There's no mention in the article of the vast amount of food diverted to biofuels. Getting rid of all the mandates and subsidies for that is the most obvious t

There's no mention in the article of the vast amount of food diverted to biofuels. Getting rid of all the mandates and subsidies for that is the most obvious thing that could immediately be done to increase food production. (Of course, biofuels make no sense at any time, being entirely a corrupt money-making scheme whose political support comes from misinformed voters who falsely think it has some environmental or energy-production benefit.) There may not be enough seed to plant alternative crops, rather than corn meant for ethanol production. Presumably corn of the varieties used for ethanol could be used as human or animal food, but it might be necessary to expand infrastructure (eg, milling capacity) to allow this, which ought to be possible given the lead time before harvest, if people start thinking about it now. It's also possible that more land could be planted with alternative crops (eg, wheat) using the available seed by somewhat reducing the amount of seed used per acre. The lower seed density would often be mostly compensated for by increased growth. (If typical seeding rates are optimized for yield, the derivative of yield with respect to seeding rate will be zero, so a small reduction in seeding rate will have only a slight effect on yield.) Slightly lower seeding rates might come about naturally if the price of seed goes up. It's also possible that grain currently destined for food use could still be diverted for use as seed - checking that out while it may still be true seems like it could be a priority.