If by "they" you mean farmers/agriculturalists, then you are factually incorrect:
I invite you to present evidence to the contrary.
Global poverty levels are decreasing, agricultural efficiency is increasing. Envrionmental degradation and the exploitation of animals are serious issues, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the facts.
That's just a slogan and I don't care for slogans.
The soil issue is real, which is why I'm in favour of organic agriculture. However, even conventional agriculture is getting better in terms of the kinds of chemicals they use and increased understanding of more sophisticated management systems such as IPM. However, even with the problems of soil depletion, it is absolutely untrue to say efficiency is not increasing. It might not increase forever, but so far, it is. Fewer people are producing more food. We live in an age of unprecedented plenty. You can eat oranges in fucking January in Montreal. Maybe it wouldn't kill us recognize how amazing that is.
"Chemically laced food" is also just another slogan. Your options are chemically treated food (organic relies on pesticides as well), or insect infested. Cherry fruit fies are brutal, no one wants worms in their cherries.
Aside from the dangers of handling, there is very little evidence that pesticides are a risk to human health. They certainly don't appear to be a risk to consumers. I invite you to show evidence to the contrary. I haven't found any.
Monsanto does not produce food. As a general rule, "huge conglomerates" do not grow food. Farmers grow food. In the US, many farms are operated by hedge funds. We often aren't talking about small operations. But where are the "huge conglomerates" that are growing food? In most of the world, smaller farms are producing the majority of the food. Even in the US that could be true, I'm not sure.
The distribution of resources is not the purview of the companies and individuals who grow and produce food! Thats not how it works!