The biggest issue many have with the study is that it was gleened information from 350-ish other studies...after wading through many thousands of studies to find the 350-ish they chose to gleen info from. This is a legit form of research, but it's most often one of the weakest legitimate forms of research.

Also, no one's been able to grab a shopping basket full of same-variety/cultivar fruits and veggies to come close to matching the findings. They're rather extreme and that's helped by a chunk of the papers they chose to include and a chunk they chose to exclude from their study.

Why this article may be true, even though we can not define it as an absolute.

All of us have noticed the difference in strawberries grown during a particularly wet, cloudy season? The fruit will have less taste and less body.
So if causing rapid growth, lessens the quality of the fruit, we might then, also consider the opposite. For instance, the effect of excessive soluble nitrogen might have on antioxidant formation versus the normal flow of nutrients as the environment calls for.

To me it makes sense that naturally grown plants will produce, what they produce, naturally and that working with them can only help them do the best job possible. :)

nc-cm: that's a good point. Are you aware of a more reliable study of the same effects? Regards, Peter.

I know nothing off the top of my head.

There's more than a few studies out there, but there's no "smoking gun" or very high profile studies...even including the ones that get a lot of press like the 2012 "organic vs conventional doesn't matter much for nutrition" study that got some people worked up.