Now, there's a fair bit of waffle in there, but I like the point he is making. Basically discussing the USDA and other powers that be, runing with the 'conventional' (ie industrialised) agriculture, and covering several UN and other studies that show that organic, local agriculture works in so many ways for so much less cost (in all terms not just monetary).
Which brings me to something that bothers me. The use of the term conventional agriculture, which currently means industrial, chemical agriculture. Now this malarkey has only been around since, what, the 40's? 50's? Prior to the chemical companies stepping in, the only kind of agriculture for the last thousands of years WAS organic. So my issue is using the term conventional, which means conforming to accepted standards, to describe a practise that is only very recent in the worlds agricultural history.
Need to turn it around so that what was conventional pre-industrial agriculture, is conventional again!