I don't know how you think producing less food will get more of it on peoples tables. You can argue that overproduction has other problems, certainly the envir

I don't know how you think producing less food will get more of it on peoples tables. You can argue that overproduction has other problems, certainly the environmental issues are valid, but it is undeniable that producing excessive quantities of food reduces the price. As for why we would produce more than we need, we like options. Maybe I want a salad tonight, maybe a steak, maybe a sandwich. In buying excess, I have all options open to me and I'll simply throw out whatever I don't choose. If that wasted food could magically teleport into the hands of a starving person, then it would be stupid to let it go to waste. But in reality, if I don't buy it then it will just get thrown out by the grocery store, and if they don't buy it then it won't be grown. Yes it costs resources to grow and transport this excess food, but that's what I'm paying for when I buy it. If the farmer isn't using the money I'm ultimately paying him to replenish the local aquifer, it doesn't matter whether the food he produces gets eaten or buried or turned into weird sex toys. As for food insecurity being high in developed nations, when you look at how people actually live and how food insecurity is defined, it makes perfect sense. To not be food insecure, you need to buy (not be given) nutritious, high quality (ie more expensive) food. You can survive, however, without paying for nutritious high quality food. A 30 dollar bag of rice will feed an adult for a month; it might not be pleasant but it will suffice. A regular, food secure diet might cost 10 times that much. It's a luxury most of us can afford, but it's still a luxury. Now consider the costs most people have: rent, transportation, healthcare, food. If you have an unexpected expense, you can't pay less rent, or pay less transportation, or stop taking your necessary medication. On the other hand you have a lot of control over the amount you spend on food. If you need 200 extra bucks, eating peanut butter sandwiches for a few days doesn't seem that bad. Most people aren't food insecure for long periods of time, but briefly tighten their belts (literally) during rough patches. If you want people to not be food insecure, you need to solve the problem of them needing more money to get by, which means either getting them more excess income (getting them out of poverty) or reducing unexpected expenses (more social welfare). But unless you make high quality, nutritious food as cheap as low quality food, there will always be some people who forego the luxury. Hunger is a real issue, overproduction might be an issue, but solving one has no effect on the other.