Salmonella is far more common in caged egg production than in cage-free systems (44% vs 3.2%).

Original statement

هذا قبل أن نتحدث عن السالمونيلا التي بلغ انتشارها في بيئة الأقفاص 44% مقابل 3.2% فقط في النظام الحر بحسب J Food Prot 2019

verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.

Translation

Salmonella is far more common in caged egg production than in cage-free systems (44% vs 3.2%).

Origin

Source status

Archive editors

Attribution

Archive editors (not Elawady)

Origin

https://eltayebat.com/rule/industrial-eggs/

Attribution uncertainty

Narrative and study selection written by the archive operators; the archive states the forbidden section is documented independently of Dr. Diaa's words.

Claimed mechanism

Dense caged housing.

Claimed health effect

Salmonellosis.

Population concerned

general population (not specified)

Geographic restriction by Elawady

none found

Scientific assessment

Mostly true – Correct at its core, but with limitations or minor inaccuracies.

Certainty of evidence: moderate – Further research may still affect the assessment.

1. What was claimed?

Cage systems carry much more Salmonella than cage-free systems.

2. What is demonstrably correct?

In the NZ survey, 44.0% (33/75) of samples from caged systems vs 3.2% (4/126) from cage-free systems were positive (A-EGG-10). EFSA (2019) found that the overall evidence points to lower Salmonella occurrence in non-cage systems (e.g. Austrian baseline survey 34.4% of cage vs 7.9% of non-cage flocks) and that higher stocking density, larger farms and stress increase Salmonella. EFSA/ECDC (2024 data) name Salmonella in 'eggs and egg products' as the agent/food pair of most concern in the EU.

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

The 44% refers to farm-environment samples, not to eggs; Salmonella was not detected on 16 of 28 farms, and S. Enteritidis was not found at all. The study authors note that many practices differ between systems. In EU monitoring 2024, only 0.31% of 'eggs and egg products' samples were Salmonella-positive. The archive's own antibiotic source (A-EGG-09) is a review stating that US poultry foods are very safe.

4. What remains unclear?

How much of the cage effect is due to cages per se versus farm size, stocking density, age of buildings and hygiene; EFSA calls the evidence conflicting, and most studies predate the 2012 EU ban of conventional cages. The 44% vs 3.2% figures come only from the NZ study, not from the EFSA opinion.

5. Which studies support it?

A-EGG-10 (source of the 44% vs 3.2% figures); I-EGG-15 (direction only; evidence described as conflicting).

6. Which studies contradict it?

I-EGG-14 (low sample positivity in EU eggs), which limits the practical relevance.

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

Directive 1999/74/EC banned unenriched cages from 1 January 2012 (enriched cages >= 750 cm2 per hen still allowed; Germany has its own stricter national rules, not reviewed here). Salmonella reduction targets for laying-hen flocks apply; in 2024 the EU flock prevalence of target serovars in adult laying hens was 1.6%.

8. What is known about Egypt?

Egyptian broiler data show high Salmonella prevalence (I-CHK-09); no Egyptian laying-hen survey was reviewed. Production systems and control programmes differ from the EU.

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

Cage-free systems tend to have less Salmonella; regardless of system, eggs should be stored cool and cooked thoroughly for vulnerable people.

Assessment details

Rationale for certainty of evidence

The NZ numbers are correctly cited (A-EGG-10). An EFSA review describes the evidence on cage vs non-cage housing as 'conflicting' (some studies show the reverse), concludes that overall it 'points to' lower Salmonella occurrence in non-cage systems with the mechanism unclear (flock size, stocking density, cleaning), and found conclusive evidence for effects of stocking density and farm size; most studies predate the 2012 EU ban of conventional cages. Limitations: the NZ figures are environmental samples (dust, faeces), not eggs; systems differ in many practices.

Source quality

Archive editorial; numbers match the abstract.

Regional transferability

NZ farms had no Salmonella Enteritidis (the main egg-associated serovar). In the EU, unenriched cages are banned since 2012 and national Salmonella control programmes apply.

Individual exceptions

Raw/undercooked eggs are a higher risk for infants, pregnant women, older and immunocompromised people.

Regional scope of the claim

depends on production conditions

Last reviewed

25 October 2026 provisional

In plain language

The archive says caged egg farms have much more Salmonella than cage-free farms. A New Zealand study did find this, and the European Food Safety Authority also concluded that non-cage systems tend to have less Salmonella. However, the samples were dust and droppings from barns, not eggs, and in EU testing only about 3 in 1,000 egg samples were positive. Cooking eggs well protects against Salmonella.

Studies on this claim

Regional context

Germany / EU

Directive 1999/74/EC banned unenriched cages from 1 January 2012 (enriched cages >= 750 cm2 per hen still allowed; Germany has its own stricter national rules, not reviewed here). Salmonella reduction targets for laying-hen flocks apply; in 2024 the EU flock prevalence of target serovars in adult laying hens was 1.6%.

Egypt

Egyptian broiler data show high Salmonella prevalence (I-CHK-09); no Egyptian laying-hen survey was reviewed. Production systems and control programmes differ from the EU.

• Food-safety governance and official controls
• Pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables on the EU/German market (incl. imports from Egypt)
• Pesticide residues in produce sold on the Egyptian domestic market
• 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
• Dioxins, PCBs and PFAS in eggs and other animal foods
• Aflatoxin M1 in milk and dairy products
• Aflatoxins in groundnuts (peanuts)
• Heavy metals in fish
• Farmed fish (aquaculture): drugs, water source and controls
• Import controls and the meaning of RASFF notifications for Egyptian products

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

Mostly true Cage systems are associated with more Salmonella on farms, but contamination of eggs on sale in the EU is rare.

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
• Controls, imports, recalls, labelling

Eggs · Poultry · Dairy · Fish and seafood · Red meat · Fruit and vegetables

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

1. Prevalence and Genetic Analysis of Salmonella enterica from a Cross-Sectional Survey of the New Zealand Egg Production Environment.. Kingsbury JM et al.. J Food Prot 2019 · PMID 31742446 · DOI 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-19-159
2. Salmonella control in poultry flocks and its public health impact.. EFSA BIOHAZ Panel. EFSA J 2019 · PMID 32626222 · DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5596
3. The European Union One Health 2024 Zoonoses Report.. EFSA, ECDC. EFSA J 2025 · PMID 41377167 · DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9759
4. Council Directive 1999/74/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens (as summarised by the European Commission). European Commission. EU legislation / EC web page 1999