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.

I had a similar issue in Sunland, CA. I would get 6 to 7 mps, then in the evening it would go down to .5 or so. They would test it during the day, and it was of course, fine then. After many calls to the phone company (ISP), they finally sent out a technician. He called a number he knew at a local station, and they switched me from one main trunk line to another (I forget the term for it). After this it was fine. You might just have to persist with the provider. Squeaky wheel strategy.

You don't need to be a "scientist" in order to apply logic and common sense to data. Many people do it all the time in their various endeavors in life.

And even though one might not be a "scientist", you cannot take for granted what some scientist or study proposes as a finding.

An example of this.

About a year ago I read a headline something like "Organic Food No More Nutritious". I read on, as I am interested in this, for the health of my family and I.

In the study they grew tomatoes or something in identical soil with and without pesticides. Then what they tested for was nutritional content of the tomatoes.

Now anyone who knows much about "organic" foods knows that there are at least two facets to the whole idea. One is to reduce the potential toxins, like pesticides. The other would be to maximize the nutritional value of food.

To study if pesticides alone affect nutritional content is sort of like a study to see if you kick your dog does your goldfish swim faster. Maybe sort of useful, but really missing the point.

Now if you wanted to study if different farming practices (like types of fertilizer, soil types) affected nutrition, now that might be useful to somebody somewhere.

To conceive, design, fund, perform, analyze, publish, and broadcast a study like that seems to me like a big waste of time, money, tomatoes, and the paper the study was published on.

Was it politically motivated? I don't know. But it begs the question.