Poultry production is a source of zoonotic avian influenza and respiratory risks for people (H7N9 from wet-market poultry; pneumonia near poultry farms).
Original statement
No Arabic original wording available.
Translation
Poultry production is a source of zoonotic avian influenza and respiratory risks for people (H7N9 from wet-market poultry; pneumonia near poultry farms).
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 health effect
Avian influenza infection; community-acquired pneumonia.
- 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?
(Implicit through bibliography) Poultry farming poses infectious and respiratory risks to humans.
2. What is demonstrably correct?
H7N9 cases in China were linked to wet-market poultry contact (A-CHK-13). In Egypt H5N1 and H9N2 are enzootic in poultry (I-CHK-10); in 2014-15, 165 human H5N1 cases with 51 deaths were recorded and 99% had poultry exposure (I-CHK-138). Home rearing and slaughter without protection are common in rural Egypt (I-CHK-139), and domestic pigeons can also carry H5N1 (I-CHK-135). WHO names contact with live or dead infected birds, live bird markets and home slaughter as the main risks (I-CHK-136).
3. What is wrong or exaggerated?
These are exposure risks from live birds and slaughter, not from eating cooked chicken: WHO states there is no evidence of transmission through properly prepared and cooked poultry or eggs (I-CHK-136). The pneumonia risk near Dutch poultry farms (about 11%, A-CHK-18, 2007-2013) was not confirmed in a larger follow-up study for 2014-2016 (I-CHK-137), which confirmed only an association with goat farms.
4. What remains unclear?
Respiratory effects of emissions from large poultry farms (particulate matter, endotoxin) at close range.
5. Which studies support it?
A-CHK-13, A-CHK-18 (not replicated), I-CHK-10, I-CHK-135, I-CHK-138, I-CHK-139.
6. Which studies contradict it?
I-CHK-137 (no pneumonia association with poultry farms in 2014-2016); I-CHK-136 (no transmission via properly cooked poultry).
7. What applies to Germany and Europe?
Avian influenza outbreaks in EU poultry are controlled by culling and movement restrictions; human infections in the EU are rare.
8. What is known about Egypt?
Egypt has had a substantial number of human H5N1 cases, mostly linked to backyard poultry; handling and slaughtering live birds at home is a key risk.
9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?
Avoid contact with sick or dead birds; use hygiene when slaughtering poultry at home; buy from controlled sources.
Assessment details
- Rationale for certainty of evidence
Human H7N9 and H5N1 infections from poultry contact are well documented; Dutch spatial data show about 11% higher pneumonia risk near poultry farms. These risks concern contact with live birds and farm emissions, not eating cooked chicken.
- Source quality
Archive bibliography; studies accurately listed, but their relevance to eating chicken is not explained.
- Regional transferability
Highly relevant for Egypt (H5N1 enzootic, backyard poultry, live-bird markets); lower for EU consumers.
- Individual exceptions
Poultry workers, backyard poultry keepers and live-bird market visitors are at higher risk.
- 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: Does poultry production expose people to zoonotic avian influenza and respiratory disease (pneumonia near farms), and does this risk extend to eating cooked chicken?
Research question in detail (PECO)
- Population
- Poultry keepers, slaughterers, market visitors, farm neighbours, consumers
- Intervention or exposure
- Contact with live/dead poultry; residence near poultry farms; eating cooked poultry
- Comparison
- No such exposure
- Geographic scope
- production-dependent (Egypt: enzootic H5N1/H9N2, household poultry)
- Outcomes
- human avian influenza infection
- community-acquired pneumonia
Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.
What speaks for the claim?
Bird flu H5N1 in Egypt
Kayali G et al.. Emerg Infect Dis 2016 · PMID 26886164 · DOI 10.3201/eid2203.150593 Narrative reviewfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentReview of H5N1 in Egypt.
- Actual result
- Enzootic H5N1/H9N2 in poultry; 292 confirmed human H5N1 cases reported (as recorded for I-CHK-10).
- Methodological quality
- moderate (surveillance review)
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Up to 2014.
Egypt 2014-15: 165 human bird-flu cases, almost all after poultry contact
Refaey S et al.. Emerg Infect Dis 2015 · PMID 26584397 · DOI 10.3201/eid2112.150885 Case series / case reportabstract checkednewly addedEgyptian surveillance 2014-15.
- Actual result
- 165 cases, 51 deaths; 99% poultry exposure (35% to dead poultry).
- Methodological quality
- moderate (national surveillance)
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- No control group.
Bird flu H7N9 from market poultry
Chen Y et al.. Lancet 2013 · PMID 23623390 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60903-4 Case series / case reportfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentH7N9 cases from wet-market poultry in China.
- Actual result
- All four with live-poultry contact; two died.
- Methodological quality
- low (case series)
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Four cases.
What speaks against the claim?
Living near poultry farms was not linked to pneumonia in a later Dutch study
Post PM et al.. PLoS One 2019 · PMID 31609989 · DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0223601 Cross-sectional studyfull text checkednewly addedDutch replication study on pneumonia near farms.
- Actual result
- Poultry farm within 1000 m OR 1.02 (0.95-1.10); association 'not supported' in 2014-2016; goat farms confirmed.
- Methodological quality
- moderate (90,183 persons; no individual confounders)
- Relevance
- direct for the pneumonia sub-claim
- Limitations
- Distance proxy for exposure.
WHO: bird flu comes from contact with infected birds, not from properly cooked chicken
World Health Organization. WHO fact sheet 2026 Guideline / position statementfull text checkednewly addedWHO avian influenza fact sheet.
- Actual result
- No evidence of transmission through properly prepared and cooked poultry or eggs.
- Methodological quality
- authoritative agency statement
- Relevance
- direct for the food route
- Limitations
- Not quantitative.
What does the overall evidence say?
Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.
Which position is better supported?
Live and dead infected poultry are a real source of avian influenza, with high case fatality in Egypt; the earlier pneumonia signal near Dutch poultry farms was not replicated; eating properly cooked chicken is not a route of infection.
Why some studies weigh more
Surveillance data and WHO statements are consistent for avian influenza; the pneumonia sub-claim rests on one study period that a larger confirmation study did not reproduce.
Is a causal relationship established? Yes, established Avian influenza transmission from infected birds is established by virology and epidemiology; pneumonia near poultry farms is not established.
Remaining uncertainty
Respiratory effects of farm emissions (endotoxin, particulates) at close range.
Justified conclusion
Correct for live-bird exposure, especially in Egypt; weak for pneumonia near farms; not relevant to eating cooked chicken.
Why do studies seem to disagree?
A-CHK-18 (2007-2013, about 11% higher pneumonia risk near poultry farms) vs I-CHK-137 (2014-2016, no association): the earlier period overlapped a Q-fever epidemic and used different data; the later study was designed as confirmation and found no poultry effect.
Does this depend on the country?
- General biological effects
- Zoonotic virology universal.
- Eating habits
- Home rearing and slaughter common in rural Egypt (I-CHK-139).
- Origin of the food
- Not relevant to cooked meat.
- Contaminants
- Not applicable.
- National production conditions
- Egypt: H5N1/H9N2 enzootic; vaccination-only control failed (I-CHK-10).
- Legal rules
- EU: culling and movement restrictions.
- Actual monitoring data
- EU human cases rare; Egypt: substantial case numbers.
A regional difference is supported by robust data.
Statistical re-check
- Log-symmetry of ORs – Poultry 1000 m OR 1.02 (0.95-1.10): symmetric; consistent with no effect. recalculated
- Case fatality – 51/165 = 30.9%. recalculated
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
- Main outcome
- Human avian influenza infection after poultry contact
- Starting level
- low (observational studies)
- Reasons for upgrading
- large effect / consistent surveillance and virological 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
- WHO: Influenza (avian and other zoonotic) (fact sheet) (2026) · Original publication
Main risk is exposure to live or dead infected birds, live bird markets and home slaughter; no evidence of transmission through properly prepared and cooked poultry or eggs.
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 | (TITLE:H5N1) AND (TITLE:Egypt) AND (TITLE:"risk factors" OR TITLE:"human" OR TITLE:"case-control" OR TITLE:exposure) | supporting evidence | 15 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | (pneumonia[ti] OR respiratory[ti]) AND (poultry farm*[tiab] OR livestock farm*[tiab]) AND (residents[tiab] OR living near[tiab]) AND Netherlands | both directions | 15 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | (quail*[tiab] OR pigeon*[tiab]) AND Egypt*[tiab] AND (salmonella[tiab] OR antibiotic*[tiab] OR antimicrobial*[tiab] OR residue*[tiab] OR "avian influenza"[tiab]) | supporting evidence | 34 | |
| WHO website | 26 October 2026 | fact sheet: Influenza (avian and other zoonotic) | guidelines | 1 |
Open questions
Respiratory effects of emissions from large poultry farms in Egypt.
How deeply was this checked?
8 linked studies: 5 checked in full text (3 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)
Avian influenza part strengthened (Egyptian surveillance, WHO 2026). Pneumonia sub-claim weakened by a non-replication (I-CHK-137); the review text is updated. Overall verdict unchanged.
New sources: I-CHK-135 I-CHK-136 I-CHK-137 I-CHK-138 I-CHK-139
In plain language
Some studies listed by the archive show that bird flu can pass from live poultry to people, and that people living very close to poultry farms in the Netherlands had slightly more pneumonia. In Egypt, bird flu is common in poultry and has infected people, mostly those who keep or slaughter birds at home. These risks come from contact with live birds, not from eating well-cooked chicken.
Studies on this claim
Studies supporting the claim (6)
-
Bird flu H7N9 from market poultry
Chen Y et al.. Lancet 2013 · PMID 23623390 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60903-4Case series / case reportcited by the Tayebat archivefull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentFour patients caught H7N9 after contact with live poultry; two died.
Poultry production is a source of zoonotic avian influenza and respiratory risks for people (H7N9 from wet-market poultry; pneumonia near poultry farms).
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?
What are the clinical and viral features of human H7N9 infection linked to wet-market poultry?
- How was the study done?
Clinical case series with viral genome characterisation of human and market-poultry isolates
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
4 patients; 86 birds; Four hospitalised patients; 86 birds sampled
- What was actually found?
All four had contact with live market poultry; two died; the human virus was almost identical to a market chicken virus; 20% of sampled chickens carried H7N9; no infections among 385 contacts.
- How large was the observed effect?
Descriptive
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Avoid contact with live birds in markets during outbreaks.
- What are the study's limitations?
Four patients
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Relevant to contact, not eating.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Low (no wet markets of this type).
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot show risk from cooked chicken.
-
Pneumonia near Dutch poultry farms
Smit LAM et al.. Pneumonia (Nathan) 2017 · PMID 28702305 · DOI 10.1186/s41479-017-0027-0Cross-sectional studycited by the Tayebat archivefull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentPeople living within about 1 km of poultry farms had 11% more pneumonia.
Poultry production is a source of zoonotic avian influenza and respiratory risks for people (H7N9 from wet-market poultry; pneumonia near poultry farms).
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?
Is living near poultry farms associated with pneumonia and altered upper-airway microbiota?
- How was the study done?
Spatial analysis of GP records plus microbiota analysis in hospitalised CAP patients
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
92,548; 126; 92,548 GP patients; 126 hospitalised CAP patients
- What was actually found?
About 1 extra pneumonia per 1,000 people per year for each poultry farm within about 1 km (background 9 per 1,000), roughly 11% more; throat-bacteria differences were borderline and not significant after correction for multiple tests.
- How large was the observed effect?
Kernel model; PERMANOVA
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Farm emissions may affect neighbours.
- What are the study's limitations?
No adjustment for smoking or other confounders in the main model; distance as exposure proxy; small microbiota study without healthy controls; single year.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Not about eating chicken.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High (EU).
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot show dietary risk or that farm emissions cause pneumonia.
-
Bird flu H5N1 in Egypt
Kayali G et al.. Emerg Infect Dis 2016 · PMID 26886164 · DOI 10.3201/eid2203.150593Narrative reviewindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentBird flu is established in Egyptian poultry and has caused many human infections.
Poultry production is a source of zoonotic avian influenza and respiratory risks for people (H7N9 from wet-market poultry; pneumonia near poultry farms).
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?
Epidemiology of H5N1 in Egyptian poultry and humans
- How was the study done?
Surveillance review
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
7,907 poultry samples (2013-2014) plus national human case data (292 cases 2006-2015)
- What was actually found?
About 5% of sampled poultry carried avian influenza (winter peaks over 20%); abattoir samples were negative; 292 human H5N1 cases with 34% fatality, mostly after contact with backyard poultry, breeding or slaughtering birds.
- How large was the observed effect?
Descriptive
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Avoid handling sick birds; hygiene when slaughtering at home.
- What are the study's limitations?
Non-random sampling; official human case counts underestimate infections; narrative synthesis.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports contact risk.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Low.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Not about eating cooked chicken.
-
Egypt 2014-15: 165 human bird-flu cases, almost all after poultry contact
Refaey S et al.. Emerg Infect Dis 2015 · PMID 26584397 · DOI 10.3201/eid2112.150885Case series / case reportindependent cross-checkabstract checked99% of 165 Egyptian cases had contact with poultry; 51 died.
Almost all Egyptian H5N1 cases had poultry exposure; nearly a third died.
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 were the characteristics and exposures of human H5N1 cases in Egypt in 2014-15?
- How was the study done?
Surveillance case series
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
165 cases
- What was actually found?
165 cases incl. 6 clusters and 51 deaths; 99% reported poultry exposure (19% to ill poultry, 35% to dead poultry); only 1 person reported wearing personal protective equipment while working with poultry.
- How large was the observed effect?
165 cases incl. 6 clusters and 51 deaths; 99% reported poultry exposure (19% to ill poultry, 35% to dead poultry); only 1 person reported wearing personal protective equipment while working with poultry.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Contact with sick or dead household poultry was the danger.
- What are the study's limitations?
Descriptive; no control group
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports the zoonosis part for Egypt.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
EU human cases are rare.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Does not concern eating cooked chicken.
-
Home slaughter of poultry exposes Egyptian families to bird flu
Lohiniva AL et al.. Influenza Other Respir Viruses 2013 · PMID 23145955 · DOI 10.1111/irv.12023Otherindependent cross-checkabstract checkedObservations in 56 rural households showed close contact with birds and home slaughter without protection.
Home rearing and slaughter of poultry in Egypt create exposure to H5N1.
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?
Which household poultry practices expose people in rural Egypt to H5N1?
- How was the study done?
Qualitative observational study (structured observation, in-depth interviews)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
56 households (19 with human cases, 19 with poultry cases, 18 without)
- What was actually found?
Half of households kept free-range poultry and mixed species; feeding and cleaning exposed children; home slaughter contaminated homes; protective barriers were not a norm; slaughter waste and dead chickens exposed communities; sick/dead poultry not reported; only minor changes after outbreaks.
- How large was the observed effect?
Half of households kept free-range poultry and mixed species; feeding and cleaning exposed children; home slaughter contaminated homes; protective barriers were not a norm; slaughter waste and dead chickens exposed communities; sick/dead poultry not reported; only minor changes after outbreaks.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
The risk lies in handling and slaughtering live birds at home.
- What are the study's limitations?
Qualitative; small
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports the zoonosis risk; locates it in handling, not eating.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Not EU.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
No quantitative risk estimate.
-
Egyptian pigeons can catch and spread bird flu
Mansour SM et al.. Avian Pathol 2014 · PMID 24861170 · DOI 10.1080/03079457.2014.926002Outbreak reportindependent cross-checkabstract checkedAn outbreak killed half of a pigeon flock; pigeons shed H5N1 virus.
Avian influenza risk in Egypt also involves pigeons, not only chicken production.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · 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 domestic pigeons susceptible to HPAI H5N1 in Egypt?
- How was the study done?
Outbreak investigation plus experimental infection
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
outbreak flock; experimental 6-week-old pigeons
- What was actually found?
Outbreak in domestic pigeons with 50% mortality; H5N1 clade 2.2.1/C isolated. Experimental oronasal inoculation: 30% showed signs, 10% mortality; infected and contact pigeons shed virus via oropharynx and cloaca.
- How large was the observed effect?
Outbreak in domestic pigeons with 50% mortality; H5N1 clade 2.2.1/C isolated. Experimental oronasal inoculation: 30% showed signs, 10% mortality; infected and contact pigeons shed virus via oropharynx and cloaca.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Pigeons kept at home carry the same bird-flu risk when handled alive.
- What are the study's limitations?
Single outbreak
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Undermines the 'flying birds are safer' criterion.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Not EU data.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
No human cases traced to pigeons here.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (1)
-
Living near poultry farms was not linked to pneumonia in a later Dutch study
Post PM et al.. PLoS One 2019 · PMID 31609989 · DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0223601Cross-sectional studyindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key studyIn 90,183 residents, living near poultry farms was not linked to pneumonia in 2014-2016; living near goat farms was.
The earlier association between living near poultry farms and pneumonia was not confirmed in 2014-2016.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · 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 the earlier association between pneumonia and proximity to goat and poultry farms confirmed in 2014-2016?
- How was the study done?
Population-based study of GP electronic medical records with several regression and kernel models
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
90,183 persons
- What was actually found?
Adults, single-level regression: poultry farm within 500 m OR 1.03 (0.92-1.16), within 1000 m OR 1.02 (0.95-1.10); goat farm within 500 m OR 1.60 (1.25-2.03). Kernel analysis: poultry farms 0.6% risk increase in 2014 only; goat farms PAR 6.0-7.8%. Authors: 'associations with proximity to poultry farms are not supported by the present study'. Limitations: no data on smoking or socioeconomic status; exposure by distance only. Funded by Dutch Ministries of Health and Agriculture.
- How large was the observed effect?
Adults, single-level regression: poultry farm within 500 m OR 1.03 (0.92-1.16), within 1000 m OR 1.02 (0.95-1.10); goat farm within 500 m OR 1.60 (1.25-2.03). Kernel analysis: poultry farms 0.6% risk increase in 2014 only; goat farms PAR 6.0-7.8%. Authors: 'associations with proximity to poultry farms are not supported by the present study'. Limitations: no data on smoking or socioeconomic status; exposure by distance only. Funded by Dutch Ministries of Health and Agriculture.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
The pneumonia risk near poultry farms seen earlier was not confirmed.
- What are the study's limitations?
No individual confounder data (smoking, SES); Distance as exposure proxy
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Weakens the respiratory-risk part of the claim; does not affect avian influenza.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Netherlands (EU).
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot rule out small effects or effects near very large farms.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies with mixed or unclear results (1)
-
WHO: bird flu comes from contact with infected birds, not from properly cooked chicken
World Health Organization. WHO fact sheet 2026Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key studyWHO says infection comes from contact with live or dead infected birds and home slaughter; there is no evidence of spread through properly cooked poultry.
Confirms poultry as a zoonotic influenza source via live/dead bird contact and home slaughter; no evidence of transmission through properly cooked poultry.
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?
How do humans become infected with avian influenza and how is it prevented?
- How was the study done?
Agency fact sheet
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
not applicable
- What was actually found?
Primary risk factor 'appears to be exposure to live or dead infected animals or contaminated environments, such as live bird markets. Handling carcasses of infected poultry, and preparing infected poultry for consumption, especially in household settings, are also risk factors.' 'There is no evidence to suggest that A(H5), A(H7N9) or other avian influenza viruses can be transmitted to humans through properly prepared and cooked poultry or eggs.' Advice: cook animal products properly; do not eat animals that died unexpectedly; avoid live poultry markets in affected areas.
- How large was the observed effect?
Primary risk factor 'appears to be exposure to live or dead infected animals or contaminated environments, such as live bird markets. Handling carcasses of infected poultry, and preparing infected poultry for consumption, especially in household settings, are also risk factors.' 'There is no evidence to suggest that A(H5), A(H7N9) or other avian influenza viruses can be transmitted to humans through properly prepared and cooked poultry or eggs.' Advice: cook animal products properly; do not eat animals that died unexpectedly; avoid live poultry markets in affected areas.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Avoid touching sick or dead birds; cooked chicken is not a bird-flu risk.
- What are the study's limitations?
Fact sheet
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports the zoonosis part; limits any inference to eating chicken.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Global.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Not quantitative.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Regional context
Germany / EU
Avian influenza outbreaks in EU poultry are controlled by culling and movement restrictions; human infections in the EU are rare.
Egypt
Egypt has had a substantial number of human H5N1 cases, mostly linked to backyard poultry; handling and slaughtering live birds at home is a key risk.
- 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
- Import controls and the meaning of RASFF notifications for Egyptian products
What applies in my country?
General scientific assessment
Mostly true Contact with live or dead infected birds can transmit bird flu, a real risk in Egypt; the pneumonia link near poultry farms was not confirmed, and cooked chicken does not transmit bird flu.
The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:
- 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
Poultry
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
- Human infections with the emerging avian influenza A H7N9 virus from wet market poultry: clinical analysis and characterisation of viral genome.. Chen Y et al.. Lancet 2013 · PMID 23623390 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60903-4
- Increased risk of pneumonia in residents living near poultry farms: does the upper respiratory tract microbiota play a role?. Smit LAM et al.. Pneumonia (Nathan) 2017 · PMID 28702305 · DOI 10.1186/s41479-017-0027-0
- Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Virus in Egypt.. Kayali G et al.. Emerg Infect Dis 2016 · PMID 26886164 · DOI 10.3201/eid2203.150593
- Increased Number of Human Cases of Influenza Virus A(H5N1) Infection, Egypt, 2014-15.. Refaey S et al.. Emerg Infect Dis 2015 · PMID 26584397 · DOI 10.3201/eid2112.150885
- Poultry rearing and slaughtering practices in rural Egypt: an exploration of risk factors for H5N1 virus human transmission.. Lohiniva AL et al.. Influenza Other Respir Viruses 2013 · PMID 23145955 · DOI 10.1111/irv.12023
- Natural infection with highly pathogenic avian influenza virus H5N1 in domestic pigeons (Columba livia) in Egypt.. Mansour SM et al.. Avian Pathol 2014 · PMID 24861170 · DOI 10.1080/03079457.2014.926002
- Risk of pneumonia among residents living near goat and poultry farms during 2014-2016.. Post PM et al.. PLoS One 2019 · PMID 31609989 · DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0223601
- WHO fact sheet: Influenza (avian and other zoonotic) (21 January 2026). World Health Organization. WHO fact sheet 2026