Cited by 685Organic Food and AgriculturePhytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesFood Nutrient Composition and Product Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 114 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses

Open access

Abstract

Demand for organic foods is partially driven by consumers' perceptions that they are more nutritious. However, scientific opinion is divided on whether there are significant nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods, and two recent reviews have concluded that there are no differences. In the present study, we carried out meta-analyses based on 343 peer-reviewed publications that indicate statistically significant and meaningful differences in composition between organic and non-organic crops/crop-based foods. Most importantly, the concentrations of a range of antioxidants such as polyphenolics were found to be substantially higher in organic crops/crop-based foods, with those of phenolic acids, flavanones, stilbenes, flavones, flavonols and anthocyanins being an estimated 19 (95 % CI 5, 33) %, 69 (95 % CI 13, 125) %, 28 (95 % CI 12, 44) %, 26 (95 % CI 3, 48) %, 50 (95 % CI 28, 72) % and 51 (95 % CI 17, 86) % higher, respectively. Many of these compounds have previously been linked to a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including CVD and neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers, in dietary intervention and epidemiological studies. Additionally, the frequency of occurrence of pesticide residues was found to be four times higher in conventional crops, which also contained significantly higher concentrations of the toxic metal Cd. Significant differences were also detected for some other (e.g. minerals and vitamins) compounds. There is evidence that higher antioxidant concentrations and lower Cd concentrations are linked to specific agronomic practices (e.g. non-use of mineral N and P fertilisers, respectively) prescribed in organic farming systems. In conclusion, organic crops, on average, have higher concentrations of antioxidants, lower concentrations of Cd and a lower incidence of pesticide residues than the non-organic comparators across regions and production seasons.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review and meta-analysis of 343 peer-reviewed publications reports that organic crops/crop-based foods have higher antioxidant activity and higher concentrations of several antioxidants/(poly)phenolics, lower Cd concentrations, and a lower frequency of detectable pesticide residues than conventional comparators. The authors conclude these differences are statistically significant and potentially nutritionally meaningful, while noting high heterogeneity and uncertainty about human health impacts.

Key findings

  • Organic crops had substantially higher concentrations of several antioxidants/(poly)phenolics: phenolic acids 19 % (95 % CI 5, 33) %, flavanones 69 % (95 % CI 13, 125) %, stilbenes 28 % (95 % CI 12, 44) %, flavones 26 % (95 % CI 3, 48) %, flavonols 50 % (95 % CI 28, 72) %, and anthocyanins 51 % (95 % CI 17, 86) % higher; antioxidant activity was 17 % (95 % CI 3, 32) % higher in organic crops.
  • The frequency of detectable pesticide residues was four times higher in conventional crops: 46 % (95 % CI 38, 55) % of conventional samples vs 11 % (95 % CI 7, 14) % of organic samples.
  • Organic crops had lower Cd concentrations, with a mean percentage difference of −48 % (95 % CI −112, 16) %, and lower total N (−10 %, 95 % CI −15, −4), proteins (−15 %, 95 % CI −27, −3), amino acids (−11 %, 95 % CI −14, −8), and fibre (−8 %, 95 % CI −14, −2); they had higher total carbohydrates (25 %, 95 % CI 5, 45) and reducing sugars (7 %, 95 % CI 4, 11).
  • No significant differences were detected for As and Pb; for minerals, organic crops had lower Cr (−59 %, 95 % CI −147, 30) and Sr (−26 %, 95 % CI −45, −6) but higher Mo (65 %, 95 % CI 26, 105) and Rb (82 %, 95 % CI 6, 157). GRADE assessment indicated moderate or high reliability for most antioxidant/(poly)phenolic parameters with significant differences and moderate reliability for Cd.

Methods

  • Systematic literature review and meta-analyses based on 343 peer-reviewed publications; 156 publications met criteria for the standard weighted meta-analysis and 343 for the standard unweighted meta-analysis. Searches used Web of Knowledge for January 1992–December 2011, plus 208 additional publications, yielding 17 333 references; 448 suitable publications were identified and 105 rejected.
  • Data came from matched farm comparisons (116 papers), basket/retail surveys (55 papers), controlled field experiments (154 papers), or more than one study type (18 papers). Weighted random-effects meta-analyses used standardised mean differences; unweighted meta-analyses used ln-transformed organic:conventional mean ratios; pesticide residue frequency was analysed with ln OR; sensitivity analyses and an adapted GRADE assessment were performed.
  • Analyses covered 182 composition parameters from 907 reported parameters, including antioxidants/(poly)phenolics, vitamins, macronutrients, minerals, toxic metals, nitrate/nitrite, and pesticide residues.

Limitations

  • The paper states that heterogeneity was extremely high (I² > 75 %) for most composition parameters, publication bias was strongly suspected for approximately half of parameters, and many studies lacked standardised measurements, measures of variance/replication, or certified reference materials.
  • The paper states that pesticide residue comparisons were limited: only eleven studies compared frequencies, eight focused on one crop species, no comparative studies for cereals, oilseeds and pulses were identified, and available data did not allow robust comparisons of pesticide concentrations.
  • The paper states that human health impacts remain uncertain: there is a lack of knowledge about uptake, bioavailability and mechanisms of (poly)phenolics, only two human dietary intervention studies used conventional vs organic diets and were inconclusive, and potential health benefits of lower Cd or pesticide exposure are difficult to estimate. Evident from the text: the meta-analysis synthesises observational and field studies and cannot establish causality, and high variation by crop type, country, and agronomic/pedo-climatic background limits generalisability.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0007114514001366

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Fig. 1 Summary of the search and selection protocols used to identify papers included in the meta-analyses. * Review carried out by one reviewer; † Data extraction carried out by two reviewers. CF, comparison of matched farms; BS, basket studies; EX, controlled field experiments.
Fig. 1 Summary of the search and selection protocols used to identify papers included in the meta-analyses. * Review carried out by one reviewer; † Data extraction carried out by two reviewers. CF, comparison of matched farms; BS, basket studies; EX, controlled field experiments.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Meta-analysis strategy used for the identification of data sets in the literature review. * References are summarised in Table S2 (available online). RD, risk difference.
Fig. 2 Meta-analysis strategy used for the identification of data sets in the literature review. * References are summarised in Table S2 (available online). RD, risk difference.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Results of the standard unweighted and weighted meta-analyses for antioxidant activity, plant secondary metabolites with antioxidant activity, macronutrients, nitrogen compounds and cadmium (data reported for all crops and crop-based foods included in the same analysis). MPD, mean percentage difference; CONV, conventional food samples; ORG, organic food samples; n, number of data points included in the meta-analyses; FRAP, ferric reducing antioxidant potential; ORAC, oxygen radical absorbance capacity; TEAC, Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity; SMD, standardised mean difference. Values are standardised mean differences, with 95 % confidence intervals represented by horizontal bars. * P value < 0·05 indicates a significant difference between ORG and CONV. † Numerical values for MPD and standard errors are given in Table S9 (available online). ‡ Ln ratio = Ln(ORG/CONV × 100 %). § Heterogeneity and the I 2 statistic. ∥ Data reported for different compounds within the same chemical group were included in the same meta-analyses. ¶ Outlying data points (where the MPD between ORG and CONV was more than fifty times greater than the mean value including the outliers) were removed. ○, MPD calculated using data included in the standard unweighted meta-analysis; , MPD calculated using data included in the standard weighted meta-analysis; ◆, SMD.
Fig. 3 Results of the standard unweighted and weighted meta-analyses for antioxidant activity, plant secondary metabolites with antioxidant activity, macronutrients, nitrogen compounds and cadmium (data reported for all crops and crop-based foods included in the same analysis). MPD, mean percentage difference; CONV, conventional food samples; ORG, organic food samples; n, number of data points included in the meta-analyses; FRAP, ferric reducing antioxidant potential; ORAC, oxygen radical absorbance capacity; TEAC, Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity; SMD, standardised mean difference. Values are standardised mean differences, with 95 % confidence intervals represented by horizontal bars. * P value < 0·05 indicates a significant difference between ORG and CONV. † Numerical values for MPD and standard errors are given in Table S9 (available online). ‡ Ln ratio = Ln(ORG/CONV × 100 %). § Heterogeneity and the I 2 statistic. ∥ Data reported for different compounds within the same chemical group were included in the same meta-analyses. ¶ Outlying data points (where the MPD between ORG and CONV was more than fifty times greater than the mean value including the outliers) were removed. ○, MPD calculated using data included in the standard unweighted meta-analysis; , MPD calculated using data included in the standard weighted meta-analysis; ◆, SMD.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Results of the standard unweighted and weighted meta-analyses for different crop types/products for antioxidant activity, plant secondary metabolites with antioxidant activity, macronutrients, nitrogen and cadmium. MPD, mean percentage difference; CONV, conventional food samples; ORG, organic food samples; n, number of data points included in the meta-analyses; SMD, standardised mean difference. Values are standardised mean differences, with 95 % confidence intervals represented by horizontal bars. * P value < 0·05 indicates a significant difference between ORG and CONV. † Numerical values for MPD and standard errors are given in Table S10 (available online). ‡ For parameters for which n≤ 3 for specific crops/products, results obtained in the weighted meta-analyses are not shown. § Ln ratio = Ln(ORG/CONV × 100 %). ∥ Data reported for different compounds within the same chemical group were included in the same meta-analyses. ¶ Outlying data points (where the MPD between ORG and CONV was more than fifty times greater than the mean value including the outliers) were removed. ○, MPD calculated using data included in the standard unweighted meta-analysis; , MPD calculated using data included in the standard weighted meta-analysis; ◆, SMD.
Fig. 4 Results of the standard unweighted and weighted meta-analyses for different crop types/products for antioxidant activity, plant secondary metabolites with antioxidant activity, macronutrients, nitrogen and cadmium. MPD, mean percentage difference; CONV, conventional food samples; ORG, organic food samples; n, number of data points included in the meta-analyses; SMD, standardised mean difference. Values are standardised mean differences, with 95 % confidence intervals represented by horizontal bars. * P value < 0·05 indicates a significant difference between ORG and CONV. † Numerical values for MPD and standard errors are given in Table S10 (available online). ‡ For parameters for which n≤ 3 for specific crops/products, results obtained in the weighted meta-analyses are not shown. § Ln ratio = Ln(ORG/CONV × 100 %). ∥ Data reported for different compounds within the same chemical group were included in the same meta-analyses. ¶ Outlying data points (where the MPD between ORG and CONV was more than fifty times greater than the mean value including the outliers) were removed. ○, MPD calculated using data included in the standard unweighted meta-analysis; , MPD calculated using data included in the standard weighted meta-analysis; ◆, SMD.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Results of the standard weighted meta-analysis comparing ln OR for the frequency of occurrence of pesticide residues (percentage of positive samples) in organic and conventional crops. A mixed-effect model with crop/product group as a moderator was used. OR, ln OR for each product group (◆); ORG, organic food samples; CONV, conventional food samples; n, number of data points included in the meta-analyses. Values are odds ratios, with 95 % confidence intervals represented by horizontal bars. * P value < 0·05 indicates a significant difference between ORG and CONV. † Crops/product groups for which n≤ 3 were removed from the plots. ‡ Compound foods.
Fig. 5 Results of the standard weighted meta-analysis comparing ln OR for the frequency of occurrence of pesticide residues (percentage of positive samples) in organic and conventional crops. A mixed-effect model with crop/product group as a moderator was used. OR, ln OR for each product group (◆); ORG, organic food samples; CONV, conventional food samples; n, number of data points included in the meta-analyses. Values are odds ratios, with 95 % confidence intervals represented by horizontal bars. * P value < 0·05 indicates a significant difference between ORG and CONV. † Crops/product groups for which n≤ 3 were removed from the plots. ‡ Compound foods.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

51 Own result · 47 Not checked yet · 20 Own interpretation · 10 No basis given · 7 Own method · 2 Sources not found

Verify all 108 references — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 48
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 32
73 of 73
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The organic status of crops in the included studies (as reported by authors or labels) accurately reflects organic production standards.

    “Data from all the three types of studies were deemed relevant for the meta-analyses if the authors stated that (1) organic farms included in farm surveys were using organic farming methods, (2) organic products collected in retail surveys were labelled as organic, and (3) organic plots used in EX were managed according to organic farming standards.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The included studies are representative of organic and conventional crop production across regions and production seasons.

    “Approximately 70 % of all the studies included in the meta-analyses were carried out in Europe, mainly in Italy, Spain, Poland, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Turkey, Denmark, Finland and Germany, with most of the remaining studies being carried out in the USA, Brazil, Canada and Japan”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Peer review is a valid quality selection criterion for included studies.

    “Only four non-peer-reviewed papers with suitable data sets were identified but subsequently rejected, as the small number minimised any potential bias( 28 ) from using peer review as a ‘quality’ selection criterion.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Crop management practices rather than the certification process affect crop performance and composition.

    “the crop management practices rather than the certification process were assumed to affect crop performance and composition.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Biodynamic standards comply with the legal European Union organic farming standards.

    “as biodynamic standards comply with the legal European Union organic farming standards.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    European and North American diets typically provide sufficient or even excessive amounts of proteins and essential amino acids.

    “as European and North American diets typically provide sufficient or even excessive amounts of proteins and essential amino acids.”
6 of 6

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 71 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Lampkin, 2002, Organic Farming
  2. 2005, Commission Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC, Off J Eur Union, 70, 1
  3. 2008, Commission Regulation (EC) No. 629/2008 of 2 July 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No. 1881/2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs, Off J Eur Union, 173, 6

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 685

Metadata

Authors
Barański, M., Średnicka-Tober, D., Volakakis, N., Seal, C., Sanderson, R., Stewart, G. B., Benbrook, C., Biavati, B., Markellou, E., Giotis, C., Gromadzka-Ostrowska, J., Rembiałkowska, E., Skwarło-Sońta, K., Tahvonen, R., Janovská, D., Niggli, U., Nicot, P., & Leifert, C.
Affiliations
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
  • Washington State University (US)
  • University of Bologna (IT)
  • Benaki Phytopathological Institute (GR)
  • Technological Educational Institute of the Ionian Islands (GR)
  • Warsaw University of Life Sciences (PL)
  • Agrifood Research Finland (FI)
  • Czech Agrifood Research Center (CZ)
  • Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau (DE)
  • Pathologie végétale (FR)
Corresponding author
Leifert, Carlo
Venue
British Journal of Nutrition
Published
2014-07-15
Volume
112
Issue
5
Pages
794-811
ISSN
  • 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2662
OpenAlex
W2119995313
Cited by
684
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 53 · 2017: 63 · 2016: 64 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 9
FWCI
6.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal Of Nutrition (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Organic Eprints (International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems, and Research Institute of Organic Agriculture) (acceptedVersion)
  • Jukuri (Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke)) (submittedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Helsingin Yliopisto
  • Newcastle University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Organic Food and Agriculture
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Biochemistry (medical) › Phytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Nutrient Composition and Product Development
Keywords
organic farming, antioxidants, polyphenols, cadmium, pesticide residues, flavonoids, anthocyanins, stilbenes, flavonols, flavanones, phenolic acids, nutritional composition, vitamin and mineral content, fertilizer use
MeSH terms
Antioxidants, Cadmium, Flavonoids, Humans, Nutritive Value, Pesticide Residues, Crops, Agricultural, Food, Organic, Organic Agriculture, Polyphenols, Hydroxybenzoates

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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