The organic food debate - real evidence?

Who would have thought that a humble carrot or potato could cause so much debate and hype in the media? A recent study produced by Stanford University has hit the headlines for claiming there is no evidence to show that organic food is safer or healthier than conventionally grown food. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19465692. Using this report as new research, there have been many articles and commentaries vilifying those who believe in the organic 'myth'.
I always find it interesting to see how 'facts' are translated into 'proof'. With anything that is connected to big business and money, research is rarely independent and unbiased. The Stanford study claims to have no primary funding source. Really? The University does happen to have major funding from one of the large GMO companies, but that must be coincidence, surely?
Putting all that to one side though, if you look at the study conclusion it does come to some positive conclusions about organic food, despite the way it's worded. http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685. Oh, by the way, this is not a new study but a review of previously published research.
* organic food has significantly lower levels of pesticides - and 30% is significant!
* exposure to anti-biotic resistant bacteria was significantly lower in organic meat produce - up to 33%.

It may not prove that one carrot has more beta-carotene than another, but these two points are positive evidence that organic food is healthier. Pesticides are a big issue. Controls are in place to ensure that chemical residues don't go above a level deemed 'safe' for health. As far as I'm aware of, each chemical is tested independently, whereas in reality our bodies are exposed to a cocktail which may, or may not, work together, building up in our cells, then have to work even harder to detox. And what do our cells need to clear away these chemical toxins - vitamins, minerals and energy that comes from our fruits and vegetables. So it seems logical to me that if you don't eat the contaminated products in the first place, and stick to organic, then you're ahead already in the healthier department!

The conclusion regarding anti-biotic resistant bacteria is also highly significant. Routine administration of antibiotics to animals reared for food is a major contributing factor to the creation of superbugs. And we really don't need any more antibiotics in our food, whether it's meat or dairy products.
The study also concludes that all the studies are so different that it is difficult to come to any over all conclusion - so there is no evidence that conventional food is better or worse than organic food either.
Personally, I would rather have my food organically grown and locally produced, the closer the better. I like my food without genetic modification, antibiotics, pesticides, growth hormones and chemical fertilisers. I think organic food tastes better, are more vibrant and I do believe they are better for my health. Bought in supermarkets, they can carry a higher price tag, but direct from the farmer, or even from my own garden, that's not so much of an issue.
But one of the most important, and fortunate, things is that I have a choice, and when it's possible I choose organic because I prefer it and believe that it's healthier for me. Maybe the evidence tells me I'm wrong, but when that's supported by large conglomerates willing to gamble our health and environment to make big bucks I'm just not ready to listen.