These scientists are going to tell you that overfarming and poor land management have been major contributors to soil erosion and drought conditions, and that new agricultural regulations are needed. But without our farms, where are we going to find ample sources of quality food?

The argument is fallacious, and it is commiting the strawman fallacy.

Explanation:

The argument is commiting the strawman fallacy because it is not refuting the central point of the argument that scientists make, and instead, is twisting the point and taking it to an extreme in order to make it easier to refute.

Scientists are arguing that overfarming and poor management generate serious enviromental consequences like soil erosion and drought, they are not saying that farms should be abandoned or destroyed, or that food production should be halted, as the rebuttal implies. In conclusion, this argument is a textbook example of a strawman fallacy, and should be treated as such during a debate, instead of engaging with it.

"the importance of the japanese economy and security is far greater than that of the asian values"