Organic versus Conventional: A Scanner May Say Which Is Healthier

A mobile scanner may tell shoppers which piece of fruit has the most vitamins

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Are organic foods more nutritious than conventionally raised ones? Stanford University scientists cast doubt on that concept last year in a widely publicized report. But the gritty little secret is that whether your apples and spinach are organic or not, nutrient levels can vary dramatically depending on growing conditions, such as soil type and quality, temperature, and days of sun versus rain. As a consumer, you have no independent way of verifying that you have chosen a superior batch. But what if you had a handheld scanner that would allow you to check nutrient density? “You could compare carrots to carrots,” says Dan Kittredge, executive director of the Bionutrient Food Association, which is raising the funds to research such a device. “If this batch is a dud, pass. If the next one is good, that's where you spend your money.”

The basic technology has existed for decades. Near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy—the modality that Kittredge is currently focusing on—has found applications in pharmaceutical manufacturing, medicine, agriculture and astronomy. NIR works on the principle that different molecules vibrate in slightly different ways. When infrared light is transmitted through or reflected from a given sample, certain wavelengths are absorbed more than others by the vibrating chemical bonds. By measuring the fraction of near-infrared light absorbed at each wavelength, scientists can obtain a distinct fingerprint that is characteristic of the sample. The results are precise—and fast. “Gas chromatography can easily take half a day,” says Magdi Mossoba, a research chemist at the fda's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. “NIR can give results in seconds.”

Until recently, NIR and related forms of vibrational spectroscopy were confined to the laboratory, where they required large benchtop instruments that only skilled scientists could operate. Now, with miniaturization, they are being packaged in simple handheld devices that “a worker without a Ph.D. in chemistry can use in a warehouse or in the field,” says Maggie Pax, a senior director at Thermo Fisher Scientific, a leading manufacturer of these tools. Pharmaceutical companies are using them to determine whether batches of raw ingredients are correctly labeled. More than a dozen countries have purchased them to help combat the rising tide of counterfeit drugs. And farmers use them to measure protein levels in grain, which helps to determine its market value.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Still, NIR has one major limitation as far as a supermarket scanner is concerned, which is that it cannot give readings for compounds at a concentration of less than 0.1 percent. The average vegetable is 92 percent water. After that come macronutrients such as carbohydrates and protein (in large enough quantities to be read by NIR), followed by micronutrients, including vitamins, minerals and antioxidants (most of which are too low to detect). The entire concept would be dead if not for one key observation. “Plants develop certain types of compounds in a predictable order and in specific ratios to various minerals, proteins and lipids,” Kittredge says. The task he is undertaking now with the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University is to run thousands of assays on key foods to establish the algorithms needed to develop a workable scanner. “This will happen,” he asserts. “What we don't know is whether it will take three years or 30.”

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe