Taken from Eclectic Gardener @www.teachinggarden.org

This letter was published 1st December 2006 in response to the column written
November 17th:
Mr Hickman
I find your article to be misleading and somewhat skewed against the practice of organic agriculture.
While you fairly compare organic and conventional crops grown under similar conditions, you state that overall measurable attributes such as protein content are higher for conventional crops. This is not surprising, as the role of pesticides is to allow the crops to grow without succumbing to damage from pests.
However, your article fails to mention the pesticides or pesticide derivatives that are present in foods grown under pesticide application. This is of major importance as pesticides are not natural, and many are suspected carcinogens.
Keep in mind most pesticides to be absorbed by the roots or leaves of the plants. Also consider that 99 % of the pesticides applied do not actually by the crops, and are still present in the environment, many of them currently trickling into your water supply.
Your article is also flawed in that you state that ending the use of pesticides "would be an ecological disaster". The real ecological disaster (in the making) is the constant application and accumulation of pesticides in the environment.
The practice of pesticide application is simply unsustainable to our planet. For organic farming to become successful, consideration will have to be given to natural climatic conditions, proper soil treatment, plant selection, genetics and crop rotation.
by: John Pettingill, B.Sc., Brampton.