Organic tomatoes really are healthier than those grown conventionally, research suggests.
Despite being smaller, they are packed with more vitamin C and compounds that may combat chronic diseases, the findings show.
The reason for the difference is down to the organic plants' tough upbringing, it is claimed. While conventional tomatoes are treated with pesticides and artificial fertilisers, organic farming forces the fruits to fend for themselves.
The stress they suffer as a result promotes greater concentrations of health-giving chemicals, according to the scientists.
Writing in the online journal Public Library of Science ONE, they argue that making life less easy for commercially grown fruits and vegetables can improve quality.
Opinions are divided over whether organic farm products really are healthier and worth the extra money.
A US review of research studies published last year found that while organic products may taste better, there is no evidence their nutritional value is higher.
The Soil Association, which criticised the review, insists organic farming is better for the environment and for health.
For the new study, scientists compared tomatoes grown on conventional and organic farms in Brazil.
The farms were located within one mile of each other and shared similar natural environments.
Fruits from 30 plants in each farming system were sampled and analysed.
Tomatoes grown on organic farms were 40% smaller than those produced conventionally.
However, their concentrations of vitamin C were up to 57% higher, and ripe fruits contained well over twice the quantity of phenolic compounds.
Plant phenols, such as flavonoids, help the body fight oxidative stress, a form of chemical damage linked to chronic conditions such as heart disease and cancer.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article