Organic food: 0

Unfortunately, life isn't as happy over in organic land, given a report commissioned by the Food Standards Industry in Britain claiming that there's no difference, nutritionally, between organic and conventional foods.

Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour.

Overall the report, which is published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found no differences in most nutrients in organically or conventionally grown crops, including in vitamin C, calcium, and iron.

The same was true for studies looking at meat, dairy and eggs.

Differences that were detected, for example in levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, were most likely to be due to differences in fertilizer use and ripeness at harvest and are unlikely to provide any health benefit, the report concluded.

So that's kind of a bummer, but I'm not giving up on organics yet. First, according to Michael Pollan in The Omnivore's Dilemma, there's a lot of research going on regarding polyphenols, sort of micro-micro nutrients that are potentially every bit as important as their bigger brothers and sisters, vitamins and minerals. Organics could potentially play an important role in providing polyphenols.

Second, as anyone who's had a strawberry from my local farmers market will tell you, organics often taste better.

And third, as a bachelor, I can tell ya that while Sensitive New Age Guys may be dated, the ladies dig a man who cooks them a meal with organic produce.

But then again, I'd make dinner out of live hyenas and gravel if I thought it would impress the right gal, so maybe that last one isn't so important.