Fava beans and lentils (together with flour products) are toxins that cause inflammation and deteriorate health; the fava bean hull is indigestible and the bean contains toxins that ferment 'dirtily'.
Original statement
الفول والعدس ومنتجات الدقيق سموم تسبب الالتهابات وتدهور الصحة، والبقوليات تسبب أمراض المناعة الذاتية.
not verbatim – paraphrase. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.
Translation
Fava beans and lentils (together with flour products) are toxins that cause inflammation and deteriorate health; the fava bean hull is indigestible and the bean contains toxins that ferment 'dirtily'.
Origin
- Source status
- Archive quote (no location given)
- Attribution
- Elawady (archive paraphrase; source video not given)
- Origin
- https://eltayebat.com/rule/legumes/
- 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): found_close_paraphrase (partial). Fava beans described as harmful and causing immune problems (iL9u56Utnhw) and the fava bean hull as indigestible with 'toxins' that ferment 'dirtily' (hf_DXalTTDc) are found. Calling fava beans, lentils and flour 'toxins' (سموم) together in one sentence was not found by keyword search.
- Claimed mechanism
Indigestible hull, 'toxins' inside the bean, putrid fermentation in the gut.
- Claimed health effect
Inflammation and general deterioration of health.
- Population concerned
Everyone
- Geographic restriction by Elawady
none found
Diverging source versions
حبايه الفول القشره انداجست لن تهضم الحبايه من جوه فيها سموم فهتلاقي فيها حته انداجستب حته فيها سموم حته الفيرمنتيشن بتاعها قذر اما تتخمر بتطلع ريحه معفنه وتطلع توكسن
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! مقاومة الأنسولين ٢ (Open source)
- Published
- 1 July 2025
- Timestamp
- 0:17:04 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Archive transcript (YouTube captions or AI-generated); wording may contain transcription errors; no timestamps available.
ندرس الفول بيضر ولا مش هيضر لا هو بيضر ولو سبب لغيرك انيميا هيسبب لك انت مشاكل مناعيه ولو سبب لغيرك قولون عصبي هيسبب لك انت اعراض
...we study fava beans: do they harm or not? They do harm; if they caused anaemia in someone else, they will cause you immune problems; if they caused irritable bowel in someone else, they will cause you symptoms.
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- الفول مش غذاء العقول ، الفول غذاء الخيول (Open source)
- Published
- 4 April 2024
- Timestamp
- 0:00:46 (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. Close paraphrase (fava beans harmful).
Scientific assessment
Mostly false – Essential parts of the statement are not supported by the evidence or are strongly exaggerated.
Certainty of evidence: moderate – Further research may still affect the assessment.
1. What was claimed?
Fava beans and lentils are 'toxins' that cause inflammation and deteriorate health.
2. What is demonstrably correct?
Raw legumes contain antinutrients (lectins, protease inhibitors, phytate); raw or undercooked kidney beans can cause acute poisoning; fava beans trigger haemolysis in G6PD deficiency; legumes cause gas through fermentation of oligosaccharides.
3. What is wrong or exaggerated?
Calling cooked legumes 'toxins' for everyone is not supported. In randomised trials, non-soy legumes did not increase CRP; the pooled effect pointed to a reduction (MD -0.21; 95% CI -0.44 to 0.02). Legume intake is associated with lower mortality and lowers LDL cholesterol.
4. What remains unclear?
Long-term trials on hard clinical endpoints are lacking; effects in populations with very high fava consumption (Egypt) have not been studied specifically for inflammation.
5. Which studies support it?
None for the general claim. Antinutrient and favism data apply to specific situations (raw beans, G6PD deficiency).
6. Which studies contradict it?
Salehi-Abargouei 2015 (CRP meta-analysis of RCTs), Ha 2014 (LDL -0.17 mmol/L with ~130 g/d pulses), Zargarzadeh 2023 (all-cause mortality HR 0.94), Afshin 2014 (IHD RR 0.86 per 4 weekly servings).
7. What applies to Germany and Europe?
German and European dietary guidelines recommend regular pulse consumption; no regulatory body classifies cooked legumes as toxic.
8. What is known about Egypt?
Ful medames and lentils are staple protein sources in Egypt; fava avoidance is medically indicated only for people with G6PD deficiency (which is relatively frequent in Egypt, see C-LEG-03).
9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?
Cooked legumes are not toxins for the general population. Specific groups (G6PD deficiency, IBS, legume allergy) need individual restrictions.
Assessment details
- Rationale for certainty of evidence
Randomised trials of legume intake show no rise (rather a trend to a fall) in C-reactive protein, and lower LDL cholesterol; large cohort meta-analyses associate higher legume intake with slightly lower all-cause mortality. Trials are short and cohorts observational, so certainty is moderate rather than high.
- Source quality
Archive quote without video reference plus one machine transcript; no evidence offered for an inflammatory effect of cooked legumes in humans.
- Regional transferability
Trials and cohorts come mainly from Europe, North America, Iran and Asia; there is no reason to expect a fundamentally different effect of cooked fava beans or lentils in Egypt, apart from favism in G6PD-deficient people (see C-LEG-03).
- Individual exceptions
People with G6PD deficiency must avoid fava beans; people with IBS may react to legume oligosaccharides; rare legume allergies exist.
- Regional scope of the claim
- general (biological/medical)
- Last reviewed
- 26 October 2026 provisional
Scientific evidence in detail
Scientifically refuted – High-quality evidence shows the opposite, or the claim contradicts well-established physiology.
Research question: In the general population, does eating cooked fava beans and lentils increase inflammation or deteriorate health compared with lower legume intake?
Research question in detail (PICO)
- Population
- General adult population
- Intervention or exposure
- Cooked legumes (fava beans, lentils, other pulses)
- Comparison
- Low or no legume intake/control diets
- Geographic scope
- universal biology; Egyptian diets with high fava intake not specifically studied
- Outcomes
- Inflammatory markers (CRP, IL-6, TNF-alpha)
- Cardiometabolic risk factors
- Mortality
Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.
What speaks for the claim?
Legumes and type 2 diabetes in 27 cohorts
Pearce M et al.. J Nutr 2021 · PMID 33693815 · DOI 10.1093/jn/nxaa447 Meta-analysisfull text checkedClosest to a harm signal: weak positive association of total legumes with T2D in some European cohorts.
- Actual result
- IRR 1.02 (1.01-1.04) per 20 g/d; Europe 1.05 (1.01-1.10); pulses not associated.
- Methodological quality
- high-quality IPD meta-analysis, but observational
- Relevance
- indirect (diabetes, not inflammation or toxicity)
- Limitations
- Likely dietary context; null in other regions.
What speaks against the claim?
Legumes and inflammation markers
Mansouri F et al.. J Nutr Biochem 2024 · PMID 39103105 · DOI 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2024.109718 Meta-analysisabstract checkednewly addedRCTs: non-soy legumes did not raise inflammatory markers; IL-1beta fell and adiponectin rose.
- Actual result
- CRP P=.2951 (ns); IL-1beta reduced P<.0001.
- Methodological quality
- moderate
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Surrogates.
Legumes and inflammation marker CRP
Salehi-Abargouei A et al.. Nutrition 2015 · PMID 25837205 · DOI 10.1016/j.nut.2014.10.018 Meta-analysisabstract checkedRCT meta-analysis: legumes did not raise CRP (trend to reduction).
- Actual result
- MD -0.21 (-0.44 to 0.02).
- Methodological quality
- moderate
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Short trials.
Pulses and blood sugar: 65 trials
Hafiz MS et al.. Eur J Nutr 2022 · PMID 34585281 · DOI 10.1007/s00394-021-02685-y Meta-analysisabstract checkednewly added65 RCTs: pulses improved glycaemic control.
- Actual result
- Post-prandial glucose ES -2.90 in T2D; HbA1c -0.17.
- Methodological quality
- moderate
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Heterogeneity.
What does the overall evidence say?
Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.
Which position is better supported?
Cooked legumes are not toxins and do not cause inflammation; trials show neutral-to-favourable effects on inflammatory and metabolic markers.
Why some studies weigh more
Randomised trials on inflammation and metabolism weigh more than mechanistic antinutrient arguments.
Is a causal relationship established? Not established No causal harm shown; benefits on surrogates are probable.
Remaining uncertainty
Very high fava intakes typical of Egypt not studied for inflammation.
Justified conclusion
The claim that fava beans and lentils are toxins causing inflammation is refuted for the general population; specific exceptions (G6PD deficiency, raw kidney beans, IBS, allergy) remain.
Why do studies seem to disagree?
The weak European T2D association (I-LEG-112) concerns a different outcome and is not seen for pulses; it does not contradict the trial evidence on inflammation.
Does this depend on the country?
- General biological effects
- Universal.
- Eating habits
- Ful medames and lentils are Egyptian staples.
- Origin of the food
- Not relevant.
- Contaminants
- Not reviewed.
- 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
- Log-symmetry of HR 0.94 (0.91-0.98) – Acceptable (rounding). recalculated
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
- Main outcome
- Inflammatory markers with legume intake (RCTs)
- Starting level
- high (randomised trials)
- Reasons for downgrading
- imprecision
- indirectness (surrogate markers)
- 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.
Clinical guidelines and official statements checked
- 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. - 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 EMRO-affiliated review of national FBDGs: Food-Based Dietary Guidelines in Countries of the Eastern Mediterranean Region (I-LEG-136) (2025) · Original publication
Several Arab national guidelines advise eating legumes daily (e.g. 'Eat legumes and dishes made with legumes once a day'); Egypt had no national FBDG in this review.
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 | (legume*[ti] OR pulse*[ti] OR bean*[ti] OR lentil*[ti] OR chickpea*[ti]) AND (inflammat*[ti] OR C-reactive[ti] OR CRP[ti]) AND (randomized[tiab] OR meta-analysis[tiab]) | both directions | 35 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | (faba bean*[tiab] OR fava bean*[tiab] OR Vicia faba[tiab]) AND (human*[tiab] OR participants[tiab]) AND (randomized[tiab] OR cohort[tiab] OR trial[tiab]) AND (cholesterol[tiab] OR glucose[tiab] OR health[tiab]) | contradicting evidence | 7 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | (antinutrient*[ti] OR anti-nutrient*[ti] OR antinutritional[ti]) AND (human health[tiab] OR humans[tiab]) AND review[pt] AND (legume*[tiab] OR lectin*[tiab]) | both directions | 10 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | (legume intake[tiab] OR pulse consumption[tiab] OR legume consumption[tiab]) AND (increased risk[tiab] OR positive association[tiab] OR adverse[tiab]) AND (cohort[tiab] OR meta-analysis[tiab]) | supporting evidence | 6 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | (TITLE:legume OR TITLE:legumes OR TITLE:pulses OR TITLE:beans) AND (TITLE:risk OR TITLE:mortality OR TITLE:harm OR TITLE:adverse) AND ("meta-analysis" OR cohort) AND ("increased risk" OR "positive association") | supporting evidence | 16 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | (food groups[ti]) AND (risk[ti]) AND (meta-analysis[ti]) AND (diabetes[ti] OR mortality[ti] OR hypertension[ti] OR heart[ti]) | supporting evidence | 5 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | (legume*[ti] OR pulse*[ti] OR bean*[ti]) AND (mortality[ti] OR cardiovascular[ti] OR coronary[ti]) AND (meta-analysis[pt] OR meta-analysis[ti] OR umbrella[ti]) | contradicting evidence | 26 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | (TITLE:legume OR TITLE:legumes OR TITLE:pulses) AND (TITLE:mortality OR TITLE:cardiovascular OR TITLE:diabetes) AND (TITLE:"meta-analysis" OR TITLE:"umbrella review") | contradicting evidence | 8 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | (legume*[ti] OR pulse*[ti]) AND (diabetes[ti] OR glycemic[ti] OR glycaemic[ti]) AND (meta-analysis[pt] OR meta-analysis[ti]) | contradicting evidence | 9 |
Open questions
Inflammation trials with traditional Egyptian fava dishes.
How deeply was this checked?
8 linked studies: 2 checked in full text (1 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 (moderate)
- 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Re-examined with extended evidence; verdict unchanged: Mostly false (moderate)
The 2024 RCT meta-analysis (I-LEG-114) and glycaemic RCTs (I-LEG-113) confirm the existing rating; GRADE for the inflammation outcome alone is low, but the convergent body (RCTs on lipids, glucose, inflammation; cohorts on mortality) supports moderate claim-level certainty.
New sources: I-LEG-113 I-LEG-114
In plain language
The claim that fava beans and lentils are poisons that inflame the body is not supported by studies. Trials in which people ate more beans, lentils or chickpeas did not show more inflammation; blood markers of inflammation tended to fall and LDL cholesterol fell. People who eat more legumes tend to live slightly longer, although such studies cannot prove cause and effect. Real exceptions exist: raw kidney beans are toxic, people with G6PD deficiency must avoid fava beans, and some people with irritable bowel get symptoms from beans.
Studies on this claim
Studies supporting the claim (1)
-
Legumes and type 2 diabetes in 27 cohorts
Pearce M et al.. J Nutr 2021 · PMID 33693815 · DOI 10.1093/jn/nxaa447Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key studyOverall, legume intake showed a very weak positive link with diabetes, seen only in some European cohorts; pulses were not linked.
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?
Pool individual data on legumes and diabetes.
- How was the study done?
Federated meta-analysis.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
807,785 adults, 27 cohorts.
- What was actually found?
IRR 1.02 per 20 g/d; Europe 1.05.
- How large was the observed effect?
Small.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Legumes do not clearly protect against diabetes, but the evidence does not show meaningful harm either.
- What are the study's limitations?
Dietary measurement error; confounding.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Tempers claims of benefit; does not support a ban.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Relevant to Europe.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
It cannot show cause and effect.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (6)
-
Legumes and inflammation marker CRP
Salehi-Abargouei A et al.. Nutrition 2015 · PMID 25837205 · DOI 10.1016/j.nut.2014.10.018Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyTrials found no increase in CRP from eating legumes; levels tended to fall.
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?
Legumes and CRP
- How was the study done?
Meta-analysis of RCTs
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
464
- What was actually found?
No increase; trend to decrease
- How large was the observed effect?
MD -0.21
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Legumes are not shown to inflame.
- What are the study's limitations?
Small
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts claim
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot exclude effects on other markers.
-
Beans and lentils lower LDL cholesterol
Ha V et al.. CMAJ 2014 · PMID 24710915 · DOI 10.1503/cmaj.131727Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyAbout one serving of pulses daily lowered LDL cholesterol in randomised trials.
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?
Pulses and lipids
- How was the study done?
Meta-analysis of RCTs
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
1,037
- What was actually found?
Lower LDL
- How large was the observed effect?
-0.17 mmol/L
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Beans support heart health markers.
- What are the study's limitations?
Short trials
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts harm claims
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot show long-term outcomes.
-
Legumes and death rates
Zargarzadeh N et al.. Adv Nutr 2023 · PMID 36811595 · DOI 10.1016/j.advnut.2022.10.009Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key studyPeople eating more legumes had about 6% lower risk of death from any cause.
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?
Legumes and mortality
- How was the study done?
Meta-analysis
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
1.14 million
- What was actually found?
Lower all-cause mortality
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 0.94
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Legumes compatible with longevity.
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts harm claims
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot prove causation.
-
Legumes and heart disease
Afshin A et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2014 · PMID 24898241 · DOI 10.3945/ajcn.113.076901Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checkedEating legumes regularly was linked to 14% lower heart-disease risk.
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?
Legumes and IHD
- How was the study done?
Meta-analysis
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
~500,000
- What was actually found?
Lower IHD
- How large was the observed effect?
RR 0.86
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Legumes compatible with heart health.
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational; overlap
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts harm
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot prove causation.
-
Pulses and blood sugar: 65 trials
Hafiz MS et al.. Eur J Nutr 2022 · PMID 34585281 · DOI 10.1007/s00394-021-02685-yMeta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checkedEating beans, lentils or chickpeas lowered blood sugar after meals and improved long-term glucose markers.
Pulses improve glucose control in RCTs.
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?
Pool RCTs on pulses and glucose.
- How was the study done?
Meta-analysis.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
65 RCTs, 2,102 adults.
- What was actually found?
Lower glucose and HbA1c.
- How large was the observed effect?
HbA1c -0.17 in T2D.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Legumes help blood sugar control.
- What are the study's limitations?
Heterogeneous, short trials.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts 'legumes are toxins'.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
It does not show fewer diabetes complications.
-
Legumes and inflammation markers
Mansouri F et al.. J Nutr Biochem 2024 · PMID 39103105 · DOI 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2024.109718Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checkedIn trials, eating non-soy legumes did not raise inflammation markers; some markers improved.
No rise in inflammatory markers; IL-1beta lower.
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?
Pool RCTs on legumes and inflammation.
- How was the study done?
Meta-analysis.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
RCTs up to 2024.
- What was actually found?
IL-1beta down, adiponectin up; CRP unchanged.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not given in abstract.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Legumes do not inflame the body.
- What are the study's limitations?
Surrogate markers.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts C-LEG-01.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
It cannot show effects on disease.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies with mixed or unclear results (1)
-
Review on plant lectin toxicity
Vasconcelos IM, Oliveira JT. Toxicon 2004 · PMID 15302522 · DOI 10.1016/j.toxicon.2004.05.005Narrative reviewcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract checked★ key studyActive plant lectins harm animals at high intakes; human cooked-food relevance not shown.
Does the study support the specific claim? Unclear · 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?
Review lectin toxicity
- How was the study done?
Narrative review
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Animal/insect studies
- What was actually found?
Harmful gut/systemic effects at high intakes
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Raw legumes are problematic; cooked legumes not addressed.
- What are the study's limitations?
Animal data; no human outcomes
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Does not show harm from cooked legumes
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Low
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot show harm in human diets with cooked legumes.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Regional context
Germany / EU
German and European dietary guidelines recommend regular pulse consumption; no regulatory body classifies cooked legumes as toxic.
Egypt
Ful medames and lentils are staple protein sources in Egypt; fava avoidance is medically indicated only for people with G6PD deficiency (which is relatively frequent in Egypt, see C-LEG-03).
What applies in my country?
General scientific assessment
Mostly false Cooked legumes are not toxins; the claim generalises narrow, real risks to everyone.
The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:
- Pesticides and pesticide residues
- Contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, PCBs, dioxins, nitrate)
- Mycotoxins (mould toxins)
Legumes and nuts
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
- Associations of Total Legume, Pulse, and Soy Consumption with Incident Type 2 Diabetes: Federated Meta-Analysis of 27 Studies from Diverse World Regions.. Pearce M et al.. J Nutr 2021 · PMID 33693815 · DOI 10.1093/jn/nxaa447
- Effects of non-soy legume consumption on C-reactive protein: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. Salehi-Abargouei A et al.. Nutrition 2015 · PMID 25837205 · DOI 10.1016/j.nut.2014.10.018
- Effect of dietary pulse intake on established therapeutic lipid targets for cardiovascular risk reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.. Ha V et al.. CMAJ 2014 · PMID 24710915 · DOI 10.1503/cmaj.131727
- Legume Consumption and Risk of All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies.. Zargarzadeh N et al.. Adv Nutr 2023 · PMID 36811595 · DOI 10.1016/j.advnut.2022.10.009
- Consumption of nuts and legumes and risk of incident ischemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. Afshin A et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2014 · PMID 24898241 · DOI 10.3945/ajcn.113.076901
- Pulse consumption improves indices of glycemic control in adults with and without type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of acute and long-term randomized controlled trials.. Hafiz MS et al.. Eur J Nutr 2022 · PMID 34585281 · DOI 10.1007/s00394-021-02685-y
- The effects of nonsoy legumes consumption on serum levels of inflammatory biomarkers and Adiponectin in overweight/obese adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.. Mansouri F et al.. J Nutr Biochem 2024 · PMID 39103105 · DOI 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2024.109718
- Antinutritional properties of plant lectins.. Vasconcelos IM, Oliveira JT. Toxicon 2004 · PMID 15302522 · DOI 10.1016/j.toxicon.2004.05.005