I recently saw a local TV report on health topics who's subject is "The liver is the cleanest organ in the body. Detoxification with juices or pills is unnecessary".

"Cleanest" makes sense in my own language and it basically means "empty of toxins, antibiotics, and other toxins".

The food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breath can be contaminated with different toxins or chemicals that end up in the body. The liver's cleans the body of these substances. While doing that, the liver does not retain the toxins or the chemicals. Because of that any "detoxification" program is unnecessary for the liver (or for the colon, for that matter, who has the same properly of eliminating bad things without storing them). The pharma industry takes advantage of the fact that people don't know this and sell us "liver detox" products. But that's not what I want to ask about.

The report makes a (weird ?! unfortunate ?!) parallel with industrial, factory farmed chicken. Chicken get treated with antibiotics, growth hormones and all sorts of medicine and chemicals, and all of these - toxins basically - end up in the meat of the chicken we consume. So this raises the question. Which is the safest meat to consume so we don't ingest toxins? Chicken, pork, beef or fish? And the answer is the animal's liver which as explained above eliminates chemicals but does not store them. So from all of the meat products from chicken, the liver is the one empty of toxins (or the safest, "cleanest" meat).

Now, I'm not a doctor or a scientist, or a journalist that put all this information together in a TV report, but for some reason this doesn't fully make sense.

So the question is: from all chicken meat products, is the liver the one with the smallest amount of toxins, thus the one safest to eat from the whole chicken? (again, for animals that were treated with antibiotic, hormones, medicine, etc, not organic pasture raised animals who should be free of bad chemicals). Or does it contain the same bad stuff as the rest of the meat?

  • In English, the claim has no meaning. What does it mean to be cleanest? Perhaps in the original language it is clearer? Would anyone like to retranslate what the intention of the claim is, please? – Oddthinking Mar 5 at 11:24
  • It reads at first as if it is a plug for 'healthy eating' liver, but the page talks mainly about "detoxification", which the article says would be unnecessary, and especially superfluous for either liver or colon. – LаngLаngС Mar 5 at 11:41
  • @Oddthinking: does it make more sense now? See edit. – Pips Mar 5 at 18:11
  • 2
    No, I am afraid it doesn't make much more sense. "Toxins" is being used in a pseudo-scientific way here: detoxification with juices isn't an evidence-based treatment, the definition of toxins is meaningless, the usage of "chemicals" is unclear, the definition of "safest" to only refer to "toxins" is odd. (e.g. Liver can be very high in Vitamin A, which means it can help if you are low in vitamin A, and that it leads to problems if you eat too much. Is that a toxin?) – Oddthinking Mar 5 at 21:22
  • 1
    I don't think so. Questions about claims that aren't even clear enough to have answer (i.e. are in "not even wrong" territory) tend to remain unanswered here. Far better to get it fixed before we start. I tried to find some other sources of the claim to show both notability and get a clearer idea of the claim, but all I got were articles reassuring people that chicken livers did not store the chemicals it filtered out. – Oddthinking Mar 6 at 11:20