I seem to have hit a nerve. The parent insinuated that the study was paid by "corporate interests", provided no proof for his claim. It is just clear that the parent poster has no clue how organics are produced, as most are produced by, guess what, corporations. This tends to be the argument of conspiracy theorists on the side of organic foods.
To answer your questions:
I don't know where you get your facts? Here a quote from the article.
This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food.
It states clearly that both nutrition AND health benefits where studied. It does not exclusively look at nutrition. Check the actual study, they state to have tested: vitamin C, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, total soluble solids,
titratable acidity, copper, iron, nitrates, manganese, ash, specific proteins, sodium, plant
non-digestible carbohydrates, -carotene and sulphur.
Yes, I usually hear people argue for organic on only one level. It is supposed to be healthier than normal supermarket food. I guess you want to argue nutrition != healthy. But that is not what the study focused on. From the article:
Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.
Whats to argue against that? It leaves everything else open: you can argue that organics have less pesticides, taste better, no chemical enhancers or what ever other claim not tested by this study. But that is how science works. You single out ONE variable, keep everything else constant, peer-review, publish. I see nothing strange here, especially something that would point to the study being paid by "corporate interests".
why would you engineer the study to avoid accounting for the very factors that make the products attractive to them?
Where do you get the impression that someone was "avoiding" dealing with any other factors. It is just the nature of the beast, that you have to choose ONE variable to do a study, and these scientist chose nutritional value. I am pretty sure there are copious studies on how organic food contains less pesticides. I still don't see how choosing nutritional value makes you think it was paid by "corporate interests"?
The actual title of the study is "Comparison of composition (nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review of the available literature". "Organic 'has no health benefits'", that was title of the BBC article. I also find that article overly simplistic, but that is modern news reporting style, but don't read that cynical slant you report.
And on your last comment
I do not disagree with its outcome nor its methods
How can you disagree with the outcome? Organic foods have just the same amount of nutritional value as non organics. That's a fact based on this study. Again, I see no reason to think that for this reason it was paid by "corporate interests"?