Like the whole FFCC project, this article misses the point. Predictably because the science basis of the project was flawed from the start.
Regenerative agriculture is extremely important, indeed it may be only viable and effective response to climate change and the havoc it is bringing. What the French project at Bec Hellouin showed was that 1000m2 of land could comfortably support a family of four but only because of its incredible biodiversity. And all mechanisation of agriculture works against diversity and therefore the real productivity that is possible.
What this article should say is that when people in rural places pursue the good of the soil, the good of the best human nutrition, the good of the most beautiful and rewarding places to be, many more people can have employment and a quality of life that has vanished elsewhere.
You can come at this argument from soil health, from biodiversity on the land, from cooling and rehydrating microclimates, from full integration of animals into soil health and human health, from natural control of pests, from education about real systems, from rural employment, from many, many perspectives and the answer is the same: mimic closely how nature produces abundance.
The FFCC made two key and related mistakes. It mistook the nature of human diet and nutrition, seduced by propaganda about plant-based diets. And it mistook how radically farming practice must change just to stay in the game.