Researchers at Stanford University reviewed 200 studies and found health benefits to largely be anecdotal. Chensheng Lu with Standford University was asked to pick if one was healthier than the other, "Right now I think it's all based on anecdotal evidence".
With a world population that has already hit 7 billion people, finding cropland to feed the worlds masses is no small matter. Organic yields are substantially lower than conventional yields and the only way to obtain additional farmland it to take wildlands. According to Dr. Steve Savage who did the first comprehensive study of organic farming for the USDA in 2008 simply converting the United States alone to organic standards would require substantial additional cropland.
a switch to organic agriculture would require a 43 percent increase over current U.S. cropland, according to Savage. As he puts it, "On a land-area basis, this additional area would be 97% the physical size of Spain or 71% the size of Texas
The first comprehensive studies of organic farming coming back saying that the health benefits are anecdotal and the loss of yield substantial. I'm inclined to call organic farming the Hummer of the Eco movement, to be held in contempt as exposed as simple green washing. I think in years to come it will be looked at no differently than ethanol from corn. Can anyone make a good argument against this?"