I don't doubt you saw studies with conclusions like "50% more omega-3s." Sounds good. The devil, unfortunately, is in the details. I can elaborate if you want,

I don't doubt you saw studies with conclusions like "50% more omega-3s." Sounds good. The devil, unfortunately, is in the details. I can elaborate if you want, but in an example such as this one, the amount of omega-3s went from one insignificant, but measurable number to another insignificant, but measurable number. Or maybe you've seen reports on greater antioxidants or whatever. To make the leap to healthier is actually a completely separate matter. (Side note--too many antioxidants actually appears to interfere with your own cancer fighting processes. It was believed that free radicals were evil in the body, but it turns out they serve important functions too. As with most health news, things are more nuanced than the headlines suggest). While talking about nutrients, I should point out that there are other studies showing conventional food have more of this or that nutrient. Those don't make big headlines, nor should they. Again, the amounts we're talking about are usually insignificant. The foods may be "different" in small ways, but "better?" Nope. I could go on and on (e.g., let's say the numbers are significant--does it lead to better health in practice or is it a simple, possibly unjustified, extrapolation from other studies on the component in question). I could talk about dietary pesticides (99.99% that you consume are those produced by the plant itself) or herbicides or whatever. Careful observation makes you less trustful of the marketing hype. Eating good food is important. Eat a reasonable amount of a variety of foods, mostly plants. Process it appropriately, according to established guidelines. That stuff is important. Organic? Probably not so much.