Measurement / residue studyindependent cross-checkabstract only checked I-RES-07 standard review
EU veterinary drug residues 2023
Report for 2023 on the results from the monitoring of veterinary medicinal product residues and other substances in live animals and animal products (EFSA news: 'Veterinary drug residues in food - non-compliance stays low in 2023')
Overview
EFSA. EFSA news 2025
Only 0.11% of over half a million samples were non-compliant.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Monitor vet residues.
- How was the study done?
EU plans.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
548,194 samples.
- What was actually found?
0.11% non-compliant.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Rare violations in EU.
- What are the study's limitations?
News page only.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts 'contaminated meat' for EU.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- EFSA
- Journal
- EFSA news
- Year
- 2025
- Identifier
- Verification
- verified – EFSA news page fetched 2026-10-25 (WebFetch); report itself not read.
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
not applicable (official document)
2. Research question
Vet-drug residue compliance in EU animal products 2023
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Measurement / residue study – EFSA annual report on veterinary medicinal product residues 2023 (news page fetched)
- Population
Animals and animal products
- Country
EU + Iceland, Norway
- Period
2023 data (published 25 Feb 2025)
- Sample size
548,194
4. Methods and endpoints
- Comparator
Limits
- Endpoints
Non-compliance
5. Actual results
- Results
Overall 0.11% non-compliant (602 of 548,194); 0.15% risk-based production controls; 0.29% randomised surveillance; 0.23% third-country imports.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Non-compliance stays low.
6. Strengths
- Very large
7. Weaknesses
- Aquaculture not separately reported on the page read
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
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
10. Relevance to the specific claim
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
High.
13. Overall methodological judgement
EU residue compliance is high.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | high |
| Risk of bias | not assessable |
| Precision of results | high |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
Fish-specific figures.
15. Linked fact checks
- Antibiotic residues were detected in farmed seafood sold in the US, including virginiamycin in salmon marketed as antibiotic-free. – Studies with mixed or unclear results
- Current agricultural practices - feeding animals unnatural feed and using hormones - produce contaminated food (archive quote attributed to the episode 'The New Food Pyramid', January 2026). – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim
- Pesticide, antibiotic and hormone residues in food are a main cause of chronic health problems (implied by his theory statement and recurring remarks such as 'you are poisoned: the amount of pesticides and hormones'). – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim
- Beef cattle are injected with hormones (testosterone/androgens, 'Boldex' - presumably boldenone) and antibiotics to fatten them, so the meat is 'injected'. – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim
- Meat today is 'injected' with something that directly damages the nerves (neuropathy); even bone-broth fat carries it; liver concentrates more toxins than meat, and milk even more. – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim