From the paper in question.
Background: The health benefits of organic foods are unclear.
Purpose: To review evidence comparing the health effects of organic and conventional foods.
Data Sources: MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2011), EMBASE, CAB Direct, Agricola, TOXNET, Cochrane Library (January 1966 to May 2009), and bibliographies of retrieved articles.
Study Selection: English-language reports of comparisons of organically and conventionally grown food or of populations consuming these foods.
Data Extraction: 2 independent investigators extracted data on methods, health outcomes, and nutrient and contaminant levels.
Data Synthesis: 17 studies in humans and 223 studies of nutrient and contaminant levels in foods met inclusion criteria. Only 3 of the human studies examined clinical outcomes, finding no significant differences between populations by food type for allergic outcomes (eczema, wheeze, atopic sensitization) or symptomatic Campylobacter infection.
No significant differences.
Two studies reported significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children consuming organic versus conventional diets, but studies of biomarker and nutrient levels in serum, urine, breast milk, and semen in adults did not identify clinically meaningful differences.
A significant difference but not clinically meaningful. Is mentioned in the conclusion, however.
All estimates of differences in nutrient and contaminant levels in foods were highly heterogeneous except for the estimate for phosphorus; phosphorus levels were significantly higher than in conventional produce, although this difference is not clinically significant.
One difference which is not clinically significant. This finding is mentioned in the conclusions.
The risk for contamination with detectable pesticide residues was lower among organic than conventional produce (risk difference, 30% [CI, −37% to −23%]), but differences in risk for exceeding maximum allowed limits were small.
Again the difference detected is mentioned in the conclusion.
Escherichia coli contamination risk did not differ between organic and conventional produce. Bacterial contamination of retail chicken and pork was common but unrelated to farming method. However, the risk for isolating bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics was higher in conventional than in organic chicken and pork (risk difference, 33% [CI, 21% to 45%]).
Again a difference that is in the conclusions.
Limitation: Studies were heterogeneous and limited in number, and publication bias may be present.
Conclusion: The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
No difference in nutrition, which is a problem with some. The possible reduced exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic resistant bacteria is listed but seems to be ignored because of the nutrition findings.