It is very contradictory ... in reality there are facts that go against what you wrote.
Many studies are comparing organic and conventional foods, and so far the results show that organic foods are often more nutritious than conventional foods.
Here in this link, you can find that there isn't any evidence of a nutritional difference between organic and non-organic foods...what changes are that one uses synthetic pesticides and the other doesn't—especially crops. In addition most of the vegetables sold in a serious country , the use of synthetic pesticides is very controlled and they test the amount of pesticides before reaching groceries, so usually, it is a very small quantity which is still difficult to find an association with diseases compared to organic pesticides.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/should-you-go-organic
The results have shown that organic farming can be more environmentally friendly than conventional farming because it requires less use of resources such as fossil fuels and water.
This is half true, since organics don't use pesticides, they will farmers will need to plant more since most of their plants will be consumed by pests, so in the end, you create also a big environmental impact if you are a big producer.
here a good video :
!1UP
In this modern era, Mostly people talk about the old days when there is only organic food available.
Organic food can not be comparable with non-organic. If you have a choice to pick organic or inorganic, which one you pick?