxarsone in 20/40 conventional samples; +3.7 cancers per 100,000 lifetime.
- Methodological quality
- moderate
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- US 2010-2011.
Arsenic feed drugs found in most Chinese market chicken
Zhao D et al.. J Hazard Mater 2020 · PMID 31525688 · DOI 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121178 Measurement / residue studyabstract checkednewly addedChinese 10-city market study.
- Actual result
- ASA/ROX in >90% of samples; higher iAs in cities with more organoarsenicals; +3.2 cancers per 100,000 adults.
- Methodological quality
- moderate
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Model-based risk.
What speaks against the claim?
US withdrawal of arsenic drugs for poultry
US Food and Drug Administration. FDA 2022 Guideline / position statementfull text checkedFDA withdrawal of arsenical approvals.
- Actual result
- Roxarsone, carbarsone, arsanilic acid withdrawn 2013-2014; nitarsone by end 2015.
- Methodological quality
- high (regulatory)
- Relevance
- direct for current US relevance
- Limitations
- US only.
What does the overall evidence say?
Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.
Which position is better supported?
Correct as a description of past US and Chinese practice, with small estimated absolute cancer risks; not relevant to current US or EU production; Egyptian status unknown.
Why some studies weigh more
Exposure studies from two countries replicate the mechanism; regulatory facts determine current relevance.
Is a causal relationship established? Probable Organoarsenicals degrade to inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen; cancer risk is model-estimated, not observed.
Remaining uncertainty
Current use in Egypt and other countries.
Justified conclusion
Historically true, small absolute risk, largely outdated for the US and EU.
Does this depend on the country?
- General biological effects
- Arsenic toxicology universal.
- Eating habits
- Liver and offal concentrate arsenic more than muscle (I-CHK-127).
- Origin of the food
- Imported chicken from countries still using organoarsenicals could be affected.
- Contaminants
- Inorganic arsenic is treated as a human carcinogen in the risk models of A-CHK-04 and I-CHK-126.
- National production conditions
- Egypt: no data found.
- Legal rules
- US approvals withdrawn 2013-2015 (I-CHK-03); EU: not authorised (secondary sources).
- Actual monitoring data
- No Egyptian monitoring found.
A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.
Statistical re-check
- Consistency of absolute risk estimates – China +3.2 vs US +3.7 per 100,000 lifetime: similar magnitude. not recalculable from the published data
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
- Main outcome
- Inorganic arsenic increase in chicken from organoarsenical feed drugs
- Starting level
- low (observational studies)
- Reasons for upgrading
- consistent replication in two countries
- dose-response (cities with more ROX/ASA had more iAs)
- 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.
Search strategy
Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).
| Database | Date | Search | Looking for | Hits | Included |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | (roxarsone OR nitarsone OR "inorganic arsenic" OR arsenic) AND (TITLE:chicken OR TITLE:poultry OR TITLE:broiler) AND (TITLE:meat OR TITLE:liver OR TITLE:tissues) AND PUB_YEAR:[2015 TO 2026] | both directions | 60 |
Open questions
Regulatory status of organoarsenicals in Egypt.
How deeply was this checked?
6 linked studies: 3 checked in full text (1 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 3 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 (moderate)
- 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Re-examined with extended evidence; verdict unchanged: Mostly true (moderate)
Chinese data replicate the US findings and show the practice was not US-only; current relevance for the EU remains low.
New sources: I-CHK-126 I-CHK-127
In plain language
The archive says US chickens were fed arsenic-based drugs that raised cancer-causing arsenic in the meat. This was true: a US study found more inorganic arsenic in conventional than organic chicken, although the estimated extra cancer risk was small (about 4 extra cases per 100,000 people over a lifetime). The USA stopped these drugs between 2013 and 2015, and they are not authorised in the EU. Whether they are used in Egypt was not verified.
Studies on this claim
Studies supporting the claim (4)
-
Arsenic in US chicken from feed drugs
Nachman KE et al.. Environ Health Perspect 2013 · PMID 23694900 · DOI 10.1289/ehp.1206245Measurement / residue studycited by the Tayebat archivefull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key studyConventional chicken had about three times more inorganic arsenic than organic chicken; estimated extra cancer risk was small.
Chickens were fed arsenical drugs (roxarsone) that raise carcinogenic inorganic arsenic in chicken meat and in consumers.
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?
What is the arsenic species profile in US chicken and the cancer risk from arsenic-based drugs?
- How was the study done?
Market-basket sampling of chicken meat with arsenic speciation and cancer risk estimation
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
116 raw and 142 cooked samples for total As; 65 raw and 78 cooked speciated; Conventional, antibiotic-free and organic retail chicken in 10 US metro areas
- What was actually found?
Cooked: iAs GM 1.8 ug/kg (1.4-2.3) conventional vs 0.7 antibiotic-free vs 0.6 organic. Roxarsone in 20/40 conventional, 1/13 antibiotic-free, 0/25 organic. iAs 2.3 vs 0.8 ug/kg in roxarsone-positive vs negative. Cooking increased iAs. +0.11 ug/day iAs per 82 g serving; 3.7 additional lifetime bladder and lung cancers per 100,000.
- How large was the observed effect?
Geometric means, 95% CI; risk modelling
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
The practice has ended in the US; not used in the EU.
- What are the study's limitations?
Single 2010-2011 US market basket before roxarsone withdrawal; breast meat only; speciation only in higher-arsenic samples; cancer risk is a model based on a draft potency value.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports the historical claim.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Low: not authorised in EU.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot describe current EU or Egyptian chicken.
-
Poultry intake and arsenic in US urine
Nigra AE et al.. Environ Health Perspect 2017 · PMID 27735790 · DOI 10.1289/EHP351Cross-sectional studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract checkedHeavy poultry eaters had about 12% higher urine arsenic.
Chickens were fed arsenical drugs (roxarsone) that raise carcinogenic inorganic arsenic in chicken meat and in consumers.
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?
Is poultry intake associated with urinary arsenic in the US population?
- How was the study done?
Cross-sectional analysis of NHANES 2003-2010 (24-h recall and urine arsenic)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
3,329 participants; US participants >=6 years with undetectable arsenobetaine
- What was actually found?
Highest quartile: total arsenic GMR 1.12 (1.04-1.22), DMA 1.13 (1.06-1.20). Turkey fall/winter: 1.17 (0.99-1.39), p-trend 0.02.
- How large was the observed effect?
Geometric mean ratios
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
A historical US exposure route.
- What are the study's limitations?
Single 24-h recall; Cross-sectional
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Low.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot show disease.
-
Arsenic feed drugs found in most Chinese market chicken
Zhao D et al.. J Hazard Mater 2020 · PMID 31525688 · DOI 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121178Measurement / residue studyindependent cross-checkabstract checkedOrganoarsenical drugs were detected in over 90% of tested Chinese chicken samples and raised inorganic arsenic.
Organoarsenicals widely detected in Chinese chicken and linked to higher inorganic arsenic.
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?
How much arsenic and which species are in Chinese market chicken, and what is the cancer risk?
- How was the study done?
Market-basket exposure measurement with speciation, 10 Chinese cities
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
249 paired raw/cooked samples; 81 speciated
- What was actually found?
Total As GM 4.85 (raw) and 7.27 ug/kg fw (cooked). ASA and ROX detected in >90% of 81 paired samples. ASA contributed about 45% of total As in cooked samples. Higher inorganic As in cities with higher ROX and ASA. Estimated +3.2 bladder and lung cancer cases per 100,000 adults.
- How large was the observed effect?
Total As GM 4.85 (raw) and 7.27 ug/kg fw (cooked). ASA and ROX detected in >90% of 81 paired samples. ASA contributed about 45% of total As in cooked samples. Higher inorganic As in cities with higher ROX and ASA. Estimated +3.2 bladder and lung cancer cases per 100,000 adults.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Arsenical feed drugs were used beyond the USA and raised arsenic slightly; the estimated cancer risk is small.
- What are the study's limitations?
Risk estimate model-based; Ecological comparison between cities
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports the claim outside the US; risk small in absolute terms.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Not authorised in the EU.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Current Chinese practice after the study not assessed.
-
Arsenic feed additives raised arsenic in Chinese market chicken
Hu Y et al.. Environ Sci Technol 2017 · PMID 28219238 · DOI 10.1021/acs.est.6b06258Measurement / residue studyindependent cross-checkabstract checkedWhere roxarsone was used, chicken and especially liver contained more arsenic; estimated cancer risk was above priority levels for many adults.
Roxarsone use linked to inorganic arsenic in feed and chicken tissues with elevated estimated cancer risk.
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?
What arsenic species are in chicken tissues and feeds in Guangdong, and what is the cancer risk?
- How was the study done?
Exposure measurement of feeds and chicken tissues from live poultry markets
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
not stated in abstract
- What was actually found?
Feeds with ROX had inorganic arsenic 0.19-9.7 mg/kg. Livers had much higher total arsenic than muscle; urban-market muscle higher than rural. Incremental lifetime cancer risk above the 10^-4 priority level for 70% (Guangzhou) and 30% (Lianzhou) of adults.
- How large was the observed effect?
Feeds with ROX had inorganic arsenic 0.19-9.7 mg/kg. Livers had much higher total arsenic than muscle; urban-market muscle higher than rural. Incremental lifetime cancer risk above the 10^-4 priority level for 70% (Guangzhou) and 30% (Lianzhou) of adults.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Where arsenic drugs are allowed, chicken can be a relevant arsenic source.
- What are the study's limitations?
Regional; Risk model assumptions; sample size not in abstract
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports the mechanism; region-specific.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Not applicable to EU production.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Does not show actual cancer cases.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (1)
-
US withdrawal of arsenic drugs for poultry
US Food and Drug Administration. FDA 2022Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkfull text checkedArsenic-based poultry drugs were withdrawn in the US between 2013 and 2015.
Chickens were fed arsenical drugs (roxarsone) that raise carcinogenic inorganic arsenic in chicken meat and in consumers.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: not applicable · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Regulatory status of arsenical drugs in US poultry
- How was the study done?
Regulatory information page
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable; US poultry
- What was actually found?
Alpharma voluntarily suspended sale of 3-Nitro (roxarsone); Federal Register 22 Nov 2013 withdrawal of approvals for carbarsone and roxarsone; on 27 Feb 2014 Zoetis withdrew the 3-Nitro application and sponsors withdrew approvals for arsanilic acid and carbarsone; nitarsone (Histostat) approval withdrawal requested by end of 2015, not available from the 2016 season.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
US chicken is no longer raised with these drugs.
- What are the study's limitations?
Page does not cover other countries
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Confirms the claim is historical.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
EU: roxarsone not authorised (secondary sources date this to 1999; primary instrument not verified).
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Says nothing about Egypt.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies with mixed or unclear results (1)
-
EU ban on antibiotic growth promoters
European Parliament and Council. Official Journal of the EU (copy at legislation.gov.uk) 2003Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkfull text checkedSince 2006, antibiotics may not be used as growth-promoting feed additives in the EU.
Chickens were fed arsenical drugs (roxarsone) that raise carcinogenic inorganic arsenic in chicken meat and in consumers.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: not applicable · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Rules for feed additives including phase-out of antibiotic growth promoters
- How was the study done?
EU regulation
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable; EU animal feed
- What was actually found?
Article 11(2): antibiotics, other than coccidiostats and histomonostats, may be marketed and used as feed additives only until 31 December 2005; from 1 January 2006 deleted from the Register. Recital 25 cites the Scientific Steering Committee: growth-promoting antimicrobials from classes used in medicine should be phased out.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
"Routine antibiotics for growth" is not legal in the EU.
- What are the study's limitations?
Therapeutic and prophylactic veterinary use regulated separately (not covered)
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Limits the claim for the EU.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Directly EU.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Does not cover therapeutic use.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Regional context
Germany / EU
Roxarsone is not authorised as a feed additive in the EU (secondary sources date the exclusion to 1999; primary EU instrument not verified). Under Regulation 1831/2003 only authorised feed additives may be used.
Egypt
Not verified.
- Food-safety governance and official controls
- Pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables on the EU/German market (incl. imports from Egypt)
- Pesticide residues in produce sold on the Egyptian domestic market
- Antibiotic (veterinary drug) residues in poultry meat and eggs
- Antimicrobial use in food animals and antibiotic growth promoters
- Hormones in poultry, meat, milk and farmed fish
- Salmonella in laying hens, eggs and broiler chicken
- Dioxins, PCBs and PFAS in eggs and other animal foods
- Aflatoxin M1 in milk and dairy products
- Aflatoxins in groundnuts (peanuts)
- Heavy metals in fish
- Farmed fish (aquaculture): drugs, water source and controls
- Import controls and the meaning of RASFF notifications for Egyptian products
What applies in my country?
General scientific assessment
Mostly true Arsenical feed drugs did raise arsenic in US chicken, but they were withdrawn in the US and are not authorised in the EU.
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
- Roxarsone, inorganic arsenic, and other arsenic species in chicken: a U.S.-based market basket sample.. Nachman KE et al.. Environ Health Perspect 2013 · PMID 23694900 · DOI 10.1289/ehp.1206245
- Poultry Consumption and Arsenic Exposure in the U.S. Population.. Nigra AE et al.. Environ Health Perspect 2017 · PMID 27735790 · DOI 10.1289/EHP351
- Arsanilic acid contributes more to total arsenic than roxarsone in chicken meat from Chinese markets.. Zhao D et al.. J Hazard Mater 2020 · PMID 31525688 · DOI 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121178
- Public Health Risk of Arsenic Species in Chicken Tissues from Live Poultry Markets of Guangdong Province, China.. Hu Y et al.. Environ Sci Technol 2017 · PMID 28219238 · DOI 10.1021/acs.est.6b06258
- Arsenic-based Animal Drugs and Poultry (FDA web page, last updated 29 April 2022). US Food and Drug Administration. FDA 2022
- Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (original text, Article 11 and recitals 25-26). European Parliament and Council. Official Journal of the EU (copy at legislation.gov.uk) 2003