There are many different ways to grow "organic" foods, and using a statistical comparison rather than a functional comparison over long periods of time is a poor excuse for pro-business farming methods (as opposed to pro-soil or pro-environment). Conventional agriculture is an extractive process, whereas fully organic and biodynamic farming methods are husbandry methods that add fertility to the soil over time. Another aspect is that conventional food production has created a system dependent on foods that people DON'T EAT, wasting much of the food they grow so efficiently just to increase profits through high meat diets with low nutritional content. The health care costs should be included in the results of conventional farming in order to determine if what they are calling food actually IS such. Since the USDA numbers comparing pre-WWII foods to todays foods show a big drop in Vitamin A, etc., then it is important to evaluate the end products for their usefulness to people, not just filling bellies with calories. In addition, there is the loss of work-at-home physical labor through the population, and its associated health and transportation overhead costs, which are only supportable with cheap energy right now. We have spent the last 100 years replacing people on farms with petroleum-based pesticides and machines. Unless we find viable alternatives, organic farming will be the future of food, whether we choose it or not.