Is he suggesting that if we were to eat "pastured" agricultural products we could go back to spending 15% of our income on food (versus 8% now). Turning back the clock on efficiencies gained in our food supply would probably result in far more than 15% being spent on food. He also seems to imply that the increase in health care (8% 1984 to 15% today) is due to not eating "pastured" products. Malpractice insurance and defensive medicine don't figure into this increase?
I don't know about most people, but I'm not looking as meat products as a source of beta-carotene in my diet.