"Organic food is up to 50% more nutrient dense than conventional" - that type of unsupported, generalized statement is like saying unicorns are up to 50% more magical than leprechauns. You can use blind statistics to prove anything - 73% of all people know that!
However, there is a lot more SCHOLARLY disagreement on the nutritional content of organic vs. conventional produce. For example, here are two articles reporting on the release of a 2012 study in the Annals of Internal Medicine which state that there is no discernible nutritional advantages to organic; one of them is from Harvard, the other is from Stanford.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/organic-food-no-more-nutritious-than-conventionally-grown-food-201209055264
http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidence-of-health-benefits-from-organic-foods-study-finds.html
Pushing sales is one thing, but when it comes to peoples' health and their conception of buzzwords like "organic, non-GMO, and gluten free", exploiting that ignorance through vagueness of language and misinformation feels borderline predatory, never mind the fact that most people currently avoiding gluten couldn't even explain to you what gluten is.
Clearly, by reading your other reviews and just by talking with people in casual conversation, a LOT of people think that organic means pesticide free. I feel like you dodged the question on that one. I'm pretty sure that if your ingredients were truly, completely pesticide free, you would be shouting it from the rooftops. The fact that you are not seems to indicate that your produce is indeed treated with pesticides. Pesticides approved for organic farming yes, but they're still chemical pesticides. If I am wrong, please correct me and please don't pull statistics out of thin air in making your arguments. Just sayin'.