Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 453

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Organic agriculture: does it enhance or reduce the nutritional value of plant foods?

Brandt, Kirsten, Mølgaard, Jens Peter·2001·Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture

Abstract

The possible differences between organic and conventional plant products are examined from the view of possible effects on human health. It is concluded that nutritionally important differences relating to contents of minerals, vitamins, proteins and carbohydrates are not likely, primarily since none of these are deficient in typical First World diets, nor are present levels of pesticide residues in conventional products a cause for concern. However, there is reason to believe that contents of many defence‐related secondary metabolites in the diet are lower than optimal for human health, even for those where too high levels are known to be harmful. High biological activity resulting in adverse effects on growth of animals and children may be directly linked with promotion of longevity. There is ample, but circumstantial, evidence that, on average, organic vegetables and fruits most likely contain more of these compounds than conventional ones, allowing for the possibility that organic plant foods may in fact benefit human health more than corresponding conventional ones. The authors define testable scientific hypotheses which should be further investigated to provide more definitive answers to the question. © 2001 Society of Chemical Industry

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jsfa.903

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Brandt, K., & Mølgaard, J. P.
Venue
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-06-14
Volume
81
Issue
9
Pages
924-931
ISSN
  • 0022-5142 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0010
OpenAlex
W2067248593
Cited by
453
References
2
FWCI
8.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.