Organic is More Nutritious Than Non-Organic

This might be the argument that organic vs. non-organic supporters disagree on the most. Does organic food benefit you more? The response appears to be "no" with a star. An organic apple and a non-organic apple are both apples in the end. Since they are identical, it would take some extraordinary feats to distinguish one of these apples from the other. The asterisk is used in this situation. That non-organic apple might be more damaging to you if it has more pesticides on it, has absorbed more, or has another factor. Maybe. However, not in terms of nutrients. They are identical; no food becomes more nutrient-rich through organic farming.

There's a chance that your worries about things like antibiotic use in meats are legitimate. However, the asterisk is still present. Antibiotic use can result in things like germs that are resistant to them, a decreased capacity to fight infections, and other undesirable outcomes. However, it has little effect on how nutrient-rich the meat is. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that organic, antibiotic-free meats are nutritionally equivalent to traditionally reared meats but may be less damaging in the long run.