The nutritional equivalence evidence is fairly solid. The pesticide residue question is more contested. The environmental impact question - organic vs conventional land use - is genuinely complicated and where I think the interesting research is.
Land use is exactly where it gets complicated. Organic yields are typically lower, meaning more land per unit of food. At scale, that has real biodiversity and carbon sequestration implications that the "organic is better for the environment" framing tends to ignore.
The title is going to annoy a lot of people but honestly good. This needs to be said plainly.