Egypt

Detailed country profile EG North Africa

All countries can be selected. A scientific country assessment, however, exists only where we found and checked reliable sources.

Applicable frameworks: Egypt · International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

At a glance

Data availability by topic
Topic	Applicable frameworks
Pesticides and pesticide residues	Egypt Data quality: low
Veterinary medicines and antibiotics	Egypt Data quality: very low
Hormonal growth promoters	Egypt Data quality: very low
Contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, PCBs, dioxins, nitrate)	Egypt Data quality: low
Mycotoxins (mould toxins)	Egypt Data quality: low
Pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter, etc.)	Egypt Data quality: low
Additives and processing	Egypt Data quality: no data
Animal husbandry and feed	Egypt Data quality: very low
Controls, imports, recalls, labelling	Egypt Data quality: moderate
Drinking water	Egypt Data quality: moderate

National profile: Egypt

Since Law 1/2017, the National Food Safety Authority (NFSA) sets binding limits for residues and contaminants in food sold in Egypt. Its limits mostly follow Codex; for pesticides, EU and then US limits apply where Codex has none, with a default of 0.01 mg/kg. Pesticide registration and bans lie with the Agricultural Pesticide Committee. It banned chlorpyrifos on food crops from 2022, and it plans to remove all highly hazardous pesticides by 2030. Egypt has no EU-approved residue plan for poultry, eggs, milk, farmed fish or honey, so these products are not exported to the EU. EU border data therefore cover only plant products (mainly fruit, vegetables and peanuts) and casings. No public national monitoring report on food sold in Egypt was found. What exists are many small local studies. Some report residues of antibiotics or pesticides above limits, or residues of substances that are not permitted. None of them is representative of the country.

Research scope: Arabic and English search of primary sources: the NFSA legislation index and the full texts of NFSA decisions 13/2020 (veterinary drug residues), 6/2021 (pesticide MRLs), 6/2022 (contaminants), 4/2020 (additives) and 1/2021 (microbiological criteria) plus Law 1/2017; Agricultural Pesticide Committee (apc.gov.eg) decisions; GOVS decision index 1984-2026; DG SANTE audit reports (database scanned to October 2026); a new RASFF query for 2023-2026; EU third-country lists (re-used from the regional work); PubMed-verified Egyptian studies; WHO/UNICEF JMP via the World Bank API. Not accessible or not found: the NFSA online MRL database (domain does not resolve), any NFSA national monitoring report, an Egyptian legal text on hormone or antibiotic growth-promoter use in animals, the Egyptian Drug Authority veterinary register, the ES standards texts (EOS site reachable, texts not public), the Egyptian drinking-water standard, and WOAH ANIMUSE country data. G6PD was not covered (covered elsewhere).

Last checked: 25 October 2026

Pesticides and pesticide residues – Egypt

Data quality: low Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: NFSA Decision 6/2021 (Official Gazette 151, 7 July 2021) sets binding MRLs for food of plant and animal origin, both domestic and imported. The hierarchy (Art. 6.1) is: Codex values first; if Codex has none, EU MRLs; if neither exists, US-EPA tolerances. If no value exists in any of these lists, 0.01 mg/kg applies (Art. 6.2). For POPs, PIC-listed, FAO highly hazardous and IARC probably carcinogenic pesticides, 0.01 mg/kg or less is the reference value (Art. 4). Stricter rules apply to infant foods (Art. 6.7). Exports are judged against the importing country's limits (Art. 7). Registration lies with the Agricultural Pesticide Committee (APC) of the Ministry of Agriculture (Ministerial Decree 974/2017). The APC cancelled chlorpyrifos on all food crops from 30 June 2022 and fully from 31 December 2023, citing RASFF findings. In May 2026 it cancelled four HHPs (benthiavalicarb-isopropyl, chloropicrin, chlorothalonil, thiophanate-methyl), with trade allowed until 30 June 2027. Its stated aim is no HHPs by 2030. DG SANTE (2025) counted 3,408 registered formulations on 296 active substances, 118 of which are not approved in the EU.
B. What is actually used in production?: Pesticides are widely registered and used: the APC approves new registrations at each session, often 25-72 products. DG SANTE (2025) states that 'the potential trade of illegal PPPs is still a matter of concern'. A 2024-2025 study of tomato paste found chlorpyrifos residues 'despite its national ban in 2022'. RASFF notifications for chlorpyrifos in Egyptian oranges continued in 2023-2025.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: Domestic market: no NFSA monitoring report is public. DG SANTE reports that the national monitoring 'shows relatively low non-compliance rates' but against different benchmarks (no figures given). Local studies: Sharkia farmers' markets – 40.7 % of residues detected in vegetables and 38.9 % in fruit exceeded MRLs (percentages of detected residues, not of samples). Tomato paste 2024-2025 – 70 and 57 residues detected, with several MRL exceedances and fewer violations in 2025. Historical national market monitoring 1997: 2,318 samples, 1.9 % above MRLs (54 pesticides only). EU border, Egyptian-origin food: 2023 EFSA data quoted by DG SANTE – 4.61 % non-compliant, 8.14 % above MRL (all non-EU origins: 3.4 % and 6.2 %). Oranges fell from 15 % non-compliance (2nd half 2022) to 1.41 % (1st half 2025). All sampled vine-leaf consignments were rejected. BVL 2024: Egyptian sweet potatoes 5 of 46 objected. RASFF notifications for pesticide residues in Egyptian products: 78 (2023), 72 (2024), 84 (2025), 76 (2026 to 25 October).
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: No official Egyptian dietary risk assessment was found. Local studies report hazard quotients above 100 % for some pesticide/commodity pairs, e.g. omethoate, haloxyfop, emamectin, chlorfenapyr (tomato paste) and lambda-cyhalothrin, fipronil, dimethoate, omethoate (Sharkia). These are single-study estimates.
E. How robust are the data?: Export data come from risk-based EU border sampling with raised check frequencies under Reg. 2019/1793. They describe EU-bound consignments, not food sold in Egypt. Domestic data come from single-governorate or single-product convenience samples, often reported as abstracts without sample numbers or a stated MRL benchmark. The 1997 national data are outdated. EU and Egyptian MRLs differ, so compliance rates are not comparable.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Pesticides: samples above the maximum residue level pest_mrl_exceed_pct EU official controls (EFSA data) on food of Egyptian origin, as quoted by DG SANTE Egyptian-origin food sampled in the EU against EU MRLs; all non-EU origins 6.2 %.	8.14 % of samples above MRL	2023	–	mixed	origin outside the EU	RS-EG-13
Pesticides: non-compliant samples (after measurement uncertainty) pest_noncompliant_pct EU official controls (EFSA data) on food of Egyptian origin, as quoted by DG SANTE All non-EU origins 3.4 %.	4.61 % of samples non-compliant (MRL exceedance beyond measurement uncertainty)	2023	–	mixed	origin outside the EU	RS-EG-13
Pesticides: samples above the maximum residue level pest_mrl_exceed_pct Egyptian market monitoring (Dogheim et al.) Historical; only 54 pesticides analysed; MRL benchmark of the time.	1.9 % of samples above MRL	1997	2,318	unknown	domestic products	RS-EG-30
RASFF notifications (number) rasff_notifications_n RASFF, own query n = all notifications for Egyptian-origin products in 2025; 2023: 78/113, 2024: 72/153, 2026 to 25 Oct: 76/92. Keyword classification.	84 RASFF notifications (pesticide residues, products of Egyptian origin)	2025	119	risk-based	origin outside the EU	RS-EG-20

Notes on foods

Fruit and vegetables: Most RASFF notifications concern fruit and vegetables (oranges, peppers, strawberries, vine leaves). EU border checks are raised for several Egyptian products. Domestic data are local only.
Cereals and rice: No Egyptian residue data on cereals or rice were reviewed.

Sources: RS-EG-04, RS-EG-08, RS-EG-09, RS-EG-13, RS-EG-20, RS-EG-23, RS-EG-24, RS-EG-27, RS-EG-28, RS-EG-29, RS-EG-30

Veterinary medicines and antibiotics – Egypt

Data quality: very low Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: NFSA Decision 13/2020 (15 Nov 2020) sets binding MRLs for veterinary drug residues in food of animal origin, both domestic and imported, based on Codex CX/MRL 2-2018. It has two groups. Group 1 has limits, e.g. tetracyclines in poultry muscle 200 µg/kg and eggs 400 µg/kg; colistin in poultry muscle 150 µg/kg and eggs 300 µg/kg. Group 2 substances are not permitted in food: chloramphenicol, nitrofurans (furazolidone, nitrofural), nitroimidazoles, malachite green, gentian violet, carbadox, olaquindox, chlorpromazine and stilbenes. Enrofloxacin was not seen in either list. The decision regulates residues in food, not drug authorisation or use. No GOVS decision on prescription, withdrawal periods or antibiotic growth promoters was found on the GOVS decision index, which lists mainly pricing decisions. A 2017 GOVS presentation on the national AMR action plan aims to allow 'only AUTHORISED practitioner[s]' to prescribe antibiotics. EU: Egypt is not listed in Annex XVIa of Reg. 2021/405 (antimicrobial guarantees under Reg. 2023/905) except for casings.
B. What is actually used in production?: Survey of 111 farms in 15 governorates: all used antimicrobials, 65 % reported non-therapeutic use (prevention or growth promotion) and half used colistin (self-reported). Tilapia farming: antibiotics enter ponds via medicated feed and pond water, and via agricultural drainage water. Poultry litter with tetracycline residues is used in aquaculture and as fertiliser (Upper Egypt study). No national antimicrobial sales or use data in mg/PCU were found.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: All data are local studies. Chicken meat: retail Egypt n=100 – oxytetracycline 23 %, gentamicin 21 %, ciprofloxacin 17 % detected. Mit Ghamr n=180 tissues – enrofloxacin 51.67 %, oxytetracycline 71.67 %, sulfadimidine 16.67 % detected; more than half of the positives were above MRLs. Fayoum – chloramphenicol (Group 2) among the residues detected. Eggs: Aswan n=400 – 12 % of conventional yolks and 8 % of whites positive by disc-diffusion screening; 'organic' eggs negative. Milk: 200 samples from Egypt and Saudi Arabia – 40 screen-positive, 4 above the MRL for oxytetracycline on LC-MS/MS. Farmed tilapia from four governorates (n=48): 33.3 % tetracyclines and 10.4 % sulfonamides detected; 7 samples above limits. Kafr El-Sheikh fish (n=48): no antibiotics detected. Wild Nile tilapia, Rosetta branch (n=72): nitrofurazone 12 %, nitrofurantoin 6 %, chloramphenicol 5 % (all Group 2).
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Most studies calculate hazard quotients below 1 for the detected residues (Mit Ghamr chicken, milk, farmed tilapia, Rosetta tilapia). The documented concern is antimicrobial resistance: multidrug-resistant Salmonella and resistant Enterobacteriaceae in poultry and integrated fish farms, including carbapenemase genes in fish, water and workers. Group 2 substances such as chloramphenicol and nitrofurans have no safe residue level under the decision.
E. How robust are the data?: Small convenience samples from single towns or governorates. Screening methods (microbial inhibition, disc diffusion, ELISA) are mixed with confirmatory methods, and the MRLs used are often not stated. No national residue monitoring plan results are public, and none is approved by the EU for poultry, eggs, milk or aquaculture. Results cannot be extrapolated to Egypt as a whole.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Veterinary drugs: non-compliant samples vetdrug_noncompliant_pct Ahmed et al., farmed tilapia, 4 governorates Calculated from 7 of 48 samples as stated in the abstract; sulfonamides and tetracyclines only; limit used not stated.	14.6 % of samples above permissible limits	2020	48	unknown	domestic products	RS-EG-36
Veterinary drugs: samples with detection vetdrug_detected_pct Zakaria et al., Aswan retail Disc-diffusion screening; detection, not MRL exceedance.	12 % of conventional egg yolks positive (screening)	2023	200	unknown	domestic products	RS-EG-34

Notes on foods

Poultry: Local studies detect tetracyclines, fluoroquinolones, gentamicin and sulfonamides in retail chicken; some report values above MRLs and chloramphenicol. No national data.
Eggs: One Aswan study: screening-positive antimicrobial residues in 8-12 % of conventional eggs.
Dairy: One mixed Egypt/Saudi study: 4 of 200 raw milk samples above the MRL for oxytetracycline.
Fish and seafood: Farmed tilapia: tetracyclines and sulfonamides detected in about a third of 48 fish. Wild Nile tilapia: low levels of prohibited nitrofurans and chloramphenicol in a minority of 72 samples. Kafr El-Sheikh: none detected in 48.

Sources: RS-EG-03, RS-EG-10, RS-EG-11, RS-EG-22, RS-EG-31, RS-EG-32, RS-EG-33, RS-EG-34, RS-EG-35, RS-EG-36, RS-EG-37, RS-EG-38, RS-EG-39, RS-EG-40, RS-EG-41, RS-EG-55

Hormonal growth promoters – Egypt

Data quality: very low Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: NFSA Decision 13/2020 follows Codex and lists residue limits for substances labelled 'production aid' or 'growth promoter'. Estradiol-17β, progesterone and testosterone: MRL 'not necessary' in cattle; the note says residues pose no likely risk when the drug is used according to good animal-husbandry practice. Trenbolone acetate and zeranol: cattle muscle 2 µg/kg, liver 10 µg/kg. Ractopamine: cattle and pigs muscle 10, liver 20, kidney 20, fat 10 µg/kg. Melengestrol acetate and porcine somatotropin are also listed. Clenbuterol has limits only where it is nationally approved as a tocolytic or respiratory treatment. Stilbenes (DES) are in Group 2 (not permitted). Bovine somatotropin is not listed. A food residue limit does not show that use in animals is authorised. In January 2026 the Ministry of Agriculture was reported as stating that hormone use in animal production is 'legally prohibited under Egyptian legislation'. It named no law, and no such legal text was found.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not documented by any official data. The Ministry of Agriculture denies hormone use in poultry (January 2026 statement). No study documents hormone administration in Egyptian poultry or cattle. Tilapia grow-out ponds are stocked with mono-sex fry (Desbois et al.); how the fry are produced and whether hormone residues occur in market fish was not documented in the sources read. No data were found on oxytocin use in Egyptian dairy animals (PubMed search: no relevant study).
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: One study (Assiut City 2022; 92 chicken, 56 cattle samples; ELISA) detected estradiol, progesterone and testosterone and calculated estradiol intakes above the ADI. No confirmatory (LC-MS/MS) survey of hormone or β-agonist residues in Egypt was found.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: No official Egyptian assessment. The Assiut authors report a hazard index above 1. This rests on ELISA screening of hormones that also occur naturally in meat.
E. How robust are the data?: There is one small ELISA study, with no confirmation and no distinction between natural and administered hormones. The legal status of hormone use in animals is unverified. The Codex-based food limits and the ministry statement were not reconciled in any source found.

Notes on foods

Poultry: No evidence of hormone administration was found; the ministry denies use. One ELISA study detected natural sex hormones in chicken meat.
Red meat: NFSA lists Codex residue limits for trenbolone, zeranol, MGA and ractopamine in cattle; whether their use is authorised in Egypt is not documented.
Dairy: No data on bST or oxytocin use or residues were found.
Fish and seafood: Mono-sex tilapia fry are used; no residue data.

Sources: RS-EG-03, RS-EG-12, RS-EG-39, RS-EG-42

Contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, PCBs, dioxins, nitrate) – Egypt

Data quality: low Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: NFSA Decision 6/2022 (16 May 2022) sets maximum levels for heavy metals, PCDD/Fs, dioxin-like and non-dioxin-like PCBs, nitrate, PAHs and other contaminants. Examples: lead in fish muscle 0.3 mg/kg and in milk 0.02 mg/kg; mercury in fish 0.5 mg/kg; nitrate in fresh spinach 3500 mg/kg, lettuce 2500-4000 mg/kg (iceberg/other, open air/under cover), rucola 6000 mg/kg. The category wording follows EU texts. No PFAS limits were found in the text.
B. What is actually used in production?: Aquaculture relies largely on agricultural drainage water (about 70 % of tilapia farms). Lake Manzala and the Kitchener Drain receive mixed pollution.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: Fish, Lake Manzala: 600 fish in 2019 with mean lead 0.64-0.70 µg/g; a 2024 study found lead 0.87-1.01 mg/kg, 'exceeded … in most samples'. Kafr El-Sheikh, 48 fish: Cd, Hg and Pb below Egyptian and EU limits. Drainage-fed tilapia farms: muscle within FAO/WHO limits, lead close to 0.3 mg/kg. Greater Cairo Nile 2021-2022: HI below 1 for tilapia and slightly above 1 for catfish. Alexandria markets 2022: Pb, Ni and Cr above FAO/WHO limits in some seasons, but HI and THQ indicate no risk. Export fishery plan 2023: 22 heavy-metal samples, all compliant; PFAS not controlled. Milk: lead elevated in 46 % of raw milk samples (one study). Dioxins: Ismailia (2006), intake from dairy, fish and meat 6.04-6.68 pg TEQ/kg bw/day; eggs not measured. Nitrate: no Egyptian occurrence data found. RASFF: one lead notification (salted beef casings, 2023).
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Study-level estimates only: THQ above 1 for Hg and Cd in Lake Manzala fish (2024); dioxin intake above the then WHO TDI in Ismailia (2006). Other studies report THQ below 1.
E. How robust are the data?: Site-specific studies, often from polluted hot spots, so they are not representative of fish sold nationally. Farmed vs wild origin is often unclear. Some abstracts contain unit errors. There are no recent dioxin, PCB or PFAS data for eggs, milk or chicken.

Notes on foods

Fish and seafood: Lead exceedances are reported for Lake Manzala; other locations and farm studies mostly report values within limits.
Dairy: One study: elevated lead in raw milk; old dioxin data from Ismailia.
Eggs: No Egyptian data on dioxins, PCBs or PFAS in eggs.

Sources: RS-EG-05, RS-EG-15, RS-EG-20, RS-EG-39, RS-EG-51, RS-EG-53, RS-EG-54, RS-EG-55, RS-EG-56, RS-EG-57, RS-EG-58, RS-EG-59

Mycotoxins (mould toxins) – Egypt

Data quality: low Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: NFSA Decision 6/2022: aflatoxin M1 in raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk for milk products 0.05 µg/kg; infant formulae 0.025 µg/kg. Aflatoxins, OTA and other mycotoxins are covered. Peanut exports to the EU must carry an official certificate and are checked at 30 % at the EU border (Reg. 2019/1793).
B. What is actually used in production?: DG SANTE (2022): official controls at primary producers do not verify GAP for aflatoxin prevention; certificate conditions were not always enforced.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: AFM1: a Middle East meta-analysis (to 2017) found 38 % prevalence in Egyptian raw milk. A 2022 retail study (n=35 per product) found 25.71 % of raw milk and 48.57 % of Ras cheese above EU/Egyptian limits. A 2024 study found 7 % of milk and 2.9 % of Ras cheese above limits. Reviews report Egyptian maxima up to 8,000 ng/kg. Peanuts (exports): RASFF aflatoxin notifications 15 (2023), 47 (2024), 14 (2025), 6 (2026 to 25 October).
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Meta-analysis hazard index for AFM1 in Egyptian raw milk: 0.18 (adults), 0.84 (children). No official Egyptian assessment.
E. How robust are the data?: Small, heterogeneous studies with ELISA screening and different limits. Prevalence often means detection, not exceedance. Representativeness is unknown.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Aflatoxin M1: samples above the limit aflatoxin_m1_exceed_pct Esam et al., retail Egypt ELISA with HPLC confirmation; the authors refer to 'European and Egyptian tolerance levels'.	25.71 % of raw milk samples above the limit (0.05 µg/kg)	2022	35	unknown	domestic products	RS-EG-52
RASFF notifications (number) rasff_notifications_n RASFF, own query Mostly aflatoxins in peanuts; 2023: 15, 2025: 14, 2026 to 25 Oct: 6.	47 RASFF notifications (mycotoxins, Egyptian-origin products)	2024	153	risk-based	origin outside the EU	RS-EG-20

Notes on foods

Dairy: AFM1 is frequently detected in Egyptian milk and cheese; exceedance shares vary from about 3 % to about 50 % between small studies.
Legumes and nuts: Aflatoxins in Egyptian peanuts are the second most frequent RASFF hazard; export certification is under EU special conditions.

Sources: RS-EG-05, RS-EG-16, RS-EG-20, RS-EG-23, RS-EG-48, RS-EG-49, RS-EG-50, RS-EG-51, RS-EG-52

Pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter, etc.) – Egypt

Data quality: low Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: NFSA Decision 1/2021 sets microbiological criteria. Fresh meat and poultry on the market: Salmonella absent in 25 g (n=5, c=0). Chilled poultry at the slaughterhouse: Campylobacter n=5, c=2, m=10^3 cfu/g. Eggs and egg products: Salmonella absent in 25 g. No national Salmonella control programme for flocks with published results was found.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not documented nationally. One Alexandria study attributes chicken contamination mainly to market handling (live-bird and open markets); one supermarket was negative.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: Local studies only. Retail chicken: Alexandria carcasses 33.3 % Salmonella (n=60); Fayoum chilled chicken 22.2 % S. Typhimurium. Sharkia: 19.3 % of samples, laying hens 33.1 %. Small-scale broiler flocks: 17 % (n=117). Campylobacter: pooled cloacal swabs from broilers and layers, C. jejuni 12 %, C. coli 1.9 % (108 pools). EU travel data: Egypt was the reported place of infection for 11.5 % of salmonellosis cases acquired outside the EU in 2024 (628/5473). RASFF microbiological notifications on Egyptian plant products: 11 (2023), 13 (2024), 4 (2025), 3 (2026 to date).
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Multidrug resistance is frequent in isolates (83.8 % in Sharkia; reviews report up to 100 % in Egyptian studies). DG SANTE audited Egypt in 2011 to trace back the source of the STEC O104:H4 outbreaks in the EU (detail page only read).
E. How robust are the data?: Convenience samples from single governorates with different sample types. No national flock prevalence data. Travel data reflect tourist exposure.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Salmonella: poultry meat salmonella_poultry_meat_pct Barac et al., Alexandria, six markets Convenience sample.	33.3 % of raw chicken carcass samples positive	2024	60	unknown	domestic products	RS-EG-44
Campylobacter: broilers campylobacter_broiler_pct Shaheed et al. Pools from broilers and layers; faecal carriage, not meat contamination; not comparable with EU carcass data.	12 % of pooled cloacal swabs positive for C. jejuni (PCR)	2025	108	unknown	domestic products	RS-EG-47

Notes on foods

Poultry: Salmonella was found in a fifth to a third of retail chicken in local studies; resistance is common.
Eggs: Salmonella was found in layer flocks and table eggs in Sharkia; no national data.
Fruit and vegetables: Export controls for herbs and spices were found efficient at post-harvest level (DG SANTE 2024).

Sources: RS-EG-07, RS-EG-14, RS-EG-18, RS-EG-20, RS-EG-25, RS-EG-33, RS-EG-43, RS-EG-44, RS-EG-45, RS-EG-46, RS-EG-47

Additives and processing – Egypt

Data quality: no data Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: NFSA Decision 4/2020 (23 Sept 2020) sets a positive list. Operators may not use any additive other than those listed (Art. 2). The structure follows the Codex GSFA (Table 1 with numerical ADI and maximum levels, Table 2 for GMP use). Amendments follow Codex and European legislation. It replaced Ministry of Health Decree 204/2015. Decision 19/2022 regulates trans fats (title only seen).
B. What is actually used in production?: Not documented.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: No Egyptian monitoring of additive use was found. RASFF (exports): a few additive or labelling notifications, e.g. undeclared sulphites in pickled artichoke (2024), and process contaminants such as glycidyl esters and 3-MCPD in ghee.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Not assessed.
E. How robust are the data?: Only the legal framework was reviewed; the additive tables were not checked.

Sources: RS-EG-02, RS-EG-06, RS-EG-20

Animal husbandry and feed – Egypt

Data quality: very low Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: No Egyptian legal text on cage systems, feed controls or animal by-products in feed was found or read. Aquaculture: GAFRD drafts aquaculture regulation and licensing; GOVS controls import and export of fish; aquatic health surveillance was 'not yet in place' (2021 study). EU lists: Egypt fishery products 'Only wild catch'; Egypt has suspended certification of fishery products to the EU since 2021.
B. What is actually used in production?: Tilapia is mainly produced in earthen ponds in the northern Delta: 1,051,444 t in 2018 (FAO, cited by Desbois et al.). About 70 % of farms are supplied by agricultural drainage water. 'Poultry manure and litter are commonly used as fertiliser for fish farming … but it is rarely treated (e.g. pasteurised) before use.' Poultry litter in Upper Egypt contained chlortetracycline and oxytetracycline (several µg/g). Integrated agriculture-aquaculture farms showed carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in fish, water and workers.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: No official data. Study-level: tetracycline residues were higher in aquaculture tilapia than in Nile tilapia (Upper Egypt).
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: The documented risk is the spread of antimicrobial resistance and possibly residues through manure-fertilised and drainage-fed ponds. No quantified consumer health outcome was found.
E. How robust are the data?: Evidence comes from stakeholder studies and small field studies. No official statistics on manure use were found.

Notes on foods

Fish and seafood: Farmed tilapia is often raised with drainage water and poultry manure as pond fertiliser; Egypt exports no aquaculture products to the EU.

Sources: RS-EG-15, RS-EG-17, RS-EG-21, RS-EG-38, RS-EG-39, RS-EG-40

Controls, imports, recalls, labelling – Egypt

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: Law 1/2017 created NFSA as the single food-safety authority. Staff of the earlier control bodies are transferred to NFSA. The 'competent minister' is the Prime Minister. Executive regulations: Cabinet Decision 412/2019. Further NFSA decisions cover risk analysis principles (3/2020), export certification (1/2020), fish exports to the EU (1/2022), traceability (16/2022, amended 3/2023) and food-contact materials (17/2022). Pesticide registration lies with the APC and veterinary services with GOVS (Ministry of Agriculture). EU entry status: residue control plan approved only for casings (Annex -I of Reg. 2021/405); fishery products only wild catch, with certification suspended since 2021; frogs' legs only (Annex XI); antimicrobial guarantee only for casings (Annex XVIa). As a result, no Egyptian poultry meat, eggs, milk, honey or farmed fish may enter the EU. Composite products with Egyptian milk, egg or honey have been notified in RASFF for entering without veterinary controls.
B. What is actually used in production?: DG SANTE (2025): the export chain has additional programmes (operator registration, traceability, pre-export sampling). NFSA's mandate 'will include the domestic market' from January 2026. Most recent DG SANTE report: CT-2025-0205 (published 26-02-2026); none newer as of 2026-10-25.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: RASFF, Egyptian-origin products (own query): 113 (2023), 153 (2024), 119 (2025), 92 (2026 to 25 October). Mostly border rejections of fruit and vegetables, nuts and herbs. One notification on an animal product (lead in casings, 2023); none on poultry, eggs, milk or fish. DG SANTE findings: fishery controls 2021 – 'important shortcomings in virtually all of the areas'; peanut certification 2022 – 'concerns about the reliability'; FNAO microbiology 2024 – no recommendations; pesticides 2025 – improved results for oranges, persistent problems for vine leaves and peppers.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Not applicable.
E. How robust are the data?: Audit and RASFF evidence concerns the export chain. No public data on domestic inspection coverage or results were found. RASFF counts depend on control intensity and trade volume.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
RASFF notifications (number) rasff_notifications_n RASFF, own query (subject contains 'Egypt', origin EG) 2023: 113; 2024: 153; 2026 to 25 Oct: 92.	119 RASFF notifications on products of Egyptian origin	2025	–	risk-based	origin outside the EU	RS-EG-20

Notes on foods

Poultry: Not exported to the EU (no approved residue plan); no EU border data.
Eggs: Not exported to the EU; no EU border data.
Dairy: Not exported to the EU; no EU border data.
Fish and seafood: Only wild catch is listed, and certification has been suspended since 2021; farmed fish is not eligible.
Honey, sugar, sweets: Honey is not eligible (no approved residue plan); a 2024 RASFF notification concerned desserts with such honey.

Sources: RS-EG-01, RS-EG-02, RS-EG-13, RS-EG-14, RS-EG-15, RS-EG-16, RS-EG-17, RS-EG-19, RS-EG-20, RS-EG-21, RS-EG-22

Drinking water – Egypt

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: The Egyptian drinking-water standard was not read for this profile. Decision 6/2021 applies pesticide limits to bottled water (µg/L) per its Art. 5 and 6.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not documented here.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: WHO/UNICEF JMP (via the World Bank API): safely managed drinking water 77.75 % (2022), 78.34 % (2023), 78.94 % (2024). At least basic drinking water 97.30 % (2024). Safely managed sanitation 57.34 % (2024).
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Not assessed here.
E. How robust are the data?: JMP figures are modelled but globally comparable. No contaminant-level monitoring data were reviewed.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Safely managed drinking water (WHO/UNICEF) water_safely_managed_pct WHO/UNICEF JMP Modelled national estimate.	78.94 % of population using safely managed drinking water	2024	–	representative	all foods	RS-EG-26

Sources: RS-EG-04, RS-EG-26

Sources – Egypt (59)

RS-EG-04: NFSA Board Decision No. 6 of 2021 on the binding Egyptian technical rules for maximum residue limits of pesticides in and on food of plant and animal origin, Al-Waqa'i' al-Misriyya No. 151 (cont. A), 7 July 2021 – National Food Safety Authority, Egypt (2021). https://nfsa.gov.eg/Images/App_PP/DeskTop/App_Web/1/MyWebMedia/PDF1/%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B1%20%206%20%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%A9%202021%20%D8%A8%D8%B4%D8%A3%D9%86%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AF%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%84%D8%B2%D9%85%D8%A9%20%D9%84%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%AF%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B5%D9%88%D9%89%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AD%20%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A7%20%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%A8%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AA.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-08: Agricultural Pesticide Committee (APC), Ministry of Agriculture: decision to cancel registration and use of chlorpyrifos on vegetables, fruit and all food products (session 3/2022, 8 March 2022) – Agricultural Pesticide Committee (لجنة مبيدات الآفات الزراعية), Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (2022). http://www.apc.gov.eg/AR/News.aspx?id=8201 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-09: APC: cancellation of four HHP active substances (session 5/2026, 5 May 2026) and registration list of 6 October 2026 – Agricultural Pesticide Committee, Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (2026). http://www.apc.gov.eg/AR/News.aspx?id=10238 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-13: DG SANTE audit CT-2025-0205, Egypt, October 2025: controls of pesticide residues in food of plant origin intended for export to the EU; published 26-02-2026 (original regional id R-SRC-32) – European Commission, DG SANTE (2026). https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report/details/4976 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-20: RASFF Window – own query of public notifications with 'Egypt' in the subject and origin country EG, validation years 2023-2026 (to 25-10-2026) (original R-SRC-39, re-queried) – European Commission (RASFF) (2026). https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/screen/search (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-23: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1793, consolidated 30.06.2026 (original R-SRC-14) – European Commission (2019). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2019/1793/oj (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-24: BVL: Nationale Berichterstattung Pflanzenschutzmittelrückstände in Lebensmitteln 2024 (original R-SRC-26) – BVL (Germany) (2026). https://www.bvl.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/01_Lebensmittel/nbpsm/00_Berichte/NBPSMR_2024.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-27: Pesticide Residues in Egyptian Strawberries Inspected at the EU Border (2021-2024) (original R-SRC-40) – Sikorska-Zimny KM et al. (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41471804/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-28: Pesticide Residues in Vegetables and Fruits from Farmer Markets and Associated Dietary Risks (original R-SRC-41) – El-Sheikh EA et al. (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36432173/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-29: Pesticides in tomato paste on Egyptian markets and associated health risk – Hamzawy AH et al. (2026). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42012645/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-30: Monitoring of pesticide residues in Egyptian fruits and vegetables during 1997 – Dogheim SM et al. (2002). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456272/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-03: NFSA Board Decision No. 13 of 2020 issuing the binding technical rules for maximum limits of veterinary drug residues in food (قرار رقم 13 لسنة 2020), Al-Waqa'i' al-Misriyya No. 257 (cont.), 15 November 2020 – National Food Safety Authority, Egypt (2020). https://nfsa.gov.eg/Images/App_PP/DeskTop/App_Web/1/MyWebMedia/PDF1/%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B1%2013%20%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%A9%202020.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-10: General Organization for Veterinary Services (GOVS) – index of decisions (القرارات), all years 1984-2026, both departments – General Organization for Veterinary Services, Ministry of Agriculture (2026). https://www.govs.gov.eg/FrontEnd/ar/Decs.aspx (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-11: Antimicrobial resistance and National Action Plan for prudent use of antimicrobials – Egypt, GOVS (presentation, 2017), hosted by WOAH Middle East – GOVS Egypt (2017). https://rr-middleeast.woah.org/app/uploads/2020/11/12-egypt-amr-nap.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-22: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/1189 (new Annex XVIa of 2021/405 on antimicrobial-use guarantees) (original R-SRC-17) – European Commission (2026). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2026/1189/oj (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-31: Assessment of antibiotic residues in chicken meat (original R-SRC-42) – Kamouh HM et al. (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38633178/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-32: Health risk assessment of enrofloxacin, oxytetracycline, and sulfadimidine residues in broiler chicken carcasses marketed in Mit Ghamr, Egypt (original R-SRC-43) – Noah SM et al. (2026). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42527435/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-33: Antibiotic residues correlate with antibiotic resistance of Salmonella typhimurium isolated from edible chicken meat (original R-SRC-44) – Ali HR et al. (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40307359/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-34: Monitoring antimicrobial residues in table eggs in Aswan governorate markets and their impact on egg quality and public health – Zakaria AM et al. (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37304600/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-35: Inspection of antimicrobial remains in bovine milk in Egypt and Saudi Arabia employing a bacteriological test kit and HPLC-MS/MS with estimation of risk to human health – Al-Shaalan NH et al. (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35476746/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-36: Incidence, stability and risk assessment for sulfonamides and tetracyclines in aqua-cultured Nile Tilapia fish of Egypt – Ahmed MBM et al. (2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32676295/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-37: Occurrence and human health risks of pesticides and antibiotics in Nile tilapia along the Rosetta Nile branch, Egypt – Eissa F et al. (2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33384941/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-38: Hysterical tetracycline in intensive poultry farms accountable for substantial gene resistance, health and ecological risk in Egypt - manure and fish – Mahmoud MAM, Abdel-Mohsein HS (2019). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31521994/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-39: Systems-thinking approach to identify and assess feasibility of potential interventions to reduce antibiotic use in tilapia farming in Egypt (original R-SRC-60) – Desbois AP et al. (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34276104/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-40: Emergence of β-lactamase- and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae at integrated fish farms – Hamza D et al. (2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32430083/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-41: Antimicrobial use in animal farms in Egypt: rates, patterns, and determinants (original R-SRC-45) – ElSayed N et al. (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39828782/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-55: Exposure assessment of pesticide residues, heavy metals, and veterinary drugs through consumption of Egyptian fish samples (original R-SRC-58) – Ghuniem MM et al. (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39309634/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-12: Al Mal News: 'Ministry of Agriculture clarifies the truth about the spread of invalid pesticides …' (report of a Ministry of Agriculture statement), 31 January 2026 – Al Mal News (reporting Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation) (2026). https://almalnews.com/2096441/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-42: Hormonal residues in chicken and cattle meat: A risk threat the present and future consumer health (original R-SRC-46) – Kamaly HF et al. (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37956705/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-05: NFSA Board Decision No. 6 of 2022 on the binding technical rule for maximum limits of chemical contaminants in food, Al-Waqa'i' al-Misriyya No. 108 (cont. C), 16 May 2022 – National Food Safety Authority, Egypt (2022). https://nfsa.gov.eg/Images/App_PP/DeskTop/App_Web/1/MyWebMedia/PDF1/%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B1%20%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%84%D8%B3%20%D8%A5%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%A6%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D9%88%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9%20%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%BA%D8%B0%D8%A7%D8%A1%20%D8%B1%D9%82%D9%85%206%20%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%A9%202022%20%D8%A8%D8%B4%D8%A3%D9%86%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9%20%D9%84%D9%84%D9%85%D9%84%D9%88%D8%AB%D8%A7%D8%AA.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-15: DG SANTE audit 2024-8106, Egypt, May-June 2024: fishery products intended for export to the EU; published 23-09-2024 (original R-SRC-34) – European Commission, DG SANTE (2024). https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report/details/4800 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-51: Assessment of some chemical residues in Egyptian raw milk and traditional cheese (original R-SRC-55) – Ibrahim AA et al. (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38549581/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-53: Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fishes from Manzala Lake, Egypt, and Their Health-Risk Assessment (original R-SRC-56) – Sallam KI et al. (2019). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31242536/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-54: Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risks associated with the consumption of fishes contaminated with heavy metals from Manzala Lake, Egypt (original R-SRC-57) – Abd-Elghany SM et al. (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38657491/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-56: One health risk assessment of heavy-metal contamination in Nile tilapia from contrasting aquaculture systems in Egypt (original R-SRC-59) – Farahat Abdelmawla M et al. (2026). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42662802/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-57: Evaluation of some heavy metals in water and health implications for fish consumers of the Great Cairo Sector of the Nile River – Khedr AI et al. (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40221444/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-58: Marketing of Freshwater and Marine Fish Species in Alexandria City, Egypt: Human Health Risk of Specific Metals – Osman KA et al. (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40240669/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-59: Dietary intake of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs due to consumption of dairy products, fish/seafood and meat from Ismailia city, Egypt (original R-SRC-51) – Loutfy N et al. (2006). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16806402/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-16: DG SANTE audit 2022-7391, Egypt, September 2022: aflatoxins in peanuts for export to the EU; published 17-02-2023 (original R-SRC-35) – European Commission, DG SANTE (2023). https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report/details/4574 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-48: The prevalence of aflatoxin M1 in milk of Middle East region: systematic review, meta-analysis and probabilistic health risk assessment (original R-SRC-53) – Rahmani J et al. (2018). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29902498/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-49: Aflatoxin M1 in Africa: Exposure Assessment, Regulations, and Prevention Strategies – A Review (original R-SRC-52) – Zinedine A et al. (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34611756/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-50: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Prevalence of Aflatoxin M1 in Dairy Products in Selected Middle East Countries (original R-SRC-54) – Arghavan B et al. (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39840829/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-52: Assessment of aflatoxin M1 and B1 in some dairy products with referring to the analytical performances of ELISA in comparison to HPLC – Esam RM et al. (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35369598/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-07: NFSA Board Decision No. 1 of 2021 issuing the binding technical rules for microbiological criteria in food, Al-Waqa'i' al-Misriyya No. 75 (cont. A), 31 March 2021 – National Food Safety Authority, Egypt (2021). https://nfsa.gov.eg/Images/App_PP/DeskTop/App_Web/1/MyWebMedia/PDF1/%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B1%201%20%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%A9%202021%20%D8%A8%D8%A5%D8%B5%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AF%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%84%D8%B2%D9%85%D8%A9%20%D9%84%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%8A%D8%B1%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%84%D9%88%D8%AC%D9%8A%D8%A9%20%D9%81%D9%8A%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%BA%D8%B0%D9%8A%D8%A9.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-14: DG SANTE audit 2024-8055, Egypt, November 2024: food of non-animal origin for export to the EU (microbiological risks); published 22-04-2025 (original R-SRC-33) – European Commission, DG SANTE (2025). https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report/details/4863 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-18: DG SANTE audit 2019-6697, Egypt, 2019: microbiological contamination in food of non-animal origin; published 03-07-2019 (original R-SRC-37); and audit 2011-6265 detail page (O104:H4 trace-back; original R-SRC-38) – European Commission, DG SANTE (2019). https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report/details/4148 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-25: EFSA/ECDC European Union One Health 2024 Zoonoses Report (original R-SRC-21) – EFSA and ECDC (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41377167/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-43: Antimicrobial Resistance of Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium Isolated from Laying Hens, Table Eggs, and Humans (original R-SRC-47) – Abou Elez RMM et al. (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34944331/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-44: Prevalence of Non-typhoidal Salmonellae in the Retail Chicken Meat in Alexandria, Egypt (original R-SRC-48) – Barac D et al. (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39678989/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-45: Ecological prevalence, genetic diversity, and multidrug resistance of Salmonella enteritidis recovered from broiler and layer chicken farms (original R-SRC-49) – Elsayed MM et al. (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38215504/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-46: A Public Health Insight into Salmonella in Poultry in Africa: A Review of the Past Decade 2010-2020 (original R-SRC-50) – Ramtahal MA et al. (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35696336/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-47: Molecular detection of antibiotic-resistant Campylobacter spp. among broiler and layer chickens in Egypt: An outlook from a One Health concept – Shaheed I et al. (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40517580/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-02: NFSA legislation index (القوانين والتشريعات والقرارات الغذائية) – list of NFSA board decisions – National Food Safety Authority, Egypt (2017-2023). https://nfsa.gov.eg/ar-eg/SitePages/Index/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%86%20%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA%20%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%BA%D8%B0%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%A92 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-06: NFSA Board Decision No. 4 of 2020 on food additives permitted for use in food, Al-Waqa'i' al-Misriyya No. 214 (cont.), 23 September 2020 – National Food Safety Authority, Egypt (2020). https://nfsa.gov.eg/Images/App_PP/DeskTop/App_Web/1/MyWebMedia/PDF1/%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B1%204%20%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%A9%202020%20%D8%A8%D8%B4%D8%A3%D9%86%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AF%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B6%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1%D8%AD%20%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%87%D8%A7%20%D9%81%D9%89%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%BA%D8%B0%D8%A7%D8%A1.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-17: DG SANTE audit 2021-7328, Egypt, 2021 (remote): fishery products; published 04-01-2022 (original R-SRC-36) – European Commission, DG SANTE (2022). https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report/details/4439 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-21: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/405 (lists of third countries authorised for entry of animals and goods for human consumption), consolidated 03.09.2026 (original R-SRC-18) – European Commission (2021). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2021/405/oj (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-01: Law No. 1 of 2017 establishing the National Food Safety Authority (قانون إنشاء الهيئة القومية لسلامة الغذاء رقم 1 لسنة 2017), Official Gazette No. 1 bis (c), 10 January 2017 – Arab Republic of Egypt (President of the Republic); published by NFSA (2017). https://nfsa.gov.eg/Images/App_PP/DeskTop/App_Web/1/MyWebMedia/PDF1/%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%88%D9%86%20%D8%A5%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%A1%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%A6%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D9%88%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9%20%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%BA%D8%B0%D8%A7%D8%A1%20%D8%B1%D9%82%D9%85%201%20%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%A9%202017.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-19: DG SANTE audit report database – scan of report detail pages 4977-5120 for new Egypt reports – European Commission, DG SANTE (2026). https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report/details/5067 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-EG-26: World Bank WDI API – WHO/UNICEF JMP indicators for Egypt (SH.H2O.SMDW.ZS, SH.H2O.BASW.ZS, SH.STA.SMSS.ZS) (original R-SRC-61, re-queried) – World Bank / WHO-UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (2026). https://api.worldbank.org/v2/country/EGY/indicator/SH.H2O.SMDW.ZS?format=json (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)

International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Codex Alimentarius, run by FAO and WHO, sets international food standards: maximum residue limits for pesticides and veterinary drugs, maximum levels for contaminants such as aflatoxins and lead, additive rules and hygiene codes. These standards are voluntary. A country is bound only by its own law, but under WTO rules Codex is the reference point in trade disputes. Codex accepts some hormonal growth promoters and ractopamine; the ractopamine limits were adopted in 2012 by a vote of 69 to 67, and many countries, including the EU and China, still ban it. WHO recommends stopping antibiotic use for growth promotion and for routine prevention in healthy animals; WOAH reports that 22% of reporting countries still allowed growth promoters in 2022. WHO estimates that unsafe food caused about 866 million illnesses and 1.5 million deaths in 2021, with the highest burden in Africa and South-East Asia. There is no international monitoring that measures residues in each country's food; such data come from national programmes.

Research scope: International reference framework: Codex Alimentarius (standards, MRL databases, CAC 2012 report), WHO (antimicrobial guidelines and MIA List, GEMS/Food, Drinking-water Guidelines, foodborne disease burden estimates 2015 and 2026), FAO (JECFA/JMPR, INFOSAN), WOAH ANIMUSE 9th report, WHO/UNICEF JMP and IARC classifications, all read from primary documents in October 2026. These are voluntary references, not laws of any country; they are shown when a country has no researched profile. Not covered or not verifiable: WOAH animal-welfare housing chapters, a 10th ANIMUSE report (not found), the post-2012 Codex status of bovine somatotropin from a primary report, and Codex positions on PFAS (no ML exists).

Last checked: 25 October 2026

Pesticides and pesticide residues – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: International reference only. Codex texts are voluntary references. They become binding only when a country adopts them into national law. Under the WTO SPS Agreement, measures based on Codex are presumed consistent; stricter national rules are allowed if they are scientifically justified. National law decides what is allowed in a given country. Codex sets maximum residue limits (CXLs) for pesticide/commodity combinations. Scientific basis: the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR, since 1963) evaluates toxicology (acceptable daily intake, acute reference dose) and residue data; the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues proposes the limits; the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) adopts them. The Codex database lists MRLs and extraneous MRLs adopted up to CAC 49 (July 2026). Up to 2024, CAC had adopted 6,453 MRLs and 63 EMRLs. A Codex MRL applies at the point of entry into a country or into trade channels. Codex does not approve or ban pesticide active substances; registration and bans are national decisions.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not documented at the international level. Codex and JMPR do not collect data on actual pesticide use.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: No international monitoring programme reports MRL exceedance rates. WHO GEMS/Food collects contaminant and residue data submitted voluntarily by national institutions (more than 9 million analytical results in total). These data are not representative samples and are not published as exceedance rates per country.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: JMPR derives health-based guidance values (ADI, ARfD) and dietary exposure estimates (IESTI for short-term, IEDI with GEMS/Food cluster diets for long-term intake). Exceeding an MRL is non-compliance with a legal limit; whether it is a health concern depends on estimated intake relative to the ADI/ARfD (the JMPR approach). The 2026 WHO foodborne disease burden estimates did not include pesticide residues because of insufficient data.
E. How robust are the data?: High for the legal reference values (official, current database). There are no globally comparable data on use or residue levels. Country exceedance rates depend on national MRLs, sampling design (random vs risk-based) and laboratory scope, so they cannot be compared with Codex values directly.

Notes on foods

Fruit and vegetables: Codex MRLs exist for many fruit and vegetable commodities; national MRLs can be lower or higher.
Cereals and rice: Codex MRLs apply to cereal grains as traded (raw agricultural commodity).

Sources: RS-INT-01, RS-INT-02, RS-INT-05, RS-INT-07, RS-INT-36, RS-INT-21, RS-INT-29

Veterinary medicines and antibiotics – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: International reference only. Codex texts are voluntary references. They become binding only when a country adopts them into national law. Under the WTO SPS Agreement, measures based on Codex are presumed consistent; stricter national rules are allowed if they are scientifically justified. National law decides what is allowed in a given country. Codex MRLs and risk management recommendations (RMRs) for veterinary drug residues are listed in CXM 2-2024, based on JECFA evaluations. RMRs state that there is no safe residue level and that authorities should prevent residues by not using the substance in food-producing animals: carbadox, chloramphenicol, chlorpromazine, dimetridazole, furazolidone, gentian violet, ipronidazole, malachite green, metronidazole, nitrofural, olaquindox, ronidazole and stilbenes. Antimicrobial resistance: Codex CXC 61-2005 (amended 2021) states that responsible use does not include growth promotion with medically important antimicrobials; medically important antimicrobials should be used only for treatment, control or prevention under professional oversight. Codex CXC 54-2004 states antibiotics should not be used in feed for growth promotion without a public health safety assessment. WHO guidelines (2017) recommend an overall reduction in use of medically important antimicrobials in food-producing animals, complete restriction for growth promotion and for prevention in healthy animals (strong recommendations, low-quality evidence), and suggest not using critically important antimicrobials for group control and not using highest-priority ones for treatment (conditional, very low-quality evidence). The WHO MIA List (2024) classes 3rd/4th-generation cephalosporins, quinolones, polymyxins (e.g. colistin) and phosphonic acid derivatives (fosfomycin) as highest priority critically important (HPCIA).
B. What is actually used in production?: WOAH ANIMUSE, 9th report (2025, data year 2022): 70,648 tonnes of antimicrobials reported for animals by 107 participants (adjusted estimate up to 74,035 t). Biomass-adjusted use 89-93 mg/kg (71% of global animal biomass covered); terrestrial food animals 95-98 mg/kg; aquatic 21 mg/kg. Trend panel of 85 participants (62% of biomass): 102 mg/kg in 2020 to 97 mg/kg in 2022 (-5%). Regional changes 2020-2022: Africa -20%, Americas -4%, Europe -23%, Asia-Pacific -2%, Middle East +43% (Middle East participants cover only 17% of the region's biomass). Tetracyclines (28.29%) and penicillins (17.75%) were the largest classes; fluoroquinolones 3.7%, polymyxins 1.8%, 3rd/4th-gen cephalosporins 0.9%. In 2022, 34 of 157 Members (22%) still reported antimicrobial growth promoter use; 112 (71%) reported it is no longer authorised. Colistin as a growth promoter was still reported by 8 participants. Regional mg/kg levels by country are not published in the report; only 38 of 111 quantitative reporters made national reports public, and 39 Members had public reports on the ANIMUSE portal by January 2025.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: No international programme measures veterinary drug residues in food. Residue monitoring is national (see country profiles). Codex CXG 71-2009 gives guidance for designing national residue control programmes.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: JECFA evaluations (ADI, recommended MRLs) are the scientific basis of Codex veterinary drug MRLs. WHO (2017) systematic reviews: where antimicrobial use in animals was restricted, AMR prevalence in animal bacteria was 10-20% lower and multidrug resistance 24-32% lower; in humans (13 studies meta-analysed) AMR prevalence was 24% lower in intervention groups. The 2026 WHO foodborne disease estimates did not include antimicrobial-resistant bacteria because of insufficient data.
E. How robust are the data?: ANIMUSE data are mostly sales and import data, not farm-level use. Coverage differs by region; participants and methods change between years. mg/kg biomass values are estimates; WOAH reports ranges. Country-level data are public only for Members that choose to publish.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Antimicrobial sales, animals (mg/kg biomass) amu_mg_per_kg_biomass WOAH ANIMUSE 9th report - trend panel Global, 85 participants reporting 2020-2022 consistently, 62% of global animal biomass; mostly sales/import data. 2020 value: 102 mg/kg. n = number of participating countries/territories, not samples.	97 mg antimicrobial per kg estimated animal biomass	2022	85	mixed	all foods	RS-INT-24
Antimicrobial sales, animals (mg/kg biomass) amu_mg_per_kg_biomass WOAH ANIMUSE 9th report - 2022 cross-section Global range 89-93 mg/kg depending on coverage adjustment; 107 participants, 71% of global animal biomass; food-producing animals only. 'value' is the lower bound, 'value_upper' the upper bound.	89 mg antimicrobial per kg estimated animal biomass (range)	2022	107	mixed	all foods	RS-INT-24
Antimicrobial sales, animals (tonnes) amu_tonnes WOAH ANIMUSE 9th report Reported total; WOAH's coverage-adjusted estimate is up to 74,035 t. n = participants.	70648 tonnes of antimicrobial agents (reported)	2022	107	mixed	all foods	RS-INT-24
Countries using growth promoters (share) agp_use_members_pct WOAH ANIMUSE 9th report 34 of 157 participants; self-reported legal/practice status, not measured use.	22 % of WOAH reporting Members still using antimicrobial growth promoters	2022	157	mixed	all foods	RS-INT-24

Notes on foods

Poultry: Codex/WHO texts apply to all food animals; WHO 2017 recommends no routine preventive use in healthy flocks.
Fish and seafood: WOAH 2022: aquatic food animals 21 mg/kg; fluoroquinolones were 15.8% of aquatic use (3.9 mg/kg). Codex RMR: malachite green and gentian violet should not be used.

Sources: RS-INT-08, RS-INT-10, RS-INT-11, RS-INT-17, RS-INT-18, RS-INT-19, RS-INT-20, RS-INT-24, RS-INT-35, RS-INT-29

Hormonal growth promoters – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Data quality: high Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: International reference only. Codex texts are voluntary references. They become binding only when a country adopts them into national law. Under the WTO SPS Agreement, measures based on Codex are presumed consistent; stricter national rules are allowed if they are scientifically justified. National law decides what is allowed in a given country. Codex (CXM 2-2024) treats several hormonal growth promoters as acceptable when used according to good practice: estradiol-17beta, progesterone and testosterone in cattle have MRL 'unnecessary' (JECFA: residues from growth-promoter use are unlikely to pose a hazard). Numeric MRLs exist for trenbolone acetate (cattle muscle 2, liver 10 ug/kg), zeranol (muscle 2, liver 10 ug/kg) and melengestrol acetate (muscle 1, liver 10, kidney 2, fat 18 ug/kg). Beta-agonists: ractopamine MRLs for cattle and pigs (muscle 10, liver 40, kidney 90, fat 10 ug/kg; ADI 0-1 ug/kg bw) were adopted at CAC 35 in July 2012 by secret ballot, 69 votes to 67 with 7 abstentions, without consensus; China, Norway and the EU recorded opposition and the EU stated its ban would remain. Zilpaterol MRLs for cattle (kidney 3.3, liver 3.5, muscle 0.5 ug/kg) were adopted at CAC 46 (2023). Stilbenes (e.g. diethylstilbestrol): Codex RMR - no safe level, should not be used. Somatotropins: porcine somatotropin ADI/MRL 'not specified' (CAC 26, 2003). Draft MRLs for bovine somatotropin (bST/rbST, dairy) were 'held at Step 8' since 1999 according to the 2012 CAC report; CXM 2-2024 contains no bST MRL. Codex MRLs do not oblige any country to permit these substances. In the WTO EC-Hormones dispute (DS26), the Appellate Body (1998) found the EC import ban inconsistent with SPS Article 5.1 (risk assessment), but the ban remained part of EU law.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not documented internationally. Use of hormonal implants, beta-agonists and bST is authorised in some countries and banned in others (see country profiles).
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: No international residue monitoring. National programmes test for hormones and beta-agonists.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: JECFA evaluations underpin the Codex values (e.g. ractopamine ADI 0-1 ug/kg bw; estradiol-17beta ADI 0-0.05 ug/kg bw). At CAC 35 (2012) the EU delegation stated that EFSA had concluded the data were insufficient to propose ractopamine MRLs and that risks to human health had not been sufficiently ruled out. This profile records the positions; it does not resolve the scientific disagreement.
E. How robust are the data?: High for the legal status of Codex texts (primary documents). The scientific assessment differs between JECFA and some national authorities; the ractopamine standard was adopted by a narrow vote, not by consensus.

Notes on foods

Red meat: Codex values exist for hormonal growth promoters and ractopamine/zilpaterol in cattle (and ractopamine in pigs).
Dairy: No Codex MRL for bovine somatotropin (rbST) as of CXM 2-2024.
Poultry: Codex lists no hormonal growth promoter MRLs for poultry.

Sources: RS-INT-08, RS-INT-09, RS-INT-05, RS-INT-06, RS-INT-35

Contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, PCBs, dioxins, nitrate) – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: International reference only. Codex texts are voluntary references. They become binding only when a country adopts them into national law. Under the WTO SPS Agreement, measures based on Codex are presumed consistent; stricter national rules are allowed if they are scientifically justified. National law decides what is allowed in a given country. Codex General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CXS 193-1995, last amended 2025) lists maximum levels for international trade. Examples (mg/kg): lead - milk 0.02, meat of cattle/pigs/sheep 0.1, poultry meat 0.1, fish 0.3, cereal grains 0.2, leafy vegetables 0.3, fruiting vegetables 0.05, infant formula 0.01; inorganic arsenic - husked rice 0.35, polished rice 0.2; methylmercury - tuna 1.2, shark 1.6, marlin 1.7, alfonsino 1.5, orange roughy 0.8, pink cusk-eel 1.0. CXS 193 contains no maximum levels for dioxins, PCBs or PFAS; Codex has a code of practice to reduce dioxins and PCBs in food and feed (CXC 62-2006) and to reduce lead (CXC 56-2004) and arsenic in rice (CXC 77-2017).
B. What is actually used in production?: Not applicable (contaminants are not intentionally used).
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: WHO GEMS/Food holds more than 9 million analytical results submitted by national institutions (records by region, e.g. WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region 15,064 in total, none added in the past year as of the access date). The data can be browsed online but are not representative surveys and are not summarised as national compliance rates.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: JECFA withdrew its tolerable weekly intakes for lead and inorganic arsenic in 2010 because they were no longer considered health-protective (lead: IQ and blood-pressure effects; inorganic arsenic: lung cancer BMDL). WHO 2026 foodborne disease estimates (data year 2021): chemical hazards accounted for 73% of foodborne deaths, mostly inorganic arsenic (42%) and lead (31%); inorganic arsenic and lead were among the leading causes of foodborne DALYs. PFAS were not included for lack of data. IARC classifies TCDD dioxin and PCB-126 in Group 1 (Volume 100F).
E. How robust are the data?: Codex MLs: high (primary text). Burden estimates: model-based with wide uncertainty intervals. GEMS/Food data: heterogeneous, non-representative.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Share of chemical causes in foodborne deaths fbd_chemical_deaths_share_pct WHO foodborne disease burden estimates, 2026 edition Global model-based estimate (not a sampling result); 9 chemical hazards included; inorganic arsenic 42% and lead 31% of chemical-related deaths.	73 % of foodborne deaths due to chemical hazards	2021	–	mixed	all foods	RS-INT-29

Notes on foods

Fish and seafood: Codex methylmercury MLs apply to specific large predatory species; lead ML for fish 0.3 mg/kg.
Cereals and rice: Codex inorganic arsenic ML: polished rice 0.2 mg/kg, husked rice 0.35 mg/kg.
Dairy: Codex lead ML for milk 0.02 mg/kg.

Sources: RS-INT-12, RS-INT-41, RS-INT-21, RS-INT-22, RS-INT-29, RS-INT-31, RS-INT-33

Mycotoxins (mould toxins) – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: International reference only. Codex texts are voluntary references. They become binding only when a country adopts them into national law. Under the WTO SPS Agreement, measures based on Codex are presumed consistent; stricter national rules are allowed if they are scientifically justified. National law decides what is allowed in a given country. CXS 193-1995: aflatoxin M1 in milk 0.5 ug/kg. Total aflatoxins (ug/kg): almonds, hazelnuts, pistachios, Brazil nuts 10 (ready-to-eat) / 15 (for further processing); peanuts for further processing 15; dried figs 10; chili pepper and nutmeg 20; maize grain for further processing 15; maize flour/meal 10; husked rice 20; polished rice 5; sorghum for further processing 10; cereal-based foods for infants and young children 5. MLs also exist for deoxynivalenol, fumonisins, ochratoxin A and patulin. Codex codes of practice cover aflatoxin B1 in feed for dairy animals (CXC 45-1997), peanuts (CXC 55-2004), tree nuts (CXC 59-2005), cereals (CXC 51-2003), dried figs and spices.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not applicable.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: GEMS/Food holds about 1.09 million total-aflatoxin records and about 0.19 million aflatoxin B1 records (all regions, voluntarily submitted). No representative global prevalence figure exists.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: IARC classifies aflatoxins as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1; Monographs Volume 100F). JECFA (2001), cited in CXS 193: the additional liver-cancer risk predicted with aflatoxin M1 limits of 0.05 or 0.5 ug/kg is very small; hepatitis B carriers might benefit from lower aflatoxin intake. The 2026 WHO burden estimates excluded growth impairment from aflatoxin exposure.
E. How robust are the data?: Codex MLs: high. Occurrence data: not representative; strong regional and climatic variation.

Notes on foods

Dairy: Codex aflatoxin M1 ML 0.5 ug/kg in milk; national limits can be lower (see country profiles).
Legumes and nuts: Codex total aflatoxin MLs 10-15 ug/kg for tree nuts and peanuts depending on processing.
Cereals and rice: Codex total aflatoxin MLs for maize (15 / 10 ug/kg) and rice (20 husked / 5 polished).

Sources: RS-INT-12, RS-INT-41, RS-INT-21, RS-INT-33, RS-INT-29

Pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter, etc.) – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: International reference only. Codex texts are voluntary references. They become binding only when a country adopts them into national law. Under the WTO SPS Agreement, measures based on Codex are presumed consistent; stricter national rules are allowed if they are scientifically justified. National law decides what is allowed in a given country. Codex General Principles of Food Hygiene (CXC 1-1969, revised 2020 and 2022) set out good hygiene practice and HACCP. Specific codes and guidelines: Campylobacter and Salmonella in chicken meat (CXG 78-2011, farm-to-consumption approach without numeric targets), eggs and egg products (CXC 15-1976, rev. 2007: Salmonella Enteritidis monitoring and vaccination may reduce risk where SE is associated with poultry or eggs), meat hygiene (CXC 58-2005), milk and milk products (CXC 57-2004), fresh fruits and vegetables (CXC 53-2003), Listeria monocytogenes (CXG 61-2007), STEC in beef, leafy vegetables, raw milk and sprouts (CXG 99-2023). JEMRA provides microbiological risk assessments.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not documented internationally; control programmes are national.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: No international prevalence monitoring of pathogens in food. WHO burden estimates (2026 edition, data year 2021, 42 hazards): 866 million illnesses (95% UI 680-1090 million), 1.52 million deaths (0.783-2.51 million), 57.1 million DALYs (39.4-81.1 million). Biological hazards caused about 860 million illnesses. Non-typhoidal Salmonella enterica, inorganic arsenic and lead caused the most DALYs. Children under 5 (9% of the population) had nearly one third of cases. The first WHO estimates (2015, data year 2010, 31 hazards) gave 33 million DALYs; WHO states the 2026 edition supersedes all earlier estimates. National estimates for every WHO Member State are available in the WHO Global Health Observatory.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Foodborne disease burden is highest in the African and South-East Asia regions (nearly three quarters of illnesses, 60% of deaths). WHO states many cases could be prevented by improved water, sanitation and hygiene, pasteurisation and access to health care.
E. How robust are the data?: Burden estimates are model-based (systematic reviews, meta-regression, expert elicitation for foodborne attribution) with wide uncertainty. They are not measured case counts and should not be ranked against national surveillance numbers. Many hazards (e.g. AMR bacteria) are not included.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Foodborne illnesses (million) fbd_illnesses_million WHO foodborne disease burden estimates, 2026 edition (FERG) Global model-based estimate, 42 hazards; 95% UI 680-1090 million.	866 million foodborne illnesses per year	2021	–	mixed	all foods	RS-INT-31
Foodborne deaths (million) fbd_deaths_million WHO foodborne disease burden estimates, 2026 edition (FERG) Global model-based estimate, 42 hazards; 95% UI 0.783-2.51 million.	1.52 million foodborne deaths per year	2021	–	mixed	all foods	RS-INT-31
Foodborne disease burden (DALYs, million) fbd_dalys_million WHO foodborne disease burden estimates, 2026 edition (FERG) Global model-based estimate, 42 hazards; 95% UI 39.4-81.1 million.	57.1 million DALYs	2021	–	mixed	all foods	RS-INT-31
Foodborne disease burden (DALYs, million) fbd_dalys_million WHO FERG first estimates (2015) 31 hazards; superseded by the 2026 edition and not directly comparable (different hazard set and methods).	33 million DALYs	2010	–	mixed	all foods	RS-INT-27

Notes on foods

Poultry: Codex CXG 78-2011 targets Campylobacter and Salmonella in chicken meat; no numeric international targets.
Eggs: Codex CXC 15-1976 (rev. 2007) addresses Salmonella Enteritidis control incl. vaccination.
Fruit and vegetables: Codex CXC 53-2003 and CXG 99-2023 (STEC in leafy vegetables and sprouts).

Sources: RS-INT-41, RS-INT-14, RS-INT-15, RS-INT-16, RS-INT-04, RS-INT-27, RS-INT-28, RS-INT-29, RS-INT-30, RS-INT-31

Additives and processing – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Data quality: high Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: International reference only. Codex texts are voluntary references. They become binding only when a country adopts them into national law. Under the WTO SPS Agreement, measures based on Codex are presumed consistent; stricter national rules are allowed if they are scientifically justified. National law decides what is allowed in a given country. Codex General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA, CXS 192-1995, revised up to 2026): only listed additives are recognised as suitable under the standard; an additive is considered only if JECFA has assigned an ADI (or found it safe on other criteria) and Codex has given it an INS number. Use levels are set per food category. Countries keep their own positive lists, which can be narrower or wider.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not documented internationally.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: No international monitoring of additive use levels; JECFA estimates intake when evaluating additives.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Aspartame (INS 951): IARC (2023) classified it as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B, limited evidence); JECFA (2023) kept the ADI of 0-40 mg/kg bw. IARC classifications describe strength of evidence for hazard, not the size of risk. Processed meat (a processing category, not an additive): IARC Group 1 (colorectal cancer; about 18% higher risk per 50 g eaten daily). Red meat: IARC Group 2A. These are listed here as international reference classifications; claim-level evidence is handled in the project's study files.
E. How robust are the data?: High for the legal reference (primary text). IARC and JECFA answer different questions (hazard vs risk at given intake).

Notes on foods

Red meat: IARC: processed meat Group 1, red meat Group 2A (2015, Monographs Vol. 114).

Sources: RS-INT-13, RS-INT-39, RS-INT-34, RS-INT-32, RS-INT-35

Animal husbandry and feed – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Data quality: low Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: International reference only. Codex texts are voluntary references. They become binding only when a country adopts them into national law. Under the WTO SPS Agreement, measures based on Codex are presumed consistent; stricter national rules are allowed if they are scientifically justified. National law decides what is allowed in a given country. Codex Code of Practice on Good Animal Feeding (CXC 54-2004, amended 2024): antibiotics should not be used in feed for growth promotion without a public health safety assessment; animal products that could carry the BSE agent should not be fed to ruminants; undesirable substances (e.g. mycotoxins, contaminants) in feed should be identified and minimised; feed traceability and records. CXS 193 includes feed MLs only where transfer to food of animal origin is relevant. Aflatoxin B1 in feed for dairy animals is covered by CXC 45-1997. WOAH standards: the Terrestrial Code chapter 6.10 on responsible and prudent use of antimicrobials (cited in the ANIMUSE report). WOAH animal-welfare chapters on housing (e.g. cages) were not verified in this research.
B. What is actually used in production?: WOAH ANIMUSE (2022 data): 22% of reporting Members still allowed or used antimicrobial growth promoters; most reported were bacitracin, tylosin and avilamycin.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: Not documented internationally.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: See vet_drugs (antimicrobial resistance) and mycotoxins (aflatoxin M1 transfer from feed to milk).
E. How robust are the data?: Codex text: high. No international data on housing systems or feed compliance.

Notes on foods

Dairy: Aflatoxin B1 in dairy feed transfers to milk as aflatoxin M1 (CXC 45-1997; CXS 193).

Sources: RS-INT-17, RS-INT-12, RS-INT-24

Controls, imports, recalls, labelling – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: International reference only. Codex texts are voluntary references. They become binding only when a country adopts them into national law. Under the WTO SPS Agreement, measures based on Codex are presumed consistent; stricter national rules are allowed if they are scientifically justified. National law decides what is allowed in a given country. Codex texts on food import and export inspection and certification (e.g. CXG 20-1995, CXG 26-1997, equivalence CXG 53-2003, traceability CXG 60-2006) guide national control systems. There is no international food inspection authority: official controls, recalls and border checks are national. INFOSAN (FAO/WHO) is a voluntary network of national food safety authorities from almost all FAO and WHO members; it shares information on incidents involving internationally traded food. WTO SPS Agreement: Codex standards are the benchmark for food-safety measures in trade disputes.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not applicable.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: INFOSAN does not publish per-country alert statistics comparable to RASFF. Not documented.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Not applicable.
E. How robust are the data?: Codex and WTO texts: high. Implementation varies by country.

Sources: RS-INT-05, RS-INT-03, RS-INT-41, RS-INT-38, RS-INT-37

Drinking water – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Data quality: high Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: International reference only. WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (4th edition incorporating the 1st and 2nd addenda, 2022) are a scientific starting point for national standards; WHO does not promote a single international standard. Selected guideline values: E. coli or thermotolerant coliforms not detectable in any 100 ml sample; arsenic 0.01 mg/l (provisional); lead 0.01 mg/l (provisional); cadmium 0.003 mg/l; nitrate 50 mg/l (as NO3-); nitrite 3 mg/l (as NO2-). WHO recommends water safety plans and independent surveillance. Codex CXC 48-2001 covers hygiene of bottled/packaged drinking water.
B. What is actually used in production?: WHO/UNICEF JMP defines 'safely managed' drinking water as water from an improved source that is accessible on premises, available when needed and free from faecal and priority chemical contamination. Global 2024: 73.7% of the population used safely managed drinking water (WHO GHO); JMP states 1 in 4 people (2.1 billion) still lack it, including 106 million drinking untreated surface water. Urban 83.5%, rural 60.5%.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: JMP estimates combine household surveys, censuses and administrative or regulatory data; water quality testing is included in some household surveys (e.g. MICS). Country-level data are published at washdata.org/data and in the WHO Global Health Observatory.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: WHO (2026) states that many foodborne illnesses and deaths could be prevented with measures including improved water, sanitation and hygiene. GDWQ guideline values are health-based (e.g. nitrate 50 mg/l based on short-term effects).
E. How robust are the data?: JMP is the globally comparable reference (one definition for all countries). Estimates are modelled; the water-quality component is missing or estimated for many countries.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Safely managed drinking water (WHO/UNICEF) water_safely_managed_pct WHO/UNICEF JMP (via WHO GHO, indicator WSH_WATER_SAFELY_MANAGED) Global modelled estimate (GHO value 73.735). World Bank WDI world aggregate: 73.67%. JMP text: '1 in 4 ... still lack access'.	73.7 % of population using safely managed drinking water	2024	–	mixed	all foods	RS-INT-26

Sources: RS-INT-23, RS-INT-41, RS-INT-25, RS-INT-26, RS-INT-40, RS-INT-29

Sources – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO) (41)

RS-INT-01: About Codex (Codex Alimentarius website) – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission Secretariat (2026). https://codex.fao.org/about-codex/about-us (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-02: About Codex texts – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission Secretariat (2026). https://codex.fao.org/codex-texts/about-codex-texts (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-05: Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) – World Trade Organization (1994 (in force 1995)). https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/15sps_01_e.htm (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-07: Codex Pesticide Residues in Food and Feed Database – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (2026). https://codex.fao.org/codex-texts/codex-online-databases/pesticides-residues (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-36: Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) - WHO page – World Health Organization (2026). https://www.who.int/groups/joint-fao-who-meeting-on-pesticide-residues-(jmpr) (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-21: GEMS/Food - Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment Programme (WHO web page) and GEMS/Food Contaminants database landing page – World Health Organization (2026). https://www.who.int/teams/nutrition-and-food-safety/databases/global-environment-monitoring-system-food-contamination (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-29: News release: Unsafe food causes 866 million illnesses and 1.5 million deaths annually, young children at highest risk (4 June 2026) – World Health Organization (2026). https://www.who.int/news/item/04-06-2026-unsafe-food-causes-866-million-illnesses-and-1.5-million-deaths-annually--young-children-at-highest-risk (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-08: CXM 2-2024 Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) and Risk Management Recommendations (RMRs) for Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (2024). https://codex.fao.org/restapi/searchstandard/MRL2e.pdf?lang=en&id=41 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-10: CXC 61-2005 Code of Practice to Minimize and Contain Foodborne Antimicrobial Resistance (amended 2021) – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (2005, amended 2021). https://codex.fao.org/restapi/searchstandard/CXC_061e.pdf?lang=en&id=302 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-11: CXG 94-2021 Guidelines on integrated monitoring and surveillance of foodborne antimicrobial resistance; CXG 77-2011 Guidelines for Risk Analysis of Foodborne AMR (rev. 2021) – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (2021). https://codex.fao.org/restapi/searchstandard/CXG_94e.pdf?lang=en&id=8037 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-17: CXC 54-2004 Code of Practice on Good Animal Feeding (amended 2008, 2024) – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (2004, amended 2024). https://codex.fao.org/restapi/searchstandard/CXC_054e.pdf?lang=en&id=414 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-18: CXG 71-2009 Guidelines for the Design and Implementation of National Regulatory Food Safety Assurance Programmes Associated with the Use of Veterinary Drugs in Food Producing Animals (rev. 2012, 2014) – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (2009, rev. 2014). https://codex.fao.org/restapi/searchstandard/CXG_071e_2014.pdf?lang=en&id=7006 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-19: WHO guidelines on use of medically important antimicrobials in food-producing animals – World Health Organization (2017). https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550130 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-20: WHO List of Medically Important Antimicrobials: a risk management tool for mitigating antimicrobial resistance due to non-human use (WHO MIA List, 7th revision) – World Health Organization (2024). https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/gcp/who-mia-list-2024-lv.pdf?sfvrsn=3320dd3d_2 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-24: Annual Report on Antimicrobial Agents Intended for Use in Animals, 9th report (ANIMUSE) – World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) (2025). https://www.woah.org/app/uploads/2025/05/en-woah-amu-report-2025-final.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-35: Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) - WHO page – World Health Organization (2026). https://www.who.int/groups/joint-fao-who-expert-committee-on-food-additives-(jecfa) (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-09: REP12/CAC Report of the 35th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Rome, 2-7 July 2012 – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (2012). https://www.fao.org/input/download/report/772/REP12_CACe.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-06: DS26: European Communities - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) - case summary – World Trade Organization (1996-2014). https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds26_e.htm (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-12: CXS 193-1995 General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (last amended 2025) – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (1995, amended 2025). https://codex.fao.org/restapi/searchstandard/CXS_193e.pdf?lang=en&id=18 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-41: Codex 'Find a Codex text' list (LoadFilter endpoint behind codex.fao.org/codex-texts/find-a-codex-text) – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (2026). https://codex.fao.org/codex-texts/find-a-codex-text (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-22: GEMS/Food overview fact sheet 'Monitoring exposure to food chemicals' – World Health Organization (2017). https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/food-safety/gems-food/gems-overview-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=d33fae48_2 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-31: WHO estimates of the global, regional, and national burden of 42 foodborne infectious and chemical hazards, 2000-21: an updated data synthesis – Lake RJ, Devleesschauwer B, Majowicz S, et al. (2026). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langlo.2026.103994 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-33: IARC Monographs Volume 100F: Chemical Agents and Related Occupations (A Review of Human Carcinogens) - publication page – International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2012). https://publications.iarc.who.int/123 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-14: CXC 1-1969 General Principles of Food Hygiene (revised 2020, 2022) – FAO and WHO / Codex Alimentarius Commission (1969, rev. 2022 (publ. 2023)). https://codex.fao.org/restapi/searchstandard/CXC_001e.pdf?lang=en&id=23 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-15: CXG 78-2011 Guidelines for the Control of Campylobacter and Salmonella in Chicken Meat – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (2011). https://codex.fao.org/restapi/searchstandard/CXG_078e.pdf?lang=en&id=449 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-16: CXC 15-1976 Code of Hygienic Practice for Eggs and Egg Products (rev. 2007) – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (1976, rev. 2007). https://codex.fao.org/restapi/searchstandard/CXC_015e.pdf?lang=en&id=355 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-04: Codex and science (FAO/WHO scientific advice bodies) – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission Secretariat (2026). https://codex.fao.org/about-codex/about-us/science (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-27: World Health Organization Global Estimates and Regional Comparisons of the Burden of Foodborne Disease in 2010 – Havelaar AH, Kirk MD, Torgerson PR, et al. (WHO FERG) (2015). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001923 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-28: WHO estimates of the global burden of foodborne diseases: Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group 2007-2015 – World Health Organization (2015). https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565165 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-30: WHO estimates of the global burden of foodborne diseases 2000-2021 (2026 edition) - programme page – World Health Organization (2026). https://www.who.int/teams/nutrition-and-food-safety/monitoring-nutritional-status-and-food-safety-and-events/foodborne-disease-estimates/2026-edition (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-13: CXS 192-1995 General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA), revised up to 2026, and GSFA online database – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (1995, rev. 2026). https://codex.fao.org/restapi/searchstandard/CXS_192e.pdf?lang=en&id=353 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-39: Codex online databases (Veterinary Drug Residues in Foods; GSFA) – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (2026). https://codex.fao.org/codex-texts/codex-online-databases (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-34: News release: Aspartame hazard and risk assessment results released (14 July 2023) – World Health Organization / IARC / JECFA (2023). https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-32: IARC Press Release No. 240: IARC Monographs evaluate consumption of red meat and processed meat (Monographs Vol. 114) – International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2015). https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-03: Codex and trade – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission Secretariat (2026). https://codex.fao.org/about-codex/about-us/trade (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-38: International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN) - FAO page – FAO and WHO (2026). https://www.fao.org/food-safety/emergencies/infosan/en (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-37: FAO Food safety and quality - programme page – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2026). https://www.fao.org/food-safety/en/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-23: Guidelines for drinking-water quality: fourth edition incorporating the first and second addenda – World Health Organization (2022). https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240045064 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-25: JMP: Drinking water service ladder and 'Progress on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene 2000-2024: special focus on inequalities' – WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) (2025). https://washdata.org/reports/jmp-2025-wash-households (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-26: WHO Global Health Observatory OData API - indicator WSH_WATER_SAFELY_MANAGED (global, total) – World Health Organization (data from WHO/UNICEF JMP) (2026). https://ghoapi.azureedge.net/api/WSH_WATER_SAFELY_MANAGED?$filter=SpatialDimType%20eq%20'GLOBAL' (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-40: World Bank WDI API - SH.H2O.SMDW.ZS, World aggregate – World Bank (source: WHO/UNICEF JMP) (2026). https://api.worldbank.org/v2/country/WLD/indicator/SH.H2O.SMDW.ZS?format=json&date=2015:2024 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)

← Go to the country overview