It seems no one bothers to go to the Stanford study and base their response on newspaper reports by reporters who are only interested in getting readers.

The lead author of the paper in 'Annals of Internal Medicine, Sept. 4, is Dena Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford University's Center for Health Policy.
The co-author, C. Smith-Spangler of Stanford Univ., M.D. and member of General Medical Disciplines Dept., said in a summary in the "Stanford School of Medicine News":

"Our goal was to shed light on what the evidence is. This is information that people can use to make their own decisions based on their level of concern about pesticides, their budget and other considerations."

She said people should aim for healthier diets overall, She emphasized the importance of eating fruits and vegetables, "however they are grown," noting that most Americans don't consume the recommended amount.
In discussing limitations of the work, the researchers noted the heterogeneity of the studies reviewed due to differences in testing methods, physical factors such as weather and soiil type, and the great variation among organic farming practices.
The researchers found that organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination, but also that organic foods are not necessarily 100 percent free of pesticides. Two studies of children consuming organic and conventional diets did not find lower levels of pesticide residues in urine of children on organic diets though the signifince of these findings on child health are unclear.
Organic chicken and pork appeared to reduce exposure to anti-biotic resistant bacteria.
Organic milk has more of the Omega-3 fatty acids.

Bravata said, "If you look beyond health effects, there are plenty of other reasons to buy organic instead of conventional." She listed taste, concerns about conventional farming practices on the environment and animal welfare as some of the reasons.