Why would there be? Plants weren't put here for our benefit any more than animals were. It would be an astonishing coincidence if the optimal diet consisted of any one thing. Unless it was maybe breast milk.
In addition to the misguided notion that somehow, someway, vegetables sold as organic are vastly superior to vegetables grown and sold in any other condition.
I don't think you read the article - the metals were the direct result of fertilizer which would not be allowed in organic farming. The catch is that the fertilizer (coal ash) was used to grow corn and soybean animal feed (which cows can't even digest properly, but that's another story...) and then the manure of those cows went to organic farms - so the purported vector of attack was indirect.
I'm no cheerleader of organics and think it's foolish that GMOs are by definition non-organic. However, I buy them when I can primarily because of my concerns with pesticide and fertilizer overuse.
I'm not sure that's how I understood the article. Did you see the part that said "This proved kale’s powers as a hyperaccumulator, but it disproved, or at least shook, his belief that coal ash was the culprit."
The catch is that the fertilizer (coal ash) was used to grow corn and soybean animal feed (which cows can't even digest properly, but that's another story...) and then the manure of those cows went to organic farms - so the purported vector of attack was indirect.
That's exactly my point though, organic farming is not a closed system no matter how much the public might desire to believe it is. There are some tenants of growing organics but it's not standardized nor systematic. I believe it is potentially deceiving in the worse cases. Of course the issue at hand is not organic farming but instead cruciferous veggies such as kale and broccoli but I only mention the idea because it's an integral part of Hubbard's "perfect storm":
"Now, Hubbard had what he often calls “a perfect storm”: contaminated vegetables, misleadingly pushed on the public as nutritious—and clean—leading to misdiagnosed ailments. “Where does this list end?” he wrote in one of his numerous messages emphasizing these points. “There is undoubtedly a series of similar perfect storms at work in other heavy metals and our food supply, including infant/baby foods, pet foods, and beyond.”"
But if everyone grew "organic" food, then it would be moot point. A full organic system is a better than a full non-organic system. So while current organic food might be contaminated through side channels, making more of our food production 'organic' would be be beneficial - not because organic food is great nutritionally in and of itself, but because having more of it benefits the food system.
That said, I don't eat much organic food. However, this article has made me want to eat more organic food.
Vastly? Maybe not. Somewhat? Yes. Depending on what you mean by "vastly". I mean, what are we talking about? If there's j% chance of a k-point iq drop (or developing a neurodegenerative disease) or some non-neurological physical problems over, say, 30 years, or some years earlier than you otherwise would have... what do those numbers have to be, and what does the problem have to be, before you consider avoiding pesticides to be "vastly" better? Certain problems would be picked up by the FDA studies and taken into account when setting residue limits; other problems (like slight mental deficits) wouldn't.
Pesticides are generally not healthy. It does depend on what plant is under discussion, of course. Some are routinely more contaminated with pesticide residue than others, but some are badly contaminated (google "dirty dozen" pesticide).
I'm also completely passing over the potential ecological harm caused by pesticides.
