Skip to main content

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
Cancel
×
Home
Article
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by
    Crossref Citations
    Crossref logo
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    De Smet, Stefaan and Vossen, Els 2016. Meat: The balance between nutrition and health. A review. Meat Science, Vol. 120, p. 145.

    ×
  • Access
  • Open access

Composition differences between organic and conventional meat: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

  • Dominika Średnicka-Tober (a1) (a2), Marcin Barański (a1), Chris Seal (a3), Roy Sanderson (a4), Charles Benbrook (a5), Håvard Steinshamn (a6), Joanna Gromadzka-Ostrowska (a7), Ewa Rembiałkowska (a2), Krystyna Skwarło-Sońta (a8), Mick Eyre (a1), Giulio Cozzi (a9), Mette Krogh Larsen (a10), Teresa Jordon (a1), Urs Niggli (a11), Tomasz Sakowski (a12), Philip C. Calder (a13), Graham C. Burdge (a13), Smaragda Sotiraki (a14), Alexandros Stefanakis (a14), Halil Yolcu (a1) (a15), Sokratis Stergiadis (a1) (a16), Eleni Chatzidimitriou (a1), Gillian Butler (a1), Gavin Stewart (a1) and Carlo Leifert (a1)...
Abstract
Abstract

Demand for organic meat is partially driven by consumer perceptions that organic foods are more nutritious than non-organic foods. However, there have been no systematic reviews comparing specifically the nutrient content of organic and conventionally produced meat. In this study, we report results of a meta-analysis based on sixty-seven published studies comparing the composition of organic and non-organic meat products. For many nutritionally relevant compounds (e.g. minerals, antioxidants and most individual fatty acids (FA)), the evidence base was too weak for meaningful meta-analyses. However, significant differences in FA profiles were detected when data from all livestock species were pooled. Concentrations of SFA and MUFA were similar or slightly lower, respectively, in organic compared with conventional meat. Larger differences were detected for total PUFA and n-3 PUFA, which were an estimated 23 (95 % CI 11, 35) % and 47 (95 % CI 10, 84) % higher in organic meat, respectively. However, for these and many other composition parameters, for which meta-analyses found significant differences, heterogeneity was high, and this could be explained by differences between animal species/meat types. Evidence from controlled experimental studies indicates that the high grazing/forage-based diets prescribed under organic farming standards may be the main reason for differences in FA profiles. Further studies are required to enable meta-analyses for a wider range of parameters (e.g. antioxidant, vitamin and mineral concentrations) and to improve both precision and consistency of results for FA profiles for all species. Potential impacts of composition differences on human health are discussed.

  • View HTML
      • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Composition differences between organic and conventional meat: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Composition differences between organic and conventional meat: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Composition differences between organic and conventional meat: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
COPYRIGHT: © The Authors 2016
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Corresponding author
*Corresponding author: Professor C. Leifert, fax +44 1661 831 006, email carlo.leifert@newcastle.ac.uk
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

3. E Oughton & C Ritson (2007) Food consumers and organic agriculture. In Handbook of Organic Food Quality and Safety, pp. 74–94 [J Cooper, U Niggli and C Leifert, editors]. Cambridge: Woodhouse Publishing Ltd.
4. AD Dangour , SK Dodhia , A Hayter , et al. (2009) Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr 90, 680–685.
5. K Brandt , C Leifert , R Sanderson , et al. (2011) Agroecosystem management and nutritional quality of plant foods: the case of organic fruits and vegetables. Crit Rev Plant Sci 30, 177–197.
6. J Cooper , U Niggli & C Leifert (2007) Handbook of Organic Food Safety and Quality. Cambridge: CRC Press.
7. P Williams (2007) Nutritional composition of red meat. Nutr Diet 64, S113–S119.
8. E Palupi , A Jayanegara , A Ploeger , et al. (2012) Comparison of nutritional quality between conventional and organic dairy products: a meta-analysis. J Sci Food Agric 92, 2774–2781.
12. JB German , RA Gibson , RM Krauss , et al. (2009) A reappraisal of the impact of dairy foods and milk fat on cardiovascular disease risk. Eur J Nutr 48, 191–203.
15. V Wijendran & KC Hayes (2004) Dietary n-6 and n-3 fatty acid balance and cardiovascular health. Annu Rev Nutr 24, 597–615.
18. TL Blasbalg , JR Hibbeln , CE Ramsden , et al. (2011) Changes in consumption of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids in the United States during the 20th century. Am J Clin Nutr 93, 950–962.
19. TL Ulbricht & DA Southgate (1991) Coronary heart disease: seven dietary factors. Lancet 338, 985–992.
21.European Food Safety Authority (2010) Scientific opinion on dietary reference values for fats, including saturated fatty acids, polyunsaturated fatty acids, monounsaturated fatty acids, trans fatty acids, and cholesterol. EFSA J 8, 1461.
22. F Massiera , P Barbry , P Guesnet , et al. (2010) A western-like fat diet is sufficient to induce a gradual enhancement in fat mass over generations. J Lipid Res 51, 2352–2361.
26. O Franci , R Bozzi , C Pugliese , et al. (2005) Performance of Cinta Senese pigs and their crosses with Large White. 1 Muscle and subcutaneous fat characteristics. Meat Sci 69, 545–550.
29. G Stewart (2010) Meta-analysis in applied ecology. Biol Lett 6, 78–81.
32. W Viechtbauer (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 36, 1–48.
33. LV Hedges & I Olkin (1985) Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
36. LV Hedges , J Gurevitch & PS Curtis (1999) The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80, 1150–1156.
38. HR Rothstein , AJ Sutton & M Borenstein (2006) Publication bias in meta-analysis. In Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments, pp. 1–7 [HR Rothstein, AJ Sutton and M Borenstein, editors]. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
39. J Gurevitch & LV Hedges (1999) Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses. Ecology 80, 1142–1149.
41. GH Guyatt , AD Oxman , GE Vist , et al. (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336, 924–926.
43. AV Fisher , M Enser , RI Richardson , et al. (2000) Fatty acid composition and eating quality of lamb types derived from four diverse breed x production systems. Meat Sci 55, 141–147.
45. V Nilzen , J Babol , PC Dutta , et al. (2001) Free range rearing of pigs with access to pasture grazing-effect on fatty acid composition and lipid oxidation products. Meat Sci 58, 267–275.
46. H Hirt & E Zeltner (2007) Effects of organic husbandry methods and feeding regimes on poultry quality. In Handbook of Organic Food Quality and Safety, pp. 117–143 [J Cooper, U Niggli and C Leifert, editors]. Cambridge: Woodhouse Publishing Ltd.
47. A Sundrum (2007) Quality in organic, low-input and conventional pig production. In Handbook of Organic Food Quality and Safety, pp. 144–177 [J Cooper, U Niggli and C Leifert, editors]. Cambridge: Woodhouse Publishing Ltd.
48. S Kamihiro , S Stergiadis , C Leifert , et al. (2015) Meat quality and health implications of organic and conventional beef production. Meat Sci 100, 306–318.
52. G Butler , JH Nielsen , MK Larsen , et al. (2011) The effects of dairy management and processing on quality characteristics of milk and dairy products. NJAS Wagening J Life Sci 58, 97–102.
53. AF Bouwman , KW Van der Hoek , B Eickhout , et al. (2005) Exploring changes in world ruminant production systems. Agric Syst 84, 121–153.
58. MD Fraser , MHM Speijers , VJ Theobald , et al. (2004) Production performance and meat quality of grazing lambs finished on red clover, lucerne or perennial ryegrass swards. Grass Forage Sci 59, 345–356.
59. J Cooper , R Sanderson , I Cakmak , et al. (2011) Effect of organic and conventional crop rotation, fertilization, and crop protection practices on metal contents in wheat (Triticum aestivum). J Agric Food Chem 59, 4715–4724.
60. SN Kleinbeck & JJ McGlone (1999) Intensive indoor versus outdoor swine production systems: genotype and supplemental iron effects on blood hemoglobin and selected immune measures in young pigs. J Anim Sci 77, 2384–2390.
61. I Blanco-Penedo , RF Shore , M Miranda , et al. (2009) Factors affecting trace element status in calves in NW Spain. Livest Sci 123, 198–208.
63. SK Raatz , JT Silverstein , L Jahns , et al. (2013) Issues of fish consumption for cardiovascular disease risk reduction. Nutrients 5, 1081–1097.
66. LWJ van den Elsen , BCAM van Esch , GA Hofman , et al. (2013) Dietary long chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids prevent allergic sensitization to cow’s milk protein in mice. Clin Exp Allergy 43, 798–810.
69. JT Brenna , N Jr Salem , AJ Sinclair , et al. (2009) alpha-Linolenic acid supplementation and conversion to n-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in humans. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 80, 85–91.
71. GC Burdge & PC Calder (2005) Conversion of alpha-linolenic acid to longer-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in human adults. Reprod Nutr Dev 45, 581–597.
74. T Kato , N Kolenic & RS Pardini (2007) Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), a primary tumor suppressive omega-3 fatty acid, inhibits growth of colorectal cancer independent of p53 mutational status. Nutr Cancer 58, 178–187.
75. PM Pereira & AF Vicente (2013) Meat nutritional composition and nutritive role in the human diet. Meat Sci 93, 586–592.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

British Journal of Nutrition
  • ISSN: 0007-1145
  • EISSN: 1475-2662
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *

CAPTCHA *

Skip to the audio challenge
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary Materials

Średnicka-Tober supplementary material
Średnicka-Tober supplementary material 1

 Word (1.9 MB)
1.9 MB
WORD
Supplementary Materials

Średnicka-Tober supplementary material
Appendix

 Word (50 KB)
50 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 236
Total number of PDF views: 1306 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 3281 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 29th June 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Cancel
Confirm
×