Does the Answer Lie in the Soil?

Quite a fuss has been generated by a report, commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (based on an analysis of published studies), concluding that there is no evidence that 'organic' foods have benefits over regular crops in terms of their nutrient contents and effects on human health (http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organic). The Soil Association (supporters of the £2bn per annum organic foods industry in the UK) seem especially incensed but, as pointed out by Ben Goldacre (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/01/bad-science-organic-food), many of their complaints seem directed at other issues (e.g. protection of the environment, 'taste' etc) outside the scope of the FSA report. The debate appears to be an interesting example of what happens when a scientific report doesn't reach the conclusions that a pressure group favours. I must admit to liking some of the spin-offs of organic farming (e.g. increased biodiversity) but can't help musing that our ancestors, if they move completely into hydroponic production of crops, might well regard growing plants in soil as primitive and dirty!