Watermelon and melon (cantaloupe) should be avoided; the archive's food page supports this with studies showing that a high dietary glycaemic load raises type 2 diabetes risk.
Original statement
🍉 البطيخ والشمام ❌ تجنّب — أظهر التحليل البَعدي لدراسات الأتراب أن ارتفاع الحِمل الجلايسيمي للغذاء يرتبط بزيادة متدرّجة في خطر الإصابة بالسكري من النوع الثاني.
verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.
Translation
Watermelon and melon (cantaloupe) should be avoided; the archive's food page supports this with studies showing that a high dietary glycaemic load raises type 2 diabetes risk.
Origin
- Source status
- Archive food list
- Attribution
- Archive food list (eltayebat.com)
- Origin
- https://eltayebat.com/foods/
- Attribution uncertainty
- eltayebat.com food guide; evidence box under 'البطيخ والشمام' cites Livesey 2013 (PMID 23364021) and Barclay 2008 (PMID 18326601). The same Livesey citation is also attached to 'المانجو (عصير)'.
- Claimed mechanism
High glycaemic load (archive). Elawady's own reasons differ (see C-FRU-02).
- Claimed health effect
Type 2 diabetes risk.
- Population concerned
Everyone.
- Geographic restriction by Elawady
none found
Diverging source versions
- Source status
- Archive food list
- Attribution
- Archive food list (eltayebat.com)
- Origin
- https://eltayebat.com/en/foods/
- Attribution uncertainty
- English food guide: 'Watermelon & cantaloupe — Avoid'.
- Source status
- Third-party site (unofficial)
- Attribution
- Third-party site (unofficial; lowest attribution level)
- Origin
- https://altayybat.com/ar/
- Attribution uncertainty
- 'الفواكه كلها مسموح بها — ما عدا البطيخ والشمام'.
- Source status
- Third-party site (unofficial)
- Attribution
- Third-party site (unofficial; lowest attribution level)
- Origin
- https://mytayibat.com/forbidden
- Attribution uncertainty
- 'البطيخ و الشمام ممنوعة'; also forbids oranges, kiwi, lemon, papaya (conflict with altayybat, which allows kiwi).
Scientific assessment
Mostly false – Essential parts of the statement are not supported by the evidence or are strongly exaggerated.
Certainty of evidence: low – Further research is likely to change the assessment considerably.
1. What was claimed?
Melons raise diabetes risk because of glycaemic load.
2. What is demonstrably correct?
High dietary GL is associated with higher T2D risk (A-FOOD-01: RR 1.45 per 100 g GL/2000 kcal; A-FOOD-02: GL RR 1.27). One cohort found a small positive association for cantaloupe (I-FRU-01), and a meta-analysis lists a positive association based on few studies (I-FRU-03).
3. What is wrong or exaggerated?
Melons have a low-to-moderate GL per serving because they are mostly water; banning them on GL grounds while allowing grapes, bananas, dates, honey, juices, sugar, white rice and fried potatoes is inconsistent. The cited meta-analyses say nothing about individual fruits.
4. What remains unclear?
Whether the small cantaloupe association in US cohorts is causal; watermelon was measured only sporadically (I-FRU-01).
5. Which studies support it?
I-FRU-01 (cantaloupe HR 1.10, not via GL). I-FRU-03 lists positive associations for cantaloupe (RR 1.18, 1.04-1.34 per 100 g/day) and watermelon (1.05, 1.00-1.11; 2 studies), based on very few, largely the same US cohorts. A 2026 Korean cohort (I-FRU-109) found weak positive associations for watermelon (HR 1.02 per SD) and melon (HR 1.09 per SD) in women only, which do not survive correction for 24 tests; the authors did not attribute them to the GL of melons.
6. Which studies contradict it?
I-FRU-01 (GL ranking of fruits; GL did not explain associations), I-GRN-07 (fruits usually low GI).
7. What applies to Germany and Europe?
No European body advises avoiding melons.
8. What is known about Egypt?
Watermelon is a major summer fruit in Egypt.
9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?
There is no GL-based reason to single out watermelon and melon while allowing juices and dates.
Assessment details
- Rationale for certainty of evidence
The two cited meta-analyses (A-FOOD-01, A-FOOD-02) concern whole-diet GI/GL, not individual fruits, and do not mention melons. Per serving, cantaloupe has a moderate GL while several allowed fruits have higher GL (I-FRU-01, full text), and allowed juices, dates, honey, sugar and white rice contribute more to dietary GL, so the GL rationale is internally inconsistent. Separately, cantaloupe was associated with modestly higher type 2 diabetes risk in one US analysis (HR 1.10, 1.02-1.18; I-FRU-01; few studies per I-FRU-03), and the authors state that GI/GL did not explain differences between fruits. Certainty low because evidence on individual melons is sparse.
- Source quality
Correctly identified meta-analyses applied to a question they do not address.
- Regional transferability
Universal.
- Individual exceptions
People with diabetes need to count carbohydrate from all fruits, not avoid melons specifically.
- Regional scope of the claim
- general (biological/medical)
- Last reviewed
- 26 October 2026 provisional
Scientific evidence in detail
Overinterpreted – A real finding exists, but the claim draws more from it than the data allow (e.g. association taken as cause, animal data applied to humans, small effect presented as large).
Research question: In the general population, does eating watermelon or cantaloupe/melon increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, and does the glycaemic-load evidence cited by the archive justify avoiding these fruits?
Research question in detail (PECO)
- Population
- General adult population (including people at risk of type 2 diabetes)
- Intervention or exposure
- Habitual watermelon and melon consumption; dietary glycaemic load
- Comparison
- Low or no melon consumption; other fruits
- Geographic scope
- universal biology; dietary context may modify associations
- Outcomes
- Incident type 2 diabetes
- Glycaemic load per serving
Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.
What speaks for the claim?
Fruit, fruit glycaemic load and diabetes in Korean adults
Ha AW. Nutr Res Pract 2026 · PMID 41694466 · DOI 10.4162/nrp.2026.20.1.101 Cohort studyabstract checkednewly addedA 19-year Korean cohort found weak positive associations of watermelon and melon intake with diabetes in women.
- Actual result
- Women, per 1-SD fruit-GL: watermelon HR 1.02 (1.00-1.04), P=0.024; melon/chamoe HR 1.09 (1.00-1.19), P=0.041; men: no association.
- Methodological quality
- moderate design, low precision; 24 tests without multiplicity correction
- Relevance
- direct (named fruits), but subgroup
- Limitations
- Does not survive Bonferroni correction; single baseline FFQ; contrasts with most cohorts.
Which fruits are linked to diabetes?
US cohorts: cantaloupe associated with modestly higher T2D risk.
- Actual result
- Cantaloupe HR 1.10 (1.02-1.18) per 3 servings/week.
- Methodological quality
- moderate (large cohorts)
- Relevance
- direct for cantaloupe
- Limitations
- Authors state GL/GI did not explain fruit differences.
Whole-diet glycaemic load and diabetes
Livesey G et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2013 · PMID 23364021 · DOI 10.3945/ajcn.112.041467 Meta-analysisabstract checkedArchive-cited meta-analysis: higher whole-diet glycaemic load associated with higher T2D risk.
- Actual result
- RR 1.45 per 100 g GL/2000 kcal.
- Methodological quality
- moderate (meta-analysis of cohorts)
- Relevance
- indirect (whole diet, not melons)
- Limitations
- Does not mention melons.
What speaks against the claim?
Which fruits are linked to diabetes?
Per serving, cantaloupe has a moderate GL while grapes, bananas and raisins have higher GL; GL did not explain associations between fruits.
- Actual result
- Full text: cantaloupe in the moderate GL group (5.7-8.0); grapes/raisins HR 0.88 despite high GL.
- Methodological quality
- moderate
- Relevance
- direct to the GL rationale
- Limitations
- Observational.
Fresh fruit and diabetes in half a million Chinese adults
Du H et al.. PLoS Med 2017 · PMID 28399126 · DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002279 Cohort studyabstract checkednewly addedFresh fruit overall was associated with lower diabetes risk in 0.5 million Chinese adults.
- Actual result
- Daily vs non-consumers HR 0.88 (0.83-0.93).
- Methodological quality
- high (very large cohort)
- Relevance
- indirect (fruit in general)
- Limitations
- Observational; residual confounding.
Fruits, vegetables and diabetes
Halvorsen RE et al.. BMJ Nutr Prev Health 2021 · PMID 35028521 · DOI 10.1136/bmjnph-2020-000218 Meta-analysisfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentMeta-analysis: fruit intake associated with lower T2D risk; positive signals for cantaloupe and watermelon rest on very few studies.
- Actual result
- Fruit RR 0.93 (0.90-0.97); cantaloupe 1.18 (1.04-1.34)/100 g; watermelon 1.05 (1.00-1.11), 2 studies.
- Methodological quality
- moderate
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Few studies for melons; authors grade limited evidence.
What does the overall evidence say?
Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.
Which position is better supported?
There is no sound basis for avoiding melons on glycaemic-load grounds; weak, inconsistent signals for specific melons exist but do not justify avoidance.
Why some studies weigh more
Large cohort syntheses of fruit and the GL ranking of fruits weigh more than a single multiplicity-prone subgroup finding.
Is a causal relationship established? Not established Melon-specific associations are small, inconsistent and not explained by GL.
Remaining uncertainty
Whether the small positive melon associations in some cohorts are real (e.g. portion size, eating pattern) remains open.
Justified conclusion
The archive's glycaemic-load rationale for avoiding watermelon and melon is not supported, and it conflicts with the system allowing higher-GL foods.
Why do studies seem to disagree?
Cohorts disagree on single melons (US and Korean signals vs. overall fruit benefit). Differences in portion sizes, rice-heavy diets (Korea), multiple testing and the very small number of melon-specific analyses explain most of the apparent conflict; they answer a narrower question than 'fruit and diabetes'.
Does this depend on the country?
- General biological effects
- Glycaemic responses are universal.
- Eating habits
- Watermelon is a major summer fruit in Egypt; portion sizes may be large.
- Origin of the food
- Not relevant.
- Contaminants
- Not applicable.
- National production conditions
- Not applicable.
- Legal rules
- Not applicable.
- Actual monitoring data
- Not applicable.
A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.
Statistical re-check
- Multiplicity of 24 individual-fruit tests – Bonferroni threshold 0.0021; watermelon (P=0.024) and melon (P=0.041) do not pass; ~1.2 false positives expected. recalculated
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
- Main outcome
- Incident T2D with melon consumption
- Starting level
- low (observational studies)
- Reasons for downgrading
- inconsistency
- imprecision
- indirectness (GL evidence not melon-specific)
- Result
- very low
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
- ADA: 5. Facilitating Positive Health Behaviors and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2026 (registered as I-INTC-03) (2026) · Original publication
Eating patterns should emphasise whole fruits, legumes and other minimally processed high-fibre carbohydrate sources; replace sugar-sweetened beverages (including juices) with water or low/no-calorie beverages; minimise added sugar; incorporate plant protein such as legumes. - WHO: Healthy diet (fact sheet) (2026) · Original publication
Lists pulses (lentils, chickpeas, beans, dried peas) as part of a healthy diet; at least 400 g fruit and vegetables per day; free sugars include sugars naturally present in fruit juices and juice concentrates; no added sugar in complementary foods for infants.
Search strategy
Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).
| Database | Date | Search | Looking for | Hits | Included |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | (watermelon[ti] OR cantaloupe[ti] OR melon[ti] OR Citrullus[ti] OR Cucumis melo[ti]) AND (diabetes[tiab] OR glycemic[tiab] OR glycaemic[tiab] OR glucose[tiab] OR satiety[tiab]) AND (humans[mh] OR participants[tiab] OR adults[tiab]) | both directions | 76 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | (individual fruits[tiab] OR specific fruits[tiab] OR fruit types[tiab]) AND (type 2 diabetes[tiab]) AND (cohort[tiab] OR meta-analysis[tiab]) | both directions | 4 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | (watermelon OR cantaloupe OR melon) AND ("type 2 diabetes") AND (cohort OR "meta-analysis") AND (fruit) | both directions | 618 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | (TITLE:fruit) AND (TITLE:diabetes) AND ("people with diabetes" OR "patients with type 2 diabetes" OR "diabetic") AND (trial OR cohort) | supporting evidence | 50 |
Open questions
Replication of melon-specific associations with portion-size data.
How deeply was this checked?
9 linked studies: 3 checked in full text (2 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 false (low)
- 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Re-examined with extended evidence; verdict unchanged: Mostly false (low)
The new Korean cohort adds a weak, subgroup-only signal for melons, which does not change the conclusion that the GL rationale does not justify avoidance; overall fruit evidence remains favourable.
New sources: I-FRU-109 I-FRU-106
In plain language
The archive bans watermelon and melon and cites two studies about the 'glycaemic load' of the whole diet. Those studies did not look at melons. Because melons are mostly water, a normal portion raises blood sugar less than a portion of grapes, bananas or dates, which the system allows. One American study did find a small link between eating cantaloupe and diabetes, but its authors said glycaemic load did not explain it.
Studies on this claim
Studies supporting the claim (3)
-
Whole-diet glycaemic load and diabetes
Livesey G et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2013 · PMID 23364021 · DOI 10.3945/ajcn.112.041467Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyDiets with more glycaemic load were linked to higher diabetes risk (45% per 100 g/day).
Accurate summary, misapplied.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · 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?
GL and diabetes
- How was the study done?
Meta-analysis of 24 cohorts
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
7.5 million person-years
- What was actually found?
Higher GL, more diabetes
- How large was the observed effect?
RR 1.45 per 100 g GL
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Overall carbohydrate quality matters
- What are the study's limitations?
Whole diet, not single foods
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Does not address melons
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Single-fruit effects
-
Glycaemic index/load of the diet and chronic disease
Barclay AW et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2008 · PMID 18326601 · DOI 10.1093/ajcn/87.3.627Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyLow-GI/GL diets linked to lower diabetes and heart disease risk.
Accurate summary, misapplied.
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?
GI/GL and disease
- How was the study done?
Meta-analysis
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
37 cohorts
- What was actually found?
Associations for T2D, CHD
- How large was the observed effect?
GL RR 1.27 T2D
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Carb quality matters
- What are the study's limitations?
Whole diet
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Does not address melons
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Single fruits
-
Fruit, fruit glycaemic load and diabetes in Korean adults
Ha AW. Nutr Res Pract 2026 · PMID 41694466 · DOI 10.4162/nrp.2026.20.1.101Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyIn Korean women, very high fruit intake and higher watermelon and melon intake were weakly linked to diabetes; in men there was no link.
Watermelon HR 1.02 and melon HR 1.09 per SD in women; not multiplicity-adjusted.
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?
Study fruit-GL and diabetes.
- How was the study done?
19-year cohort.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
761 diabetes cases.
- What was actually found?
Positive association in women only.
- How large was the observed effect?
Watermelon HR 1.02 per SD.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
A weak signal that needs confirmation; not a reason to ban melons.
- What are the study's limitations?
Multiple testing; one population.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Weak support for C-FRU-01.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Low.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
It cannot show that melons cause diabetes.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (2)
-
Glycaemic index tables
Atkinson FS et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2021 · PMID 34258626 · DOI 10.1093/ajcn/nqab233Systematic reviewindependent cross-checkabstract checkedFruits usually have a low GI; most potatoes have a high GI.
Fruits usually low GI.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · 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?
GI values
- How was the study done?
Tabulation
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
>4000 foods
- What was actually found?
Fruits low, potatoes high
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Potatoes raise sugar more than most fruit
- What are the study's limitations?
Abstract only
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Undermines selective melon ban
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High
-
Fresh fruit and diabetes in half a million Chinese adults
Du H et al.. PLoS Med 2017 · PMID 28399126 · DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002279Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyDaily fruit eaters had a 12% lower diabetes risk, and people with diabetes who ate more fruit had fewer deaths and complications.
Fresh fruit overall associated with lower diabetes risk.
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?
Study fruit and diabetes outcomes.
- How was the study done?
Large cohort.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
~0.5 million adults.
- What was actually found?
Lower risks with more fruit.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 0.88; mortality HR 0.83 per 100 g/d.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Whole fruit fits a diet for people with or at risk of diabetes.
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-FRU-05.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Plausible.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
It cannot prove that fruit causes the lower risk.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies with mixed or unclear results (4)
-
Which fruits are linked to diabetes?
Muraki I et al.. BMJ 2013 · PMID 23990623 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.f5001Cohort studyindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key studyBlueberries, grapes and apples linked to lower diabetes risk; juice and cantaloupe to slightly higher risk; glycaemic load did not explain the differences.
GL ranking contradicts rationale; cantaloupe HR 1.10.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · 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?
Fruits and diabetes
- How was the study done?
Three cohorts
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
187,382
- What was actually found?
Whole fruits mostly protective; juice harmful
- How large was the observed effect?
Juice HR 1.08; grapes 0.88; cantaloupe 1.10
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Eat whole fruit rather than juice
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational; US
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Undermines GL argument for melon ban; supports whole fruit over juice
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation; watermelon specifically
-
Fast-acting carbohydrate diets and diabetes
Bhupathiraju SN et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2014 · PMID 24787496 · DOI 10.3945/ajcn.113.079533Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract checked★ key studyDiets high in fast-acting carbs and low in cereal fibre linked to ~50% higher diabetes risk.
Whole-diet GL logic, which also applies to juices and rice.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · 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?
GI/GL and diabetes
- How was the study done?
Three cohorts + meta-analysis
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
205,157 adults (sum of 3 cohorts: 74,248 + 90,411 + 40,498)
- What was actually found?
Higher GI/GL linked to diabetes
- How large was the observed effect?
GI +33%; GL +10%
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Carbohydrate quality matters
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports fibre advice; applies to all high-GL foods
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation
-
Glycaemic index of dates
Alkaabi JM et al.. Nutr J 2011 · PMID 21619670 · DOI 10.1186/1475-2891-10-59Otherindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentFive date varieties had GI 46-55.
Dates are allowed; GI low but carbohydrate-dense.
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?
Dates GI
- How was the study done?
Feeding test
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
23
- What was actually found?
Low GI
- How large was the observed effect?
GI ~46-55
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Dates in moderation acceptable
- What are the study's limitations?
Very small; order not randomised; only well-controlled diabetes; one-off servings
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports dates in moderation
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot show that large or unrestricted date portions are safe for people with diabetes
-
Fruits, vegetables and diabetes
Halvorsen RE et al.. BMJ Nutr Prev Health 2021 · PMID 35028521 · DOI 10.1136/bmjnph-2020-000218Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentEating more fruit was linked to about 7% lower diabetes risk. Grapes/raisins and apples looked favourable; cantaloupe and sweetened fruit drinks were linked to higher risk, but in very few studies. 100% fruit juice showed no clear link.
Cantaloupe positive, few studies; overlaps I-FRU-01.
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?
F&V and diabetes
- How was the study done?
Meta-analysis
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
23 cohorts
- What was actually found?
Weak inverse
- How large was the observed effect?
RR 0.93
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Whole fruit good
- What are the study's limitations?
Few studies per fruit type, mostly the same US cohorts; no registered protocol; observational
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Mixed: weak, few-study signal for cantaloupe; favourable for grapes; sweetened fruit drinks (nectars) linked to higher risk
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cause
No study in this group is marked as key.
Regional context
Germany / EU
No European body advises avoiding melons.
Egypt
Watermelon is a major summer fruit in Egypt.
What applies in my country?
General scientific assessment
Mostly false The glycaemic-load argument does not support banning melons while allowing juices, dates, honey and sugar.
The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:
- Pesticides and pesticide residues
- Contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, PCBs, dioxins, nitrate)
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
- Is there a dose-response relation of dietary glycemic load to risk of type 2 diabetes? Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.. Livesey G et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2013 · PMID 23364021 · DOI 10.3945/ajcn.112.041467
- Glycemic index, glycemic load, and chronic disease risk--a meta-analysis of observational studies.. Barclay AW et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2008 · PMID 18326601 · DOI 10.1093/ajcn/87.3.627
- Fruit intake, fruit glycemic load, and type 2 diabetes risk: findings from a community based Korean cohort study.. Ha AW. Nutr Res Pract 2026 · PMID 41694466 · DOI 10.4162/nrp.2026.20.1.101
- International tables of glycemic index and glycemic load values 2021: a systematic review.. Atkinson FS et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2021 · PMID 34258626 · DOI 10.1093/ajcn/nqab233
- Fresh fruit consumption in relation to incident diabetes and diabetic vascular complications: A 7-y prospective study of 0.5 million Chinese adults.. Du H et al.. PLoS Med 2017 · PMID 28399126 · DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002279
- Fruit consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: results from three prospective longitudinal cohort studies.. Muraki I et al.. BMJ 2013 · PMID 23990623 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.f5001
- Glycemic index, glycemic load, and risk of type 2 diabetes: results from 3 large US cohorts and an updated meta-analysis.. Bhupathiraju SN et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2014 · PMID 24787496 · DOI 10.3945/ajcn.113.079533
- Glycemic indices of five varieties of dates in healthy and diabetic subjects.. Alkaabi JM et al.. Nutr J 2011 · PMID 21619670 · DOI 10.1186/1475-2891-10-59
- Fruit and vegetable consumption and the risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies.. Halvorsen RE et al.. BMJ Nutr Prev Health 2021 · PMID 35028521 · DOI 10.1136/bmjnph-2020-000218