Hostname: page-component-594f858ff7-jtv8x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-06-06T08:54:00.289Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": false, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "corePageComponentUseShareaholicInsteadOfAddThis": true, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Comparison of taste quality between organically and conventionally grown fruits and vegetables

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Dov Basker
Senior Scientist, Department of Food Science, Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, PO Box 6, 50250 Bet Dagan, Israel.
Get access


Panels of 40 to 60 “non-expert” consumers attempted to distinguish between the taste of organically and conventionally grown fruits and vegetables. Wherever possible, samples of the two types of produce were obtained by picking them in the growing orchards/fields to avoid any question of authenticity, and cold-stored without treatment under the same conditions, for periods reflecting their shipping time to markets. Some physical, chemical, and instrumental analytical tests were also performed. No consistent preference pattern emerged. For grapefruit, grapes, carrots, spinach, sweet corn and tomatoes, the differences in hedonic ratings and scores between the two types of produce were not significant. For mangoes and orange juice, the conventional type was preferred, while the reverse was true for bananas; in each of these three instances the result could be ascribed to fruit being tasted closer to its optimum maturity.

Screening tests were performed to detect any traces, at the parts-per-billion level, of chlorinated hydrocarbons and organophosphorus compounds used as pesticides, or their degradation products. No traces were detected in any of the samples examined (bananas, grapes, carrots, spinach, sweet corn or tomatoes), whether organically or conventionally grown. In those samples examined (bananas, grapes, carrots, spinach, sweet corn and tomatoes) by quantitative tests for the three major fertilizer elements used conventionally (NPK), nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations were not consistently greater, while potassium concentrations were either equal or greater, than in the organically grown samples. Among the anion analyses performed on orange juice, grapefruit juice, carrots, spinach and tomatoes, nitrates and particularly nitrites either were not detected, or occurred at negligible concentrations in all samples. Phosphates were found at higher concentrations, but not significantly so, in four of the five organic products tested; no phosphates were detected in either type of tomatoes.

Other Feature Articles
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


1.American Society for Testing and Materials. 1968. Manual on Sensory Testing Methods. Committee E-18 on Sensory Evaluation of Materials and Products. ASTM Special Technical Publ. 434. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
2.Amerine, M.A., Pangborn, R.M., and Roessler, E.B.. 1965. Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food. Academic Press, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
3.Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1970. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 11th ed. (W. Horwitz, ed). Washington, D.C. para. 47.012, pp. 931932; para. 47.008, pp. 918–923.Google Scholar
4.Basker, D. 1973. Indirect method for determination of insoluble solids in processed vegetable products. J. Assoc. Official Analytical Chemists 56:1508.Google Scholar
5.Basker, D. 1981. Nonparametric comparison of samples by taste panels: Limits of difference detectable and establishment of nondifference. J. Food Quality 5:16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Basker, D. 1988a. Assessor selection: Procedures and results. In Moskowitz, H.R. (ed). Applied Sensory Analysis of Foods (2 vols). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Vol. 1, pp. 125143.Google Scholar
7.Basker, D. 1988b. Critical values of differences among rank sums for multiple comparisons. Food Technology 42:7984.Google Scholar
8.Basker, D. 1988c. Critical values of differences among rank sums for multiple comparisons by small taste panels. Food Technology 42:8889.Google Scholar
9.Basker, D. 1989. A useful hedonic “Smiley” scale. J. Testing and Evaluation 17:307309.Google Scholar
10.Beharrell, B., and MacFie, J.H.. 1991. Consumer attitudes to organic foods. British Food J. 93(2):2530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Breimer, T. 1982. Environmental Factors and Cultural Measures Affecting the Nitrate Content of Spinach. Nijhoff, M. (ed). W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.British Standards Institution. 1980. Methods for Sensory Analysis of Food. Part 1: Introduction and General Guide. British Standard 5929. London.Google Scholar
13.Brugger, D., Schaumann, D., and Grosch, D.. 1987. Landbau—Alternativ und Konventionell. Auswertungs- und Informationsdienst für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forste e.V., Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
14.Cheema, O.S., and Dani, P.G.. 1934. Report on export of mango to Europe in 1931–32. Bulletin 170. Dept. of Agric., Bombay, India.Google Scholar
15.Duncan, D.B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11:142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Gore, W.L. 1952. Statistical Methods. Interscience, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
17.Helm, E., and Trolle, B.. 1946. Selection of a taste panel. Wallerstein Lab. Commun. 9:181194.Google Scholar
18.Jennings, W.G. 1977. Objective measurements of flavor quality: General approaches, problems, pitfalls and accomplishments. In R.A. Scanlan (ed). Flavor Quality: Objective Measurement. ACS Symposium Series 51, (San Francisco, California, September 1976). Amer. Chemical Soc., Washington, DC. pp. 110.Google Scholar
19.Lapushner, D., Frankel, R., Fuchs, Y., Basker, D., and Edelman, H.. 1981. Tomato fresh market fruit quality from a once-over harvest of nor and rin hybrid arrays: Considerations for mechanical harvest production. Genetics and Breeding of Tomato. Proc. Meet. Eucarpia Tomato Working Group, Avignon, France, pp. 153160.Google Scholar
20.McMahon, B.M., and Sawyer, E.D. (eds). 1986. Pesticide Analytical Manual. Vol. 1: Methods which detect multiple residues. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. Sec. 212.26, 232.4 including Table 1–201 appended thereto, 232.42.Google Scholar
21.Minotti, P.L. 1975. Plant nutrition and vegetable crop quality. HortScience 10:5456.Google Scholar
22.Moskowitz, H.R. (ed). 1988. Applied Sensory Analysis of Foods (2 vols). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
23.National Academy of Sciences. Committee on Nitrite and Alternative Curing Agents in Food. 1981. The Health Effects of Nitrate, Nitrite and N-nitroso Compounds. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
24.Pearson, E.S., and Hartley, H.O.. 1972. Biometrika Tables for Statisticians. Vol. 2. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
25.Reganold, J.P., Papendick, R.I., and Parr, J.F.. 1990. Sustainable agriculture. Scientific American 262(6):112120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Schuster, B.E., and Lee, K.. 1987. Nitrate and nitrite methods of analysis in raw carrots, processed carrots, and in selected vegetables and grain products. J. Food Sci. 52:16321636, 1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Siegel, S. 1956. Nonparametric Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y. pp. 104111, 127136.Google Scholar
28.Sokal, R.R., and Rohlf, F.J.. 1981. Biometry. 2nd ed.W.H. Freeman, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
29.Solms, J., Booth, D.A., Pangborn, R.M., and Raunhardt, O. (eds). 1987. Food Acceptance and Nutrition. Academic Press, London, England.Google Scholar
30.Srivastani, H.C. 1967. Grading, storage and marketing. In Kurup, C.G. Raghava (ed). The Mango: A Handbook. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, pp. 99149.Google Scholar
31.von Loesecke, H.W. 1950. Bananas. Interscience, New York, N.Y. Insert between pp. 108109, p. 68.Google Scholar
32.von Sydow, E. 1975. Flavour—a problem for the consumer or for the food producer? Proc. Royal Soc. (London) B. 191:145153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Woodward, W.W., and Schucany, W.R.. 1977. Combination of a preference pattern with the triangle taste test. Biometrics, 33:3139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed