I'll simplify and generalize the concepts, in order to avoid semantic squibbles. If one compares a significant range of non-organic food products with organic

I'll simplify and generalize the concepts, in order to avoid semantic squibbles. If one compares a significant range of non-organic food products with organic ones, the latter will correlate with lack of some ingredients, or replacement with comparable ones. This can be verified easily by anybody who lives in a country with a meaningful presence of the organic market/brands (I'm not sure what's the situation in USA; I wouldn't be suprised if the average presence is negligible). Considering that nutrition is "not really" a science, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that if something has been approved by the food institutions (e.g. FDA), they don't have a negative impact on the body, therefore, organic and non-organic food products have essentially the same. For the same reason though, the opposite is also reasonable. If I can choose between, say, packaged bread with and without, say, hydrogenated fats and corn syrup, I prefer the latter, but as I wrote, I don't think that who chooses the former is wrong, ignorant, or so. Regarding the standards, the same principle holds. Enforcing, there's not absolute truth about, say, crops rotation and forbidding antibiotics/hormones (this are some of the rules dictated by organic organizations) can be believed or not (I don't doubt there's straight snake oil in some practices). There was an Scientific American article on HN correlating modern agriculture practices to lower nutritional properties of crops, therefore practices mandated by the organic standards have a sense, but I doubt that there is a rigorous scientific investigation on this, so anybody can be reasonably reject the argument.