There are several points that I keyed in on with this article, but first, my statement of disclosure, I am a closet "hippy" and believe in growing food with little or no chemical fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides or genetically modified products. While I try to keep an open mind, my inclination is towards organic and sustainable growing methods. http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/17/pes... By the way, you might have also seen this on the morning news.
With that said, the the two most important things that I gleaned from this article is that babies and young children should be fed natural, organic food (my opinion follows:) at least long enough for their bodies to be big enough to withstand the trace amounts of chemicals found in and on today's mass produced food. By mass produced I mean large farms who have to rely on non-organic methods to produce their product.
Secondly, a small local farmer is less likely to use the the chemicals and if they do, it is probably in smaller amounts. The reasons for this could be many, such as smaller acreage is watched closer and therefore things are averted earlier or not done at all if experience tells the farmer they don't need it.
Smaller farmers live near their land and are more concerned about putting poisons into the environment where their families and friends live. They could also be more concerned about what goes on the product that their neighbors are going to eat.
Small farmers also produce for more local markets which means they do not have to "protect" their crops with chemicals that extend the shipping life or pick early and then have to add ripening agents or dyes to make it look more marketable.
They also do not have to choose varieties based on shipping attributes and can choose more for taste, or ability to grow in their area. When you grow something outside of its' natural zone, you often have to use unnatural methods to make it appear healthy.
There is so much more that could be said, but lets leave it at this and see what we get.