Does the discussion on antioxidant 'efficacy' involve ORAC values and their controversy?

Yes, absolutely.

Any in-depth discussion about antioxidant "efficacy" will virtually inevitably lead to mentioning ORAC values (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity) and the huge controversy surrounding them. One could say that the rise and fall of ORAC values itself is a miniature history of nutritional science, commercial marketing, and changing consumer understanding.

Why Must ORAC Values Come Up When Discussing Antioxidants?

Think about it: if we wanted to compare which of two heroes is stronger, wouldn't giving them a "power level" be the most intuitive way? For instance, if Hero A has a power level of 8000 and Hero B has 10000, it's instantly clear.

ORAC values were originally created to play exactly this role—a "power level" for antioxidants.

What is it? Simply put, it's a laboratory test-tube (in vitro) measurement of a food's or substance's ability to "neutralize" or "absorb" free radicals. A higher score meant greater antioxidant power in the test tube.
Why did it become popular? The concept was simple, straightforward, and easy to understand. Marketers loved using it to promote products, like: "Our blueberries have an ORAC value of XXXX, XX times higher than regular apples!" Doesn't that sound very convincing? Suddenly, "superfood" lists everywhere ranked items primarily based on ORAC values – think acai berries, goji berries, dark chocolate, etc.

Illustration: Foods High in ORAC

Here Comes the Controversy: Why Did ORAC Values "Fall Out of Favor"?

But here's where the story gets interesting. Just as the public was going crazy for high ORAC numbers, the scientific community and some authoritative bodies began to pour cold water on it. Ultimately, in 2012, the USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), the very authority that published the ORAC database, outright removed it from its official website.

The reasons behind this, and thus its biggest controversies, boil down to three main points:

Lab (in vitro) ≠ Human Body (in vivo) This is the core problem. ORAC is measured in a test tube. But when we eat food, it undergoes complex biochemical processes like digestion, absorption, and metabolism. Something performing exceptionally well in a test tube doesn't guarantee it will have the same effect inside the human body, or even that it will be effectively absorbed and utilized.
- Analogy: You wouldn't just test a spark plug in a lab and then declare that the car it goes into will win an F1 race. You need to install the spark plug in the engine, put the engine in the whole car, consider the chassis, tires, wind resistance, and the driver – then you know how fast it truly goes. The human body is that complex "racing car".
Abused by Marketers, Misleading Consumers Because ORAC values were so easy to grasp, they became a powerful marketing tool. Companies started equating this single metric directly with "health benefits," leading consumers to believe that simply eating high-ORAC foods would cure all ills and grant eternal youth. This excessive, scientifically unsupported hype alarmed and frustrated the scientific community. The USDA withdrew the database largely to curb this misleading marketing.
Overly Simplified the Concept of "Health" The health benefits of food are multifaceted. An orange, for example, contains antioxidants (like vitamin C), but also fiber, other vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals.
- Another Analogy: Judging food solely by its ORAC value is like reviewing a movie solely based on its "special effects score," completely ignoring the plot, acting, soundtrack, and directorial vision. A movie with great effects but a bad story is still a bad movie. Similarly, a food's value cannot be defined by a single laboratory datum.

To Summarize, How Should We View This?

So, back to your question: when discussing antioxidant efficacy, ORAC values are indeed a topic you'll inevitably encounter because they:

Were once the most popular "gold standard" for measuring antioxidant capacity.
Are now a prime example of how a "scientific concept can be oversimplified and abused by commercial marketing."

So, what should we ordinary people do?

Treat it as a reference, not the gospel. A high ORAC value usually means a food is rich in phytochemicals, which is generally a good thing. But there's no need to chase high scores by eating exotic or expensive "superfoods."
Don't fixate on a single metric. No single number can define the entire value of a food.
Return to common sense: Eat a balanced diet, 'eat a Rainbow'. This old saying, though simple, is far more reliable than any trendy "superfood" concept. Eating a wide variety of brightly colored fresh vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and nuts will provide far greater benefits than obsessing over an ORAC ranking chart.

True health lies in diversity and balance, not in seeking an optimal solution through a numbers game.