FN Archimer Export Format
PT J
TI Review: Quality and authentication of organic animal products in Europe
BT 
AF Prache, S.
   Lebret, B.
   Baéza, E.
   Martin, B.
   Gautron, J.
   Feidt, C.
   Médale, F.
   Corraze, G.
   Raulet, M.
   Lefèvre, F.
   Verrez-Bagnis, Veronique
   Sans, P.
AS 1:1;2:2;3:3;4:1;5:3;6:4;7:5;8:5;9:6;10:7;11:8;12:9;
FF 1:;2:;3:;4:;5:;6:;7:;8:;9:;10:;11:PDG-RBE-BRM-LEMMMB;12:;
C1 Université d’Auvergne, INRAE, Vetagro Sup, UMR Herbivores, 63122 St-Genès-Champanelle, France
   PEGASE, INRAE, Institut Agro, 35590 St-Gilles, France
   INRAE, Université de Tours, UMR BOA, 37380 Nouzilly, France
   Université Lorraine, Usc340, UR AFPA, INRAE, 2, av Foret Haye, TSA 40602, 54518 Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France
   INRAE, Univ Pau & Pays de l’Adour, E2S UPPA, UMR 1419 Nutrition, Métabolisme, Aquaculture, 64310 Saint-Pée-sur-Nivelle, France
   DEPE, INRAE, 147, rue de l’Unversité, 75338 Paris Cedex 07, France
   INRAE, LPGP, 35000 Rennes, France
   IFREMER, Laboratoire EM3B, Rue de l’Ile d’Yeu, BP 21105, 44311 Nantes Cedex 3, France
   ALISS UR 1303, Université de Toulouse, INRAE, ENVT, 31076 Toulouse Cedex 3, France
C2 INRAE, FRANCE
   INRAE, FRANCE
   INRAE, FRANCE
   UNIV LORRAINE, FRANCE
   INRAE, FRANCE
   INRAE, FRANCE
   INRAE, FRANCE
   IFREMER, FRANCE
   INRAE, FRANCE
SI NANTES
SE PDG-RBE-BRM-LEMMMB
IN WOS Ifremer UPR
   DOAJ
   copubli-france
   copubli-p187
   copubli-univ-france
IF 3.6
TC 16
UR https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00737/84886/89894.pdf
LA English
DT Article
DE ;Dairy;Eggs;Fish;Meat;Production system
AB The ‘organic’ label guarantees a production process that avoids the use of synthetic fertilisers, pesticides and hormones and minimises the use of veterinary drugs; however, consumers are demanding guarantees regarding food quality. This article reviews the current state of knowledge on the quality of organic animal products, including the authentication of their organic origin. Quality has been considered as an integrative combination of six core attributes: commercial value, and nutritional, sensory, technological, convenience and safety attributes. The comparison of these attributes between organic and conventional animal products shows high heterogeneity due to variability in farming pratices in both organic and conventional systems. To overcome this, we pinpoint the farming practices underlying the differences observed. This enables light to be shed on the consequences of possible trajectories of organic farming, if specifications are relaxed or tightened up on commitments concerning farming practices that impact product quality. Two recent meta-analyses showed better nutritional attributes in organic milk and meat linked to their higher poly-unsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) content, particularly n-3 PUFAs. Regarding safety, we point to a lack of integrated studies quantifying the balance between positive and negative effects. Organic farming reduces the risk of drug residues and antibiotic resistance, but both outdoor rearing and a frequently longer rearing period increase the animals’ exposition to environmental contaminants and the risk of their bioaccumulation in milk, eggs, meat and fish flesh. We highlight antagonisms between quality attributes for certain animal products (lamb, pork). In general, attributes are more variable for organic products, which can be explained by lower genetic selection (poultry), lower inputs and/or greater variability in farming conditions. However, the literature does not address the implications of this greater variability for the consumers’ acceptability and the necessary adaptation of manufacturing processes. Further research is needed to document the impacts on human nutritional biomarkers and health. Methods used to authenticate organic origin are based on differences in animal diet composition between organic and conventional systems, but their reliability is hampered by the variability in farming practices. 
PY 2022
PD FEB
SO Animal
SN 1751-7311
PU Elsevier BV
VL 16
IS Suppl.1
UT 000792422900009
DI 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100405
ID 84886
ER

EF