This article is about a study published by Stanford University researchers in the Annals of Internal Medicine and they expressed that organically-grown food is no more nutritious than conventionally-grown food. As of publication, a petition with Change.org had 3,351 signatures, stating that it didn’t factor in the potential health consequences of genetically modified foods, such as high fructose corn syrup and other additives that are found more often in conventional foods than in organic ones.Their argument for this petition was that the researchers weren’t studying high-fructose corn syrup — they were only reviewing fruits, vegetables, eggs, grains, dairy, poultry and meat. Not processed foods.A researcher who published a similar analysis in 2011, Kirsten Brandt, discovered that organic food was indeed nutritionally distinct from conventionally grown food. Researchers conducted an analysis of studies that compare organic and conventional foods in terms of levels of various nutrients, as well as bacterial, fungal and pesticide contamination.They found very little difference between the composite nutrient profiles of organic and non-organic foods. And while they found that conventionally raised pigs and chicken were more likely to yield meat that was contaminated with antibiotic-resistant microbes, the overall microbial levels on organically and conventionally-grown foods were similar. They found two studies which showed how children who ate conventional produce had higher pesticide levels in urine samples than those who ate organic foods. Avoiding pesticides and antibiotic-resistant infections are two good reasons to eat organic food. Also, some believe that organically-raised animals are also more humanely raised and evidence shows that organic farming is the more environmentally-friendly option.