Narrative reviewcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-EGG-09 standard review
US review: antibiotic residues in poultry and eggs
Antibiotic residues in poultry tissues and eggs: human health concerns?
Overview
Donoghue DJ. Poult Sci 2003 · PMID 12710482 · DOI 10.1093/ps/82.4.618
The author says US poultry foods are monitored and very safe.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: low
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Are antibiotic residues in poultry tissues and eggs a human health concern?
- How was the study done?
Narrative review of US federal oversight of antibiotic residues in poultry
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable; US poultry supply
- What was actually found?
Describes FDA/USDA approval, tolerance setting and monitoring; states that US foods including poultry are very safe and meet the highest standards.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Residue monitoring exists to keep drug levels below safe limits.
- What are the study's limitations?
Narrative, 2003; No data in abstract; US only
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts the archive claim.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate (similar MRL principle).
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot tell residue levels in other countries.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Donoghue DJ
- Journal
- Poult Sci
- Year
- 2003
- Identifier
- PMID 12710482 DOI 10.1093/ps/82.4.618
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
No COI statement in record
2. Research question
Are antibiotic residues in poultry tissues and eggs a human health concern?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Narrative review – Narrative review of US federal oversight of antibiotic residues in poultry
- Population
US poultry supply
- Country
USA
- Period
Up to 2003
- Sample size
Not applicable
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Not systematic
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Antimicrobial use in poultry
- Comparator
Not applicable
- Endpoints
Regulatory oversight; monitoring
- Statistical methods
Not applicable
5. Actual results
- Results
Describes FDA/USDA approval, tolerance setting and monitoring; states that US foods including poultry are very safe and meet the highest standards.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Consumer perception of high residues is not supported; oversight ensures safety.
6. Strengths
- Describes regulatory framework
7. Weaknesses
- Narrative, 2003
- No data in abstract
- US only
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- none applicable
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- not assessable
- Rationale
Narrative review; possible institutional perspective.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Not applicable.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
11. Independent contrary findings
Is itself counter-evidence.
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Moderate (similar MRL principle).
13. Overall methodological judgement
Cited against its own conclusion.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | low |
| Risk of bias | not assessable |
| Precision of results | not applicable |
| Directness | indirect |
| Reproducibility | unknown |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | unknown |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not supported by the study |
14. Open questions
Current residue data.
15. Linked fact checks
- Commercial eggs carry antibiotic residues that harm health. – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim
Use by the Tayebat archive
Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.
- What the archive says about the study
Listed in bibliography; the summary mentions antibiotic residues in eggs.
- A. What was actually studied?
US residue regulation.
- B. What did the authors find?
The author concludes US poultry foods are very safe.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
Residue concerns are a perception problem.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Cited in support of "antibiotic residues" in industrial eggs.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Not justified: the source argues the opposite of the archive claim.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not supported by the study