Broadly speaking organic pesticides are more harmful to the environment, both with the intensity that they're applied and that they're broad spectrum compounds that affect a variety of species that may not even be considered a pest for that particular crop. Also at least in North America there was a study of produce in Canada about a decade ago that showed around 50% of organic produce tested positive for synthetic pesticides, because the organic variants often times just don't get the job done and farmers aren't going to just watch their income turn to mush. Coupled with the absolute dearth of inspectors that are supposed to test for this kind of stuff I just have a general vibe that the organic label is largely nothing more than a way to charge double for the same product.

The only time I specifically seek out organic products is if I'm looking for something that contains sugar, and even then, it's dependent on what product I'm seeking out itself. For me, this concern stems from veganism. Sometimes, it's impractical, so I don't adhere to this as an "absolute" rule in a sense, but I'm uncomfortable with not being careful about sugar because of the bone char used in processing refined sugar.

Microplastics are from pollution in general (like they're mixed into basically every water source IIRC, from ground water to rain), so "organic" stuff is still going to be contaminated with them. All that "organic" means in practice is that something might have (but quite possibly was not) only been grown with a selected list of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers that some company that issues "organic certification" says are ok.

Do you buy them

fuck no, organic is more expensive for the same bullshit farming practices, they're not doing anything fundamentally different (if they're doing anything different), just swapping one pesticide for another based on bunkum panic around 'synthetic' substances. you shouldn't give a fuck if something was made "in a lab" or nature, nature is full of stuff that gives you cancer and kills you

Isn't ”organic” one of those terms with no oversight, so you can use it for anything?

My stance is that the idea was good until capitalism got its hands on it. Now (in the US anyway) the large scale producers have lobbied the official legal requirements to label "organic" to the point where they are mostly meaningless.

Also, a lot of times farmers will grow organic and conventional produce too close to each other and overspray from the conventional pesticides/fertilizers etc. will end up on the organic stuff anyway. (I don't know if it's 100% legit, but this blogpost seems to cover things reasonably well.)

Until recently, this is where I would recommend to grow as much of your own food as you can(or buy directly from someone who is), but with PFAS and microplastics in rainwater I think we're mostly just screwed anyway.

lol, maybe we can retreat to hydroponics?

the organic standards were/are more about conserving natural resources than directly promoting human health, though of course it's a lot easier to get westoids to conspicuously consume when they believe a specific product will impact their individual health, than to see if they care about some natural resource being undermined. one of the primary benefits, from a strictly input-substitution perspective, is that biologically derived inputs (fertilizers, pesticides) are considerably harder to patent and license when compared to chemically synthesized inputs. chemical companies have agricultural inputs on lockdown and conventional agricultural production systems are in thrall to them for patented seed/sprays. the original promise of the international organic movement in the 1960s-1970s was to recognize and organize a resistance to market concentration among seed and chemical companies across a range of environmental and labor-friendly practices, but has of course been watered down over the last 40-50 years into something more pleasing to capital formations. though, speaking strictly as an individual consumer... there are some wild novel chemistries out there that i prefer to avoid on my generally-consumed-raw fruits and vegetables. the US is the wild west when it comes to novel chemistry. all kinds of shit that the EU has banned under the precautionary principle is marketed/sold here. i've worked in agriculture for 17 years now, in and around lots of different systems, and the space suits the guys have to get in and the tempo of the spray schedule for conventional fruit production is wild. the EPA still has a "critical use" carve out of the 2000 blanket ban on methyl bromide for strawberries, almonds and a bunch of other crops. for those keeping score, the US uses >40% of all methyl bromide produced on earth because most other developed and even developing countries have banned it for agricultural use, if not outright due to its gnarly implications for soil/groundwater toxicity and its role in ozone depletion. it was specifically listed in the Montreal Protocol.

but, to answer the question, i generally only prioritize knowing what's up (either knowing the grower or buying an audited label like organic, fair trade, blah blah) with fresh produce where i know the alternative is like environmentally destructive, reliant on slavery, or both), i guess, and i try to eat less corn-based products in general. lately been messing around more with lentils and black beans.

that's for ingredients. when it comes to prepared foods, i believe in nothing. chefs/restaurateurs are lyin' ass motherfuckers when it comes to having "values" and prepared/prepackaged items are all full of salt, sugar and god knows what else anyway. so give me the cheap shit.