Or so the UK government would have you believe. Variations of this headline are all over the media at the moment (just type it into Google if you don't believe me).
Why? Because the UK Food Standards Agency commissioned a study into the topic, this is apparently the finding, and they want to help Joe Public make "informed choices".
Specifically, Gill Fine, the FSA's director of consumer choice, commented that the study showed, "there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and there is not evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food."
That last bit, especially, is quite a claim to make. So what is the FSA basing this on?
You may be surprised to know that the study in question looked at just one aspect of the organic versus non debate: nutrient levels. It apparently found little difference in nutritonal content between the two classes of food. That's the party line, anyway. Read the appendix and you learn that, in fact, some nutrients were found at substantially higher levels in organic foods.
But let's leave aside the "higher nutrient levels" argument because, frankly, it is irrelevant. And that's because it is arguably the least important reason for choosing organic. Most people who buy organic would keep on doing so even if a study convincingly proved that it contains no more nutrients than non-organic, because they are making this choice for much bigger reasons.