I upvoted. Thanks for providing sources. I read both. My takeaway is that the amount of pesticide residue on conventional products is considered safe, but organic products contain less pesticide residue.

I think that Scientific American article is low quality in general (which is a shame--I used to subscribe to them). I think the relevant part is this quote:

According to the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, the top two organic fungicides, copper and sulfur, were used at a rate of 4 and 34 pounds per acre in 1971 [1]. In contrast, the synthetic fungicides only required a rate of 1.6 lbs per acre, less than half the amount of the organic alternatives.

• Their reference is https://ncfap.org/, which leads to a broken website for me.
• It's talking about usage of two specific fungicides from over 50 years ago.

(The article has other red flags as well that suggest lack of rigor.)

The paper seems more rigorous to me, but it actually refutes your point:

While conventional produce was between 2.9 and 4.8 times more likely to contain detectable pesticide residues than organic produce, samples of organic produce frequently contained residues.

That said, I think the important point is that both organic and conventional food are considered safe. Both papers agree with that, as does Harvard Health, which I consider reputable, although it also says that organic produce has less pesticide residue:

According to USDA data, organic foods have fewer pesticide residues than conventionally grown produce. But the amounts for both types of produce are within the level for safe consumption. And it's unclear if the pesticides used in organic farming are safer than nonsynthetic pesticides used in conventional farming.

(from https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/should-you-go-organic )

Perhaps you would consider editing your original post to get rid of the "more of"?