Ok, fine. I'll say something about that article going around (here's the NY Times version) that organic is not more nutritious than conventional produce: It's ridiculous.
I, like the vast majority of people, choose organic produce because of a desire to avoid the consumption of pesticides. That's why people started growing organically. That's why people still prefer to grow organically. I don't want to eat pesticides; I don't want farm workers to be exposed to pesticides. I don't want them in the air or the soil or the water supply.
When you see "Whaaaa?" results like this, first take a breath and think about why it is that it strikes you as odd. I think many people hit the "What about pesticides?" situation pretty quickly.
So the question really is: why did this researcher do this giant meta-analysis without looking at pesticides? In other words, when evaluating organic vs. conventional, why was the persistence of pesticides not even be a factor in the exploration?
Is that good, objective, medical research? I think not.
Some quick ninja-googling shows that the original author of that study, Dr. Bravata, widely cited as a Stanford University Scientist, is actually a "Stanford Health Policy Adjunct Affiliate." What does that mean? It means she's not only not on the faculty, she doesn't office at Stanford. She's in the loose connection of people Stanford has that makes the flow of money and students - and knowledge - happen more easily. However, she's not a PhD, and this isn't peer-reviewed work. She is part of a consulting group, Castlight. Castlight is a big data driven HR Health Benefits company. It aims to bring transparency into healthcare - which is actually something that is a great idea and which I'm highly in support of.
But with meta-analyses like the one saying organically-farmed foods are not more "nutritious" than conventional crops, which was released only a few months before the vote on California's Prop 37 (labeling GMO produce), one wonders at whether this researcher was just incompetent at framing her question, or whether there was some other reason for dropping this common (pdf) reason people choose organic food from the meta-analysis.
I have not attempted to find clarification on this with Castlight, Stanford, or Brevata and don't intend to. I'll just personally disregard the study and chalk it up to bad data analysis. For all I know there was a good purely scientific reason to exclude toxicological issues. But before you think "ok, then - organics are a waste of money" because of this study, I wanted to throw my two cents in.