People surely get riled by some food discussions. In this case, organic food was judged NOT to be superior to conventional food when it comes to nutritional content, based on a study just out in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition authored by mostly UK researchers.

A comment captured my attention because it so vehemently shouted that there is no standard for pesticide use on organic food, etc. I realize this site is Canadian, but in America, the US Department of Agriculture actually did the job of setting standards that do apply and have to be followed, for all aspects of organic growing. These standards are not as rigid as some would like, but the green and white circular seal that says USDA Organic is found on foods or food products that have met those standards.  "Natural" is not a food standard in America; "organic" is. Products can contain organic ingredients and say so, as well.

But the point here is that chemical pesticides and fertilizers are found less in organic foods. Increasingly, toxins are a huge problem. We get most of our toxic exposure through what we eat, drink and breathe. I feel much better paying for produce whose story I am familiar with! I grow food without chemical inputs (not yet qualifying as organic per se, but very close!) and can taste a big difference.

The review in the AJCN, declaring that organic foods are not more nutritious than conventional foods, left out a lot of information in their own standardization process: if any study considered for review was not scientifically rigorous enough, it was not included. AND the review was not intended to look at the comparative levels of toxic pesticides or heavy metals in either system of agriculture. THAT is the main reason people buy organic foods - they are purer.

Raising food was never intended to be a strictly scientific endeavor, and the AJCN review tried to impose those restrictions on the field of information they searched. For the authors to conclude what they did is not surprising.