I don't agree with the OP necessarily that agriculture led to the above diseases (agriculture is a very broad term), but it is true that these are "diseases of civilization" - such disease have conspicuously shown up under Western dietary influence. Cue Gary Taubes and his book, Good Calories / Bad Calories.
1. Early farmers had less access to variety of diet compared to hunter-gatherers. It is hard to disagree with this one. For a lot of Asia, Rice is still the main food and rice on its own contain little more than carbohydrates.
2. Risk of starvation if crops failed.
3. Encouraged crowded societies and deterioration in position of Women. Agriculture forced women to have children often and that in turn impacted their health. I don't know much about Europe but in India Govt. still runs advertisement encouraging Women to have kids at a gap of 3 years or more. I think it is widely held that healthier Mother in general means healthier baby.
I believe the massive population explosion of humans can not be explained without agriculture.
So billions more people are able to survive somehow now...but our "health" has gone down?
There is the health of the human species...which has gone up undeniably, evidenced by the billions more people being fed...and then there is the health of the individual human.
So you were referring to the health of an individual when discussing agriculture's impact? Sample size seems kinda small. Also...seems that most of us wouldn't be around for that discussion as the non-agricultural food supply would not allow us to be born.
Really? A plant-based whole foods diet is probably the best cure out there for heart disease and type 2 diabetes. (google Dean Ornish, Neil Barnard, John McDougall)
The author tells a good story but his bashing of agriculture is unsupported.