So the Food Standards Agency has funded a meta-study of the scientific papers published between 1958 and 2008, finding 162 relevant studies, and judging only 55 to be of "satisfactory quality." They found no significant nutritional difference between the products of organic and non-organic farming in 20 of 23 categories.

Big deal. In the first place, on their own evidence organic food had higher levels of acidity and phosphorous, and non-organic was higher in nitrates. Second, when all 162 studies were taken into account, organic food was better with respect to 11 nutrients. Because it didn't make the arbitrary Feb. 2008 cut-off date, the study didn't include Prof. Carlo Leifert's research showing huge differences between organic and non-organic milk. Lord Melchett of the Soil Association has argued that the FSA study is poorly designed. Some have even alleged that the FSA study is designed to pre-empt Prof. Leifert's EU-sponsored research for political reasons.

But the fact is that consumers don't buy organic food because it is more nutritious. We're much more sophisticated than that, even if Dr Alan Dangour, who led the study, is not. The only health reasons for which we buy organic food is to avoid eating the herbicides and pesticides that are used by conventional farmers in order to kill plants and animals. Who would ingest these if he didn't have to? Please, Dr Dangour, use your noodle. Moreover, organically reared animals aren't routinely dosed with antibiotics, and therefore cannot possibly make any contribution to the rising incidence of antibiotic resistance.

Why does the government give any support to organic farming? For the same reason that most of us buy organic food: because it is good for the environment, good for the wildlife that flourishes on organic farms, and good for the welfare of the animals used as food. Organic farms boast a third more species than conventional farms, and 50% more birds, bees and butterflies. To this you can add the factors of less harmful waste and almost no use of pesticides. Organic farmers are way ahead of their conventional brethren in exploring how to lower their carbon footprint, simply because they care more about climate change.

A recent Soil Association study shows that because it's more labour-intensive, if all farming in England and Wales was organic, there would be 70% more jobs in the countryside.

In fact the reaction in the press to this silly story has backfired on the "scientists" and the FSA, as almost every news story and op ed piece has noted that people who buy organic food are making an ethical choice, not a decision made on nutritional or even grounds of health.