Chicken is forbidden because it is harmful in itself, not because of how it is raised (it is 'the pig of birds'); its fibres and waste products are hard to digest.
Original statement
الفراخ ممنوعه عشان لذاتها ولا ممنوعه عشان طريقه تربيتها لا هي ممنوعه لذاتها يعني الفراخ ككائن اصلا مش مناسب طهيه ومش مناسب اكله واكله بيعود عليك بالضرر
verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.
Translation
Chicken is forbidden because it is harmful in itself, not because of how it is raised (it is 'the pig of birds'); its fibres and waste products are hard to digest.
Origin
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- Dr.D Clinics - Diaa Al Awady is live! (Open source)
- Published
- 16 March 2025
- Timestamp
- 0:06:01 (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 available.
- Claimed mechanism
Chicken as a creature is unsuitable to eat; its fibres and waste are hard to digest.
- Claimed health effect
General bodily harm.
- Population concerned
general population (not specified)
- Geographic restriction by Elawady
none found; he explicitly states the ban is independent of production method, while the archive frames the rule as 'industrial chicken'.
Diverging source versions
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live!لايف مش مهم خالص (Open source)
- Published
- 11 February 2026
- Timestamp
- not available (transcript has no timings)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); wording may contain transcription errors; no timestamps available.
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- Dr.D Clinics - Diaa Al Awady is live! (Open source)
- Published
- 25 February 2025
- Timestamp
- not available (transcript has no timings)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); wording may contain transcription errors; no timestamps available.
- Source status
- Archive food list
- Attribution
- Archive food list (eltayebat.com)
- Origin
- https://eltayebat.com/foods/
- Attribution uncertainty
- Food-list entry; no reasoning or source given on the list itself.
- Source status
- Third-party site (unofficial)
- Attribution
- Third-party site (mytayibat.com); unofficial by its own statement
- Origin
- https://mytayibat.com/forbidden
- Attribution uncertainty
- Lowest attribution level: unofficial third-party site. In its footer it calls itself the "official educational platform"; this self-description is not verified as authorised by the heirs or the archive.
ايه مشكلتك مع الفراخ البلدي مثلا ايه مشكلتك ايه يعني فرق الفراخ البلدي ايه من الفراخ البيضا مافيش فرق يا بابا هو نفس الكائن يعني ومطعماها في البيت مش عارف يعني ايه مطعماها في البيت
What is your problem with village (baladi) chicken, for example? What is the difference between baladi chicken and white chicken? There is no difference, it is the same creature. And 'fed at home' - I do not know what 'fed at home' means.
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- لحظة مميزة من البث المباشر (Open source)
- Published
- 6 April 2026
- Timestamp
- 0:00:42 (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; wording may contain speech-recognition errors; speaker turns are not marked, the excerpt was judged to be Elawady's own speech from context.
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?
Chicken is harmful as such, independent of farming method, and is hard to digest.
2. What is demonstrably correct?
In UK Biobank, higher poultry intake was associated with somewhat higher risks of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (HR 1.17 per 30 g/day), gastritis/duodenitis, diverticular disease, gallbladder disease and diabetes, and with lower iron-deficiency anaemia; associations were partly explained by BMI.
3. What is wrong or exaggerated?
No study shows that chicken is intrinsically harmful. A meta-analysis of 13 cohorts (1.67 million people) found no association of white meat with all-cause or CVD mortality. IARC did not evaluate poultry as a carcinogen. Chicken protein is highly digestible; 'hard-to-digest fibres' is not supported.
4. What remains unclear?
Whether the UK Biobank digestive associations are causal; effects of cooking methods (see C-CHK-10).
5. Which studies support it?
I-CHK-07 (some positive associations, mixed).
6. Which studies contradict it?
I-CHK-08; I-CHK-06 (poultry not classified by IARC).
7. What applies to Germany and Europe?
Poultry is part of standard dietary guidance as a lean meat; EU food-safety rules focus on microbial hazards (Salmonella, Campylobacter).
8. What is known about Egypt?
Chicken is a major affordable protein source in Egypt; specific production problems (antibiotic use, avian influenza) are discussed in C-CHK-05 and C-CHK-13.
9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?
There is no evidence that chicken as such is harmful; safety concerns relate to hygiene, cooking and production practices.
Assessment details
- Rationale for certainty of evidence
Prospective cohort meta-analyses find no association of white meat with all-cause or CVD mortality; a large UK cohort found associations of poultry with some digestive conditions and diabetes, largely attenuated by BMI. Observational, confounded data; no evidence for 'intrinsic' harm of chicken as a species.
- Source quality
Own words (machine transcripts); the archive rule title ('industrial chicken') differs from his stated position.
- Regional transferability
Universal claim.
- Individual exceptions
Poultry meat allergy is rare but exists; individual digestive intolerance is possible.
- Regional scope of the claim
- general (biological/medical)
- Last reviewed
- 25 October 2026 provisional
In plain language
Dr. Elawady said chicken is harmful by nature, not only because of factory farming, and that it is hard to digest. Large studies do not show that eating chicken shortens life or causes heart disease. One large UK study linked more poultry with slightly more reflux and some other digestive problems, but much of this was explained by body weight. The real proven risks of chicken are germs on raw meat, which are controlled by hygiene and proper cooking.
Studies on this claim
Studies supporting the claim (0)
No studies in this group.
Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (2)
-
Meat types and death risk
Abete I et al.. Br J Nutr 2014 · PMID 24932617 · DOI 10.1017/S000711451400124XMeta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract only checkedProcessed and red meat were linked to higher death risk, white meat (including poultry) was not.
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?
Meat types and mortality
- How was the study done?
Meta-analysis of cohort studies
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
1,674,272 individuals; 13 cohorts
- What was actually found?
Processed meat: +22% all-cause, +18% CVD mortality (highest vs lowest); red meat +16% CVD mortality; no association for total and white meat.
- How large was the observed effect?
Random effects; dose-response
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Poultry is not linked to earlier death in these studies.
- What are the study's limitations?
High heterogeneity; Older
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
White meat definition varies.
-
IARC on red and processed meat
Bouvard V et al.. Lancet Oncol 2015 · PMID 26514947 · DOI 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkfull text checkedProcessed meat causes cancer and red meat probably does; poultry was not evaluated; cooking method evidence was insufficient.
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?
Carcinogenicity of red and processed meat
- How was the study done?
IARC Monographs Working Group evaluation (summary) and IARC Q&A
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable; Human evidence base
- What was actually found?
Processed meat Group 1 (colorectal cancer; ~18% higher risk per 50 g/day); red meat Group 2A. Q&A: "The cancer risks associated with consumption of poultry and fish were not evaluated." High-temperature cooking produces more PAHs and HAAs, but there were not enough data to conclude whether cooking method affects cancer risk.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Chicken is not on the IARC carcinogen list.
- What are the study's limitations?
Poultry not evaluated
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Limits the claim.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot clear poultry either.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies with mixed or unclear results (2)
-
Meat and 25 common conditions (UK)
Papier K et al.. BMC Med 2021 · PMID 33648505 · DOI 10.1186/s12916-021-01922-9Cohort studyindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key studyMore poultry was linked to slightly more reflux, gastritis and diabetes, partly explained by body weight, and to less anaemia.
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?
Meat intake and 25 non-cancer conditions
- How was the study done?
Prospective cohort (UK Biobank), outcome-wide
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
474,985; Middle-aged UK adults
- What was actually found?
Poultry per 30 g/day: GERD HR 1.17 (1.09-1.26), gastritis/duodenitis 1.12 (1.05-1.18), diverticular disease 1.10, gallbladder disease 1.11, diabetes 1.14 (1.07-1.21); lower iron-deficiency anaemia 0.83 (0.76-0.90). Associations substantially attenuated by BMI.
- How large was the observed effect?
Cox, multiple-testing correction
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Small associations, not proof of harm.
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational; associations small and largely explained by body weight; total energy and cooking method not measured; meat types not mutually adjusted; hospital-recorded outcomes only.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Mixed.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High (UK).
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot show causation or that chicken is intrinsically indigestible; no absolute risks reported.
-
Meat and lymphoma in Europe
Rohrmann S et al.. Int J Cancer 2011 · PMID 20473877 · DOI 10.1002/ijc.25387Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checkedNo overall link; poultry was linked to some lymphoma subtypes, possibly by chance.
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?
Are meat and dairy intakes associated with lymphoma risk?
- How was the study done?
Prospective cohort (EPIC)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
411,097 participants; 1,334 lymphomas; European adults
- What was actually found?
Overall no association with NHL or HL. Poultry per 10 g: B-cell lymphoma RR 1.22 (1.05-1.42), FL 1.65 (1.18-2.32), BCLL 1.54 (1.18-2.01).
- How large was the observed effect?
Cox RR per intake unit
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
An unconfirmed signal.
- What are the study's limitations?
Multiple subgroup tests; Authors note chance plausible
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Weak.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot show poultry causes lymphoma.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Regional context
Germany / EU
Poultry is part of standard dietary guidance as a lean meat; EU food-safety rules focus on microbial hazards (Salmonella, Campylobacter).
Egypt
Chicken is a major affordable protein source in Egypt; specific production problems (antibiotic use, avian influenza) are discussed in C-CHK-05 and C-CHK-13.
- 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 false Evidence does not support the claim that chicken is intrinsically harmful.
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
- Association between total, processed, red and white meat consumption and all-cause, CVD and IHD mortality: a meta-analysis of cohort studies.. Abete I et al.. Br J Nutr 2014 · PMID 24932617 · DOI 10.1017/S000711451400124X
- Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat.. Bouvard V et al.. Lancet Oncol 2015 · PMID 26514947 · DOI 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1
- Meat consumption and risk of 25 common conditions: outcome-wide analyses in 475,000 men and women in the UK Biobank study.. Papier K et al.. BMC Med 2021 · PMID 33648505 · DOI 10.1186/s12916-021-01922-9
- Consumption of meat and dairy and lymphoma risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition.. Rohrmann S et al.. Int J Cancer 2011 · PMID 20473877 · DOI 10.1002/ijc.25387