The article is brief, but it's informative and well-sourced. It links to the full EWG report and embeds their video.

This short article and video seem biased and limited. Most of what is stated is correct but some of the statements are clearly not true. USDA pays farms to use conservation on their land and many landowners do not choose rent that allows them (including me) to get farm subsidies. This article does not include problems in other countries that provide food have raised the cost of farm production.

The subject is critical as food supplies become more tenuous due to population growth, climate changes and political turmoilIt is too brief to be very informative, but the link to an also too brief written piece has a 5 minute video with more details, specifically of topsoil loss in Iowa. I'd rather the author watched the video and reported to me what was important in it, otherwise it's superficial and not very effective journalism.

The corporations marketing toxic chemicals and the big agribusiness quest to maximize short term profits at the expense of sustainability get some rare but well deserved negative coverage.

The brief article and the video are basically quite accurate. However, they are not exactly news. These problems, though not the new scientific measurements, have been around and known for years; they just aren't sexy enough to make headlines. And debates in DC over farm policy make everyone's eyes glaze over - except for agribusiness's.

There is no corroborating evidence supporting the article.

The article does give important facts but seems to avoid the subject of corporate farming. And it's overall affect on how the small farmer must do business to compete.