It depends. I think most organic growers use modern, disease tolerant breeds that produce as much as possible - just like commercial farmers, they just lack certain Monsanto genetic improvements. So you will see dilution of minerals in larger fruits in greater numbers per plant, if that is the primary cause of the decrease in minerals.

On the other hand if the cause is primarily due to poor soil that relies entirely on inorganic fertilizer and hasn't been properly amended with organic material - compost - then the organic produce will indeed have more vitamins and minerals.

The other benefit of organic produce is that if you buy from a farmers market - inorganic or not, you are often buying from a local farmer and your produce will have more nutrients because it is fresher. It is said that frozen vegetables are actually healthier because they are flash frozen near the field, and decompose less than vegetables in the 'fresh' section of the supermarket that have crossed the country, decomposing the whole way.

And of course organic vegetables don't have traces of pesticides.

For me, it's far more important to buy locally than it is to buy organic (though it's also easy, at least where I am, to do both). The food industry has caught on to the organic trend and there are now organic factory farms which are only slightly better than non-organic factory farms. And organic guidelines don't prohibit the use of some pesticides. Granted, what they might use isn't as bad, but it is pesticide nonetheless.

>For me, it's far more important to buy locally

Why? Certain plants grow better in different places. It makes no sense to grow a plant locally if it would grow better elsewhere. It usually costs extra energy to do so as well.

If you are not sure which one is better for the environment check the price - the cheaper one is better (pesticides not included).

That's why I do my best to buy produce suited to my locale. Cheap energy has spoiled us--we can eat blueberries in the dead of winter. I'm not sure that's a Good Thing.

If you are not sure which one is better for the environment check the price - the cheaper one is better (pesticides not included).

I'm no sure what you mean? Cheap food is better for the environment? Feedlots, which generate much of the meat you find your supermarket, literally put out tons of pollution.

You are right about pollution - price doesn't tell you anything about that.

Price mainly tells you about energy usage (carbon emissions). And resource usage (like mining).

But you were talking about local, not about feedlots. And the reason people buy local is energy. And for that, price is an excellent way of detecting which product used less energy in it's making.

So if frozen blueberries from Brazil cost less than the blueberries from the farm up the road, then, despite not being local, they used less energy in the growing.

Personally I think that pollution is important, not just CO2, so I buy organic when I can, and I don't care in the slightest about local.

These are good points, and I don't disagree. My localism is driven by more than simply C02 math, however--it's about community and supporting people I can know.

Well, the whole point of a farmer's market is to build a strong social relationship with the people who grow your food... So why not ask them while you're buying from them?