I'd like to know whether any large-ish scientific analyses have been
done to ascertain whether there are nutritional advantages to
organically (as opposed to conventionally-grown) food.

And what did they conclude?

Good question.  I have always had the impression that "organically
grown" meant no pesticides, chemical fertilizers and the like  - not
better varieties of plants, per se.  Maybe if one eats the worms in
the apples, one gets more protein ...

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/food/organic-products-206/overview/index.htm?resultPageIndex=1&resultIndex=1&searchTerm=organic

Sorry, Myoarin, but there are organic pesticides. Not those cute
little ones like garlic oil or peppermint leaves but real ones like
rotenone and pyrethrin. You may have seen pyrethrin in your pet's flea
shampoo or as one of the ingredients in a flea collar.

Sure, Mark, so then there will be no worms in the apple.
I didn't notice that Consumers' Report suggested any greater
nutritional value, just less potentially harmful stuff, in organic
foods.
Myo

Is there a nutritional advantage to washing your hands?

You have a baseline for plants, where all of it's nutrient
requirements are met when it is in production. From there, you can go
downhill into malformed fruits and vegetables. You can't make a 'super
healthy' fruit or vegetable beyond what it can normally grow, it's
limiting factor is lighting, nutrients, and water. You can make a
'less healthy' fruit or vegetable.

There is a strong likelihood that organically grown produce will not
have had their growth accelerated by artificial fertilizers.

I am thinking abut an article I read on tomato growing, where it
described the process as more like chemistry than farming.

http://www.bfa.com.au/index.asp?Sec_ID=133

This Australian site explains the theory that a properly cultivated
soil [ie organic] is more likely to contain a balance of all the trace
elements and minerals that more commercially driven farming might not
regard as important. They suggest that a higher, more complete level
of nutrition in the resultant produce will occur.

Just the difference in flavour is enough to convince me that organic
foods are worth the effort.

stressedmum-ga,

To clarify I'm inclined to believe that organic foods that are grown
from genetically smiliar plants generally do not have a better flavor.
 I believe that organic companies have found it in their favor to
produce a product of higher quality because this is what many expect
from more expensive foodstuffs.  I think the improved flavor doesn't
result from the chemical free growing but from careful selection and
handling.
If you're discussing processed organic products then I would agree
because they generally use less ingredients so food is composed of
more what it is supposed to be composed of which gives it the expected
flavor instead of a strange amalgamation of ingredients.

In my opinion the word organic has been corrupted and some "organic"
producers and suppliers cheat. Of course some commercial growers also
cheat, so that likely cancels. On the average, "organic" is better,
but I can't afford "organic" except occasionally.
Perhaps that is good as it leaves me less frustrated and broadens my
nutritional base, which dilutes the bad stuff, I get occasionally.
Studies done to date have been puny and biased, with rare exceptions,
and thus have produced a wide range of conflicting conclusions.  Neil