Cited by 438Organic Food and AgricultureFood and Agricultural SciencesConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling

Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review

Open access
Dangour, Alan D, Dodhia, Sakhi K, Hayter, Arabella, Allen, Elizabeth, Lock, Karen, Uauy, Ricardo·2009·The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Background Despite growing consumer demand for organically produced foods, information based on a systematic review of their nutritional quality is lacking.Objective We sought to quantitatively assess the differences in reported nutrient content between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs.Design We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and CAB Abstracts for a period of 50 y from 1 January 1958 to 29 February 2008, contacted subject experts, and hand-searched bibliographies. We included peer-reviewed articles with English abstracts in the analysis if they reported nutrient content comparisons between organic and conventional foodstuffs. Two reviewers extracted study characteristics, quality, and data. The analyses were restricted to the most commonly reported nutrients.Results From a total of 52,471 articles, we identified 162 studies (137 crops and 25 livestock products); 55 were of satisfactory quality. In an analysis that included only satisfactory-quality studies, conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity. No evidence of a difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient categories analyzed. Analysis of the more limited database on livestock products found no evidence of a difference in nutrient content between organically and conventionally produced livestock products.Conclusions On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.

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 · 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28041

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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.

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. European Community Council Regulation. Council Regulation (EC) no. 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of or- ganic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) no. 2092/91. In: EEC, ed. Official Journal of the European Union. Brussels, Belgium: Euro- pean Community Council Regulation, 2007:1-23.
  2. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283:2008-12.
  3. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic review of interventions. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dangour, A. D., Dodhia, S. K., Hayter, A., Allen, E., Lock, K., & Uauy, R.
Affiliations
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Dangour, Alan D
Venue
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-09
Volume
90
Issue
3
Pages
680-685
ISSN
0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2130827812
Cited by
438
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 43
FWCI
3.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Organic Food and Agriculture
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food and Agricultural Sciences
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Keywords
organic food, conventional food, nutrient content, nitrogen, phosphorus, titratable acidity, livestock products, food quality
MeSH terms
Acids, Food Analysis, Humans, Nitrogen, Nutritive Value, Phosphorus, Crops, Agricultural, Food, Organic

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