If you've ever found yourself in your local supermarket agonizing about whether the organic apples will be a more nutritional and greener choice than the cheaper non-organic ones, you're probably not alone.

In the U.S. where -- according to the Organic Trade Association -- supermarket chains like Whole Foods have helped the organic food and beverage market grow from around $1 billion in sales in 1990 to around $20 billion in 2007. Total sales for organic food and non-food products in the U.S. are expected to surpass $25 billion this year.

However, one possible wrench in the system for the organic sector could be the results of a new study by the University of Copenhagen which revealed that organic foods contained no more nutrients than non-organic foods grown with the use of pesticides.

Researchers studied five different crops -- carrots, kale, mature peas, apples and potatoes -- which were cultivated both organically (without pesticides) and conventionally (with the use of pesticides) and found that there was no higher level of trace elements in the food grown organically.

IN the debate over whether organic food is better than conventionally raised food, advocates for organic produce say it contains fewer harmful chemicals and is better for the earth, and some claim that it is more nutritious.

And recent preliminary evidence suggests that the levels of certain nutrients, especially vitamin C, some minerals and some polyphenols - naturally occurring antioxidants that may help bolster the immune system - are higher in organically grown crops.

As a result of this preliminary evidence and the Agriculture Department's adoption in 2000 of standards for organic foods, the Organic Trade Association has created the nonprofit Center for Organic Education and Promotion to finance research that could verify what small-scale research may suggest: organic food may provide greater health benefits than conventional food.

Critics say these some of these studies were poorly done, were biased and dealt with only tiny differences in nutrients.

Alex Avery, director of research and education at the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, who frequently disputes claims for the positive health benefits of organic farming, said the marionberry and corn study did not involve proper statistical analysis and that the data came from a single year and a single farm. Mr. Avery said studies showed very little difference in nutrient levels. "I don't think you are going to find any health differences," he said.

To be recognized as "organic," a food product must be produced without the use of genetic modification or chemical fertilizers or pesticides, and must promote sustainable cropping methods. In the United States, organically produced meat and dairy must be raised without the use of synthetic growth hormones or antibiotics. Hormones and antibiotics are banned in animal production across the board in the European Union.

And while scientists emphasize the importance of polyphenols and other antioxidants, particularly because they might help fight cancer, scientists say no one has a clue how much phenolics anyone needs to consume and that anyone who claims nutritional benefits from higher or lower phenolics doesn't understand.

A three-year study in Italy, reported in the August 2002 issue of the same journal, found higher levels of polyphenols in organic peaches and pears, and about 8 percent more ascorbic acid in organic peaches and a study in the February 2002 European Journal of Nutrition found more salicylic acid in organic vegetable soup than in nonorganic soup. Salicylic acid is responsible for the anti-inflamatory properties of aspirin, and bolsters the immune system.

A bit of information on both sides of this debate should spur-on anyone interested in researching this subject themselves; Over 40 new studies have come out in the past decades-- studies that dramatically improve our ability to answer the basic question -- are organic foods generally more nutritious than conventional foods?