Unclear / insufficient evidence Not supported by high-quality evidence Certainty of evidence: low provisional C-FSH-16

Current agricultural practices - feeding animals unnatural feed and using hormones - produce contaminated food (archive quote attributed to the episode 'The New Food Pyramid', January 2026).

In short: This statement is too general to be judged as a whole: drug residues and problematic inputs such as poultry manure are documented in parts of Egyptian production, while in regulated systems such as the EU hormone growth promoters are banned and residue violations are rare.

Conclusion: Too general to verify; region-dependent.

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

الممارسات الزراعية الحالية، مثل تغذية الحيوانات بأعلاف غير طبيعية واستخدام الهرمونات، تؤدي إلى منتجات غذائية ملوّثة

not verbatim – paraphrase. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.

Translation

Current agricultural practices - feeding animals unnatural feed and using hormones - produce contaminated food (archive quote attributed to the episode 'The New Food Pyramid', January 2026).

Origin

Source status: Archive quote (no location given)
Attribution: Elawady (archive paraphrase; source video not given)
Origin: https://eltayebat.com/rule/farmed-fish/
Attribution uncertainty: The archive attributes this text to Dr. Diaa in its 'د. ضياء يقول' box but gives no video reference. Transcript check (the project's research files, keyword search of 307 archive transcripts): similar_idea_only. The quoted sentence ('current agricultural practices - feeding animals unnatural feed and using hormones - produce contaminated food') was not found verbatim in M7g5LQuRDeA ('The New Food Pyramid', 2026-01-20); it reads like a Modern Standard Arabic summary. Related statements are found in M7g5LQuRDeA and OuyPh5firR4 (farmed fish fed poultry waste and bakery waste). Contrary to the archive's note that he does not address farmed fish directly, he does so in these videos.

Claimed mechanism: Unnatural feed and hormones.
Claimed health effect: Contaminated food.
Population concerned: General population
Geographic restriction by Elawady: none found

Diverging source versions

واكل الحيوانات اكل مش المفروض تاكله بالشكل ده فعمل خلل في الفيسيولوجي بتاع هذه الكائنات

Source status: Video transcript (own words)
Attribution: Elawady (machine transcript)
Video: Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! الهرم الغذائي الجديده (Open source)
Published: 20 January 2026
Timestamp: 1:05:53 (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; 'published' is the date listed by the archive. Passage read in context.

التاليبيا هو بيبقى عنده زي كم بحيره في النص بياكلهم ايه سمك تاليبيا بيرمي لهم المخبوزات دي بتاكلها السمك ومربي جنبهم شويه فراخ بياكل الفراخ

The tilapia farmer has a few ponds in the middle; what does he feed them? Tilapia fish - he throws them these baked goods, the fish eat them, and he raises some chickens next to them; the chickens eat...

Source status: Video transcript (own words)
Attribution: Elawady (machine transcript)
Video: بدأت قناة ＂Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي＂ بثًا مباشرًاFAQs (Open source)
Published: 6 April 2026
Timestamp: 0:23:21 (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); no timestamps; YouTube original not checked; wording may contain recognition errors. Similar idea only (unnatural feed of farmed fish).

Scientific assessment

Unclear / insufficient evidence – The data do not allow an assessment either way.

Certainty of evidence: low – Further research is likely to change the assessment considerably.

1. What was claimed?

Industrial animal husbandry produces contaminated food.

2. What is demonstrably correct?

Residues of veterinary drugs, pesticides and environmental contaminants are detectable in animal foods (see C-RES-01). In Egypt, studies report antibiotic residues above MRLs in retail chicken (I-RES-08) and prohibited antibiotics in some Nile tilapia (I-FSH-07).

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

In the EU, hormonal growth promoters have been banned in farm animals (Directive 96/22/EC, I-RES-02) and non-compliance in residue monitoring is low (0.11% in 2023, I-RES-07). 'Contaminated' is not quantified.

4. What remains unclear?

Degree of residue exposure in Egypt at population level.

5. Which studies support it?

I-RES-08, I-FSH-07.

6. Which studies contradict it?

I-RES-02, I-RES-07.

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

Hormone use for growth promotion is prohibited; residue monitoring is in place.

8. What is known about Egypt?

Monitoring gaps reported by Egyptian authors (I-RES-08, I-RES-09).

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

See C-RES-01 to C-RES-05 for specific sub-claims.

Assessment details

Rationale for certainty of evidence: Too general to test as a whole; parts are true (residues are detectable), parts are region-dependent (hormone use is banned in EU livestock).
Source quality: Archive paraphrase.
Regional transferability: Strongly region-dependent.
Regional scope of the claim: not specified
Last reviewed: 26 October 2026 provisional

Scientific evidence in detail

Not supported by high-quality evidence – There is no good evidence for the claim; this alone does not prove it wrong.

Research question: Do current animal-farming practices (unnatural feed, hormones) produce contaminated food?

Research question in detail (PECO)

Population

General population

Intervention or exposure

Industrial feed and hormone use

Comparison

Regulated production

Geographic scope

Region-dependent

Outcomes

Residues
Contaminants

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

What speaks for the claim?

Pesticides and antibiotics in Nile tilapia (Egypt)

Eissa F et al.. Toxicol Rep 2020 · PMID 33384941 · DOI 10.1016/j.toxrep.2020.03.004 Measurement / residue studyfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment

Prohibited antibiotics detected in some Nile tilapia.

Actual result
21% of 72 samples with antibiotic residues; THQ < 1.
Methodological quality
moderate
Relevance
direct for Egypt
Limitations
One river branch.

Original publication
Chicken manure in Egyptian fish ponds: no benefit, more resistance genes

Nyberg O et al.. Aquaculture 2024 · DOI 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2024.741040 Cross-sectional studyabstract checkednewly added

Chicken manure is commonly used in Egyptian tilapia ponds and increases resistance genes.

Actual result
As reported.
Methodological quality
moderate
Relevance
direct
Limitations
No consumer outcome.

Original publication

What speaks against the claim?

EU hormone ban in livestock

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

EU bans hormonal growth promoters in farm animals.

Actual result
Directive 96/22/EC.
Methodological quality
high (law)
Relevance
direct for EU
Limitations
Not Egypt.

Original publication
EU veterinary drug residues 2023

EFSA. EFSA news 2025 Measurement / residue studyabstract checked

EU residue monitoring: 0.11% non-compliant in 2023.

Actual result
0.11%.
Methodological quality
moderate
Relevance
direct for EU
Limitations
Aggregate.

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?

Too general to judge as a whole: residues occur and inputs can be problematic (Egypt), but regulated systems show low non-compliance.

Why some studies weigh more

Region-specific evidence.

Is a causal relationship established? Not established No health outcome data.

Remaining uncertainty

Hormone residues in Egyptian market fish (mono-sex fry used; no residue data).

Justified conclusion

Unclear.

Why do studies seem to disagree?

EU and Egyptian data describe different regulatory systems.

Does this depend on the country?

General biological effects: Not applicable.
Eating habits: Not applicable.
Origin of the food: Region-dependent.
Contaminants: Veterinary drug residues.
National production conditions: Mono-sex tilapia fry used in Egypt; no residue data (the project's research files).
Legal rules: EU ban on hormones; Egypt rules differ.
Actual monitoring data: EU monitoring available; no Egyptian national data.

A regional difference is supported by robust data.

Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)

Main outcome

Contamination of food from current farming practices

Starting level

low (observational studies)

Reasons for downgrading

indirectness
inconsistency across regions

Result

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.

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	`(methyltestosterone OR "17alpha-methyltestosterone" OR "17α-methyltestosterone") AND tilapia AND (residue* OR depletion OR fillet OR muscle)`	supporting evidence	82
Europe PMC	26 October 2026	`(hormone residues) AND (meat OR chicken OR fish) AND (Egypt OR Egyptian) AND (estradiol OR testosterone OR trenbolone OR zeranol)`	both directions	406
Europe PMC	26 October 2026	`("poultry manure" OR "chicken manure" OR "poultry litter" OR "poultry droppings" OR "poultry offal") AND (fish OR tilapia OR pond) AND (Egypt OR Egyptian)`	supporting evidence	129

Open questions

Hormone residues in Egyptian tilapia.

How deeply was this checked?

6 linked studies: 2 checked in full text (2 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 4 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: Unclear / insufficient evidence (low)
26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Re-examined with extended evidence; verdict unchanged: Unclear / insufficient evidence (low)
New sources add Egyptian detail but do not resolve the generality.
New sources: I-FSH-112 I-FSH-117

In plain language

The archive quotes Dr Elawady as saying that unnatural animal feed and hormones produce contaminated food. In the EU, hormones for fattening animals are banned and residue controls rarely find violations. In Egypt, some studies have found drug residues above legal limits. The statement is too general to be judged as a whole.

Studies on this claim

Studies supporting the claim (3)

Antibiotic residues in Egyptian chicken

Noah SM et al.. Sci Rep 2026 · PMID 42527435 · DOI 10.1038/s41598-026-63227-2

Measurement / residue studyindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key study

Most chicken samples had antibiotic residues, often above legal limits, but estimated intake was far below harmful levels.

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?
Measure residues.
How was the study done?
HPLC.
How many people, animals or samples were studied?
180 chicken samples (breast, thigh, liver) from shops in Mit Ghamr, Egypt.
What was actually found?
Oxytetracycline in 72%, enrofloxacin in 52%, sulfadimidine in 17%; more than half of positives above legal limits; liver highest; hazard quotients at most 0.05.
How large was the observed effect?
HQ <= 0.05.
What do the results mean in everyday life?
Regulation problem, low direct risk.
What are the study's limitations?
One town; no confirmatory mass-spectrometry; simple intake assumptions; gentamicin not tested.
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Partly supports residue concern; not harm.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Low.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Resistance effects; health harm; anything about gentamicin.
Scientific details →
Pesticides and antibiotics in Nile tilapia (Egypt)

Eissa F et al.. Toxicol Rep 2020 · PMID 33384941 · DOI 10.1016/j.toxrep.2020.03.004

Measurement / residue studyindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key study

Most wild river tilapia sampled near drains had pesticide traces (chlorpyrifos above the EU limit in 45%) and a fifth had antibiotic traces, including EU-banned drugs; estimated non-cancer risk was low.

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?
Monitor residues.
How was the study done?
Mass spectrometry.
How many people, animals or samples were studied?
72 wild tilapia, 3 river sites near drains, monthly for one year.
What was actually found?
Pesticides in 86% (chlorpyrifos 83%, 45% above EU limit); antibiotics in 21% (nitrofurazone 8.6-52 ug/kg, all from one site in spring); all THQ <1.
How large was the observed effect?
Nitrofurazone up to 52 µg/kg.
What do the results mean in everyday life?
Traces present; low estimated risk.
What are the study's limitations?
Wild fish caught near drain outlets; small numbers per site and season; risk method not suited to cancer-causing banned drugs.
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Shows residues in wild river fish; does not test farmed fish or their feed.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Low.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Residue levels in farmed or market tilapia; long-term or cancer risk.
Scientific details →
Chicken manure in Egyptian fish ponds: no benefit, more resistance genes

Nyberg O et al.. Aquaculture 2024 · DOI 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2024.741040

Cross-sectional studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

In 501 Egyptian tilapia farms, chicken manure did not raise yields or profit, and ponds using it had more antibiotic-resistance genes in the sediment.

Example of problematic inputs in Egyptian aquaculture (manure, not hormones).

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?
Weigh pros and cons of chicken manure use.
How was the study done?
Farm data and sediment genetics.
How many people, animals or samples were studied?
501 farms, 28 ponds.
What was actually found?
No yield gain; more tetracycline resistance genes.
How large was the observed effect?
Not in abstract.
What do the results mean in everyday life?
The practice is real and should stop, mainly for resistance and pollution reasons.
What are the study's limitations?
Fish meat not tested.
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports the premise, not the conclusion that the fish is harmful to eat.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Low.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Health effects in consumers.
Scientific details →

Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (2)

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 →
EU veterinary drug residues 2023

EFSA. EFSA news 2025

Measurement / residue studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked

Only 0.11% of over half a million samples were non-compliant.

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?
Monitor vet residues.
How was the study done?
EU plans.
How many people, animals or samples were studied?
548,194 samples.
What was actually found?
0.11% non-compliant.
What do the results mean in everyday life?
Rare violations in EU.
What are the study's limitations?
News page only.
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts 'contaminated meat' for EU.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
Scientific details →

Studies with mixed or unclear results (1)

Review on hormones in fish farming

Islam P et al.. Toxicol Rep 2024 · PMID 39323426 · DOI 10.1016/j.toxrep.2024.101733

Narrative reviewindependent cross-checkabstract checked

Hormones are used in some fish farming and residues are poorly monitored; the review's health-harm statements are not well supported.

Use documented; harm claims weak.

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?
Review hormone use in fish.
How was the study done?
Narrative review.
How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Published reports.
What was actually found?
Use common; monitoring weak.
How large was the observed effect?
None.
What do the results mean in everyday life?
Hormone use exists; size of risk unknown.
What are the study's limitations?
Low quality.
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Partly supports the premise.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Low.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Harm to consumers.
Scientific details →

Regional context

Germany / EU

Hormone use for growth promotion is prohibited; residue monitoring is in place.

Egypt

Monitoring gaps reported by Egyptian authors (I-RES-08, I-RES-09).

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

Unclear / insufficient evidence Too general to verify; region-dependent.

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

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

Health risk assessment of enrofloxacin, oxytetracycline, and sulfadimidine residues in broiler chicken carcasses marketed in Mit Ghamr, Egypt.. Noah SM et al.. Sci Rep 2026 · PMID 42527435 · DOI 10.1038/s41598-026-63227-2
Occurrence and human health risks of pesticides and antibiotics in Nile tilapia along the Rosetta Nile branch, Egypt.. Eissa F et al.. Toxicol Rep 2020 · PMID 33384941 · DOI 10.1016/j.toxrep.2020.03.004
Poultry manure fertilization of Egyptian aquaculture ponds brings more cons than pros. Nyberg O et al.. Aquaculture 2024 · DOI 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2024.741040
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
Report for 2023 on the results from the monitoring of veterinary medicinal product residues and other substances in live animals and animal products (EFSA news: 'Veterinary drug residues in food - non-compliance stays low in 2023'). EFSA. EFSA news 2025
Steroid hormones in fish, caution for present and future: A review.. Islam P et al.. Toxicol Rep 2024 · PMID 39323426 · DOI 10.1016/j.toxrep.2024.101733

← Back to overview

Current agricultural practices - feeding animals unnatural feed and using hormones - produce contaminated food (archive quote attributed to the episode 'The New Food Pyramid', January 2026).

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?

Pesticides and antibiotics in Nile tilapia (Egypt)

Chicken manure in Egyptian fish ponds: no benefit, more resistance genes

What speaks against the claim?

EU hormone ban in livestock

EU veterinary drug residues 2023

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 (3)

Antibiotic residues in Egyptian chicken

Pesticides and antibiotics in Nile tilapia (Egypt)

Chicken manure in Egyptian fish ponds: no benefit, more resistance genes

Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (2)

EU hormone ban in livestock

EU veterinary drug residues 2023

Studies with mixed or unclear results (1)

Review on hormones in fish farming

Regional context

Germany / EU

Egypt

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

References