The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Comparison of the Nutritional Value, Sensory Qualities, and Food Safety of Organically and Conventionally Produced Foods
Abstract
Given the significant increase in consumer interest in organic food products, there is a need to determine to what extent there is a scientific basis for claims made for organic produce. Studies comparing foods derived from organic and conventional growing systems were assessed for three key areas: nutritional value, sensory quality, and food safety. It is evident from this assessment that there are few well-controlled studies that are capable of making a valid comparison. With the possible exception of nitrate content, there is no strong evidence that organic and conventional foods differ in concentrations of various nutrients. Considerations of the impact of organic growing systems on nutrient bioavailability and nonnutrient components have received little attention and are important directions for future research. While there are reports indicating that organic and conventional fruits and vegetables may differ on a variety of sensory qualities, the findings are inconsistent. In future studies, the possibility that typical organic distribution or harvesting systems may deliver products differing in freshness or maturity should be evaluated. There is no evidence that organic foods may be more susceptible to microbiological contamination than conventional foods. While it is likely that organically grown foods are lower in pesticide residues, there has been very little documentation of residue levels.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Vegetables, Fruit, and Cancer Prevention
STEINMETZ, K. A., & POTTER, J. D. (1996) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/s0002-8223(96)00273-8 · Cited by 2,118
DELIZA, R., & MacFIE, H. J. H. (1996) · Journal of Sensory Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1745-459x.1996.tb00036.x · Cited by 763
Cited by
Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2015) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.09.013 · Cited by 855
Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review
Smith-Spangler, C., Brandeau, M. L., Hunter, G. E., Bavinger, J. C., Pearson, M., Eschbach, P. J., Sundaram, V., Liu, H., Schirmer, P., Stave, C., et al. (2012) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00007 · Cited by 602
Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review
Dangour, A. D., Dodhia, S. K., Hayter, A., Allen, E., Lock, K., & Uauy, R. (2009) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.28041 · Cited by 438
Shin, Y. H., Im, J., Jung, S. E., & Severt, K. (2018) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.10.011 · Cited by 358
Organic food: nutritious food or food for thought? A review of the evidence
Magkos, F., Arvaniti, F., & Zampelas, A. (2003) · International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition · doi:10.1080/09637480120092071 · Cited by 329
Metadata
- Authors
- Bourn, D., & Prescott, J.
- Venue
- Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-01
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-34
- ISSN
- 1040-8398 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-7852
- OpenAlex
- W2123276132
- Cited by
- 856
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 15.95
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparison of the Nutritional Value, Sensory Qualities, and Food Safety of Organically and Conventionally Produced Foods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10408690290825439
- The paper
- Bourn, D., & Prescott, J. (2002). A Comparison of the Nutritional Value, Sensory Qualities, and Food Safety of Organically and Conventionally Produced Foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408690290825439
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.