Research out of Stanford University has said that organic foods were not any more healthy or nutritious than conventional food.
Organic food however was found to contain less residue from pesticides.
The study did not find a significant benefit in regards to vitamin content in organic food. Except for phosphorus, no other nutrient content was detected at higher levels in organics than in food grown by conventional methods.
No significant difference was seen in terms of fat or protein amounts in organic over conventionally produced milk although a few studies were cited which indicated that organic milk may have higher omega-3 fatty acid levels.
Organic meat was found by the Stanford study to be as vulnerable to E. coli and other toxic bacteria. However, lower levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria were found in organic pork and chicken.
People eating organic pork and chicken are 33 percent less likely to be consuming three or more antibiotic-resistant bacteria strains.
Pesticide residue was found in 38 percent of conventional produce, but in only 7 percent of the organic fruit and vegetables.
Children eating organic produce had a smaller amount of pesticide traces in their urine when tested. The study did not address long-term effects of pesticides on human beings.
Stanford University's research has been met with mixed reviews.
Charles Benbrook, former chief scientist at the Organic Center, and a professor of agriculture at Washington State University, said that many American studies showed different results from those of the Stanford study.
Organic fruit and vegetables were found to contain higher amounts of vitamins and antioxidants.
Forbes.com reported that a study done in 2010 indicated that even low levels of a particular pesticide in a child's urine may be linked with the occurrence of ADHD.
Those children who had any pesticide level in their urine were seen to be twice as likely to have learning disorders than children with no detected pesticide levels.