I think the original video is misrepresented, it argue that Sysco is a local monopoly for restaurants in rural areas, not a global monopoly. And it does absolutely mention its two big competitors, especially when Sysco tried a merger with one, and the two of them are in a merger themselves.
I won't argue point by point since i really, really dislike this argumentative method, but to me, the main argument from OP is: consumer have choices, and chose low-quality (the part about the frozen line especially is interesting). The video argues that Sysco is a local monopoly and that in reality, few restaurant truly have a choice of what they serve, so they serve shit even if they don't want to , more and more expensive shit as Sysco's earnings are rising, and people are just now starting to notice.
Living close to an agri co-op, and being raised near a farmer's market (not in the US though), it does track, but local monoply power is not where i think those companies truly make their money. It's their local monopsony power. Coop like working with global logistic companies at first, since they propose the lowest prices and can buy in bulk, and work well with futures. But as soon as the local competion dies, restrictions start to happen on what the coop can do until even local restaurant have to use the logistic food companies instead of the local coop (luckily, here we have regulations and this was banned 25 years ago)
At worst, the original video inform consumers, and given Op's belief in information:
> The reality is if you’re an informed consumer, you probably aren’t. Sysco’s frozen food line is incredibly easy to spot, and is only available at low-quality establishments.
i don't understand why he argues against it. Yes, the fact are presented in an ideological manner, but isn't the consumers more informed after?