Yes, there are different aspects to the subject of organic food. One would be nutritional value, and another would be avoidance of toxins, like pesticides.
I recall one article I read that headlined something like "Organic food no more nutritious". Then I read further on how the study was done, and was really surprised.
Tomatoes were grown in two groups, one using pesticides, the other group without pesticides. Then the tomatoes were tested for a few nutrients.
Sort of like painting your car a different color and testing for gas mileage.
Or like testing a blue Pontiac and a yellow Ford to see which color gives the best gas mileage. Just a stupid, flawed study.
So my question is, why was this study designed that way, and why did anyone even bother to fund such a stupid study? I'm sure it cost a lot of somebody's money. And why did it get broadcast in popular newspapers? Was this study just done for headline value?
If they want to test for nutrient value, then test growing conditions, like using "organic" or "sustainable" growing practices, how the soil is fertilized, etc.
If they want to test for toxin residues, then test pesticide use, hormones, GM that makes the plant produce pesticides, etc.
So if this new study is rehashing old useless studies like I just mentioned, then my response is, "Who Cares?". It would be just another stupid headline study that would fall apart if you actually read how they did the study.