Measurement / residue studyindependent cross-checkabstract only checked I-RES-09 standard review
Hormones in Egyptian meat (ELISA)
Hormonal residues in chicken and cattle meat: A risk threat the present and future consumer health.
Overview
Kamaly HF & Sharkawy AA. Food Chem Toxicol 2023 · PMID 37956705 · DOI 10.1016/j.fct.2023.114172
A small study reported high hormone levels, but its method cannot tell natural from added hormones.
Does the study support the specific claim? Unclear · Methodological quality: low
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Measure hormones.
- How was the study done?
ELISA.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
148 samples.
- What was actually found?
High estimated intake.
- How large was the observed effect?
HI > 1.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Data gap in Egypt.
- What are the study's limitations?
Weak method.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Unclear.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Low.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Illegal use.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Kamaly HF & Sharkawy AA
- Journal
- Food Chem Toxicol
- Year
- 2023
- Identifier
- PMID 37956705 DOI 10.1016/j.fct.2023.114172
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
2. Research question
Hormone residues in Egyptian chicken and cattle meat
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Measurement / residue study – ELISA measurement of estradiol, progesterone, testosterone in retail chicken and beef with risk assessment
- Population
92 chicken, 56 beef samples
- Country
Egypt (Assiut)
- Period
2022
- Sample size
148
4. Methods and endpoints
- Comparator
ADI
- Endpoints
Hormone levels; EDI; HI
- Statistical methods
ELISA
5. Actual results
- Results
EDI of estradiol exceeded ADI in almost all samples; HI of estradiol and testosterone > 1 in all samples; no Egyptian limits set.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Monitoring urgently needed.
6. Strengths
- Addresses data gap
7. Weaknesses
- ELISA cannot distinguish endogenous from administered hormones
- Small
- Unusual risk framework
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- none applicable
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- high
- Rationale
Method limits.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
10. Relevance to the specific claim
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Low.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Weak evidence; flags a data gap.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | low |
| Risk of bias | high |
| Precision of results | low |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | not replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | unknown |
| Regional transferability | low |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
Confirmatory LC-MS/MS data.
15. Linked fact checks
- Beef cattle are injected with hormones (testosterone/androgens, 'Boldex' - presumably boldenone) and antibiotics to fatten them, so the meat is 'injected'. – Studies supporting 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 with mixed or unclear results