A couple of years ago, a massive review of virtually every piece of information reasonably available (almost 100,000 articles) on the subject, concluded that there is no evidence that organic food results in improved health in humans or animals—except that organic dairy may decrease the incidence of eczema in infants. Actually, at that time I didn’t mention it, but the only organic food I buy on purpose is organic milk, but that is because it contains slightly more omega-3 essential fats, probably a better overall fat profile, and may have other advantages.
Now a second review of all of the published information on the health outcomes, nutrient content, and contaminant residues of organic versus conventionally-farmed food has been published (specifically, it is a review of 223 published scientific studies). It shows that nutrient levels are the same (except for the nutrient phosphorus) between the two. It does show a fairly minor increased risk of over-exposure to pesticides in conventional versus organic, but the difference in the odds of exceeding allowable limits (which are set pretty strictly on the side of low risk in the first place) is low and it wouldn’t be reasonable to be alarmed by this difference.
Both types of pork and chicken contained resistant bacteria, but organic carried a 33% lower risk of containing these bugs. However, as long as you handle and cook these meats properly, this would not be an issue for anyone who prepares their foods intelligently.
So unless and until some new and very compelling evidence comes out, there is probably no significant advantage to eating organically-produced food.