Scientific arguments for eating Organic/non-GMO food?

[CapnAwesome]

If you value healthy soil, and soil conservation - than organics may appeal to you on those grounds.  Conventionals -could- focus on soil and achieve similar results..but the focus with conventionals is currently in extracting as much as possible -from- the soil, not building up superdirt.  

(I know that's not directly an argument for -eating- organic food.....but it's on the periphery, I think - and many others seem to think.   Time it hits the table there's no difference, eat the organic, eat the conventional, eat the gmo..it's all the same.  Before the table, though, you might be able to get your food to do work you're interested in.)

Not quite, even on the table the residual pesticides and such can be a good reason to avoid conventional. As you noted, conventional and GMO is basically more business friendly do to a higher production value, however that is also translates to many producers using really harmful methods to increase yield, which in turn effects the consumer's health.

So as far as I know, conventional raises both environmental and health concerns. Organic raises financial concerns

Well people say for the consumer health, but it all seems kind of vague. I know that the American Cancer society said that Conventional produce isn't more likely to cause cancer, and that a simply washing gets off any of the trace residual pesticides. So I'm not really sure about the whole 'more poison' on convention agriculture or that it matters at all. Unless I saw specific and scientific research on the real dangers of modern pesticides, I'd remain unconvinced.