And possibly not pay more for food either, given that there are often prices floors or other similar things. Remember that we usually have a vast surplus of food in the US.

The govt at one point was running massive warehouses to store cheese, as a way to keep up milk prices. This is the origin of “government cheese.”

> government cheese

TIL.

See also: council juice

Many people in my country are already paying around half of their earnings for food. You can't really go much above that before dying of starvation.

Or substantial social changes. Rents and other costs would presumably need to change if this affected a majority? Edit: what I’m pointing to is that hunger is often in the context of sufficiency.

Don't forget the fact that a few nations export massive surpluses of food. If the global trade chain is disrupted, their customers simply won't have enough food to eat.

Most famines in the last 100 years were at least partially caused by an inability to supply food from neighboring or just slightly more distant regions.

Let's not pretend the food production subsidies are there for some kind of altruistic reasons. They're mostly there because of lobbyism.

There are also people who say that the overproduction of food in EU and US causes underproduction of food in poorer countries, making them less self sufficient and more sensitive to price increases and supply chain disruptions.

I believe the intent was to say that Fertilizers made from Fossile Fuels subsidize the Nutrients in the ground. That is, the ground itself cannot support the amount of food we grow, unless we, the humans, subsidise the ground with fertilizers.

This was a reference to energy system subsidies, not financial. Diesel for combines or natural gas for fertilizer.