The way headlines broke around a recent Stanford study comparing organic and conventionally grown foods, you’d think organic had been left for dead.

The New York Times, for example, announced that “Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce.” Maybe the doubt was inferred from the meta-study’s lukewarm synopsis: “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.”

Now wait a minute. It’s true that ideologues can attribute positive benefits to whatever they want, but organic food has never been seriously touted as more nutritious or vitamin-rich than conventional food. Nor is it the cure for HIV or the preferred food of unicorns.

Organic has always been defined by what it isn’t, and its first rule of organic food is that it’s free of things like “pesticide residues” and “antibiotic-resistant bacteria.” The study confirms what organic supporters have long purported to be the case: Organic food is less adulterated by things you don’t want.

The organic watchdog group Cornucupia Institute called the Stanford study “biased” in a Sept. 12 press release, which raised questions about the study’s funding. Several of the authors are fellows of Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute, which has received funding from big-ag companies including Cargill.

If the Stanford team’s idea of health ignores the pesticide residues and antibiotic resistant bacteria in my system, I’d hate to meet its criteria for sick.

The study synthesized 237 earlier studies that had compared nutrient and pesticide residue levels in organic and conventional food. While most pesticide residues were up to EPA standards, the Stanford study did not discuss the specific dangers posed by pesticides. For example, a 2010 study in the journal Pediatrics found children with organophosphate pesticides in their systems were more likely to be diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Another organophosphate pesticide is chlorpyrifos, which also poses a risk to the brains of children, especially via prenatal exposure. Once widely used as a residential roach-killer, chlorpyrifos was banned for home use by the EPA in 2001. The chemical is still permitted for agricultural use on fruit trees and vegetables, and is known by its Dow trade name Lorsban. According to the EPA, 10 million pounds of it is applied annually in the U.S.

The EPA announced in July that it plans to require reductions in chlorpyrifos application rates and apply additional rules designed to protect children and other bystanders from exposure. The agency expects to make a final decision in 2014. Until new rules are in place, children in rural towns where farm workers live will continue to be exposed to a neurotoxin we’re pretty sure will soon be illegal.

Chlorpyrifos has recently been found to stunt development more in males than females. A study conducted in New York City and published in the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology found that while both boy and girl IQ scores were lower following exposure, boys’ brains were especially affected.

While the danger of any given pesticide is constant, how it’s regulated is changeable. Unfortunately, lobbyists and political appointees who might be neither concerned nor educated about pesticides can have undue influence over if, when and how they’re used. Given our slowly evolving scientific understanding of pesticides, and the glacial pace of political change, the Stanford study results support the idea that eating organic reduces exposure to things we may someday realize are bad for us, as well as things that we now know are bad.

Had the Stanford study shown higher nutrient levels in organic food, you could be sure the organic industry would be parading those results like the Greeks dragging Hector’s body around Troy. But if differences in nutrient content is what we want to look for, in my opinion we should compare nutrient levels of food grown on small, crop-diverse family farms with food grown in large monocultures. The Stanford study compared the nutrient levels largely between organic factory farms and conventional factory farms. I’d like to see factory farm versus family farm. Practices common on small, integrated farms – like composting, crop rotation, and mulching –tend to build richer-than-average soil. It would be interesting to compare nutrition levels in small farms that do these things with large farms that don’t.

Still, nutrient levels are just part of the debate. To many in the sustainable-food movement, factory-farmed organic is an imperfect compromise. As a wise farmer once told me, “Most Big Organic is still grown by exploited brown people on massive monocultures – just without chemicals.”

The Stanford report concludes with a contradictory statement: “The evidence does not suggest marked health benefits from consuming organic versus conventional foods, although organic produce may reduce exposure to pesticide residues, and organic chicken and pork may reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”

Well, alright. But if the Stanford team’s idea of health ignores the pesticide residues and antibiotic resistant bacteria in my system, I’d hate to meet its criteria for sick.