Nope, my claim was not over-the-top, and you were correct to defend me the first time. What I said was a well known scientific fact, and something capitalist-supporters do not like hearing.
It's also not hard to do the research to find many different places online that confirm what I said.
Here ⚠️ ↗. Read AndyB's response, where he--evidently a supporter of capitalism--nevertheless makes it clear (to his credit) why so many people are undernourished or malnourished in the world today despite our being able to produce more than enough food for everyone as a direct result of the nature of food production under capitalism: profit must be made in order for food to be disbursed, otherwise the economy will be screwed up. So guess what gets sacrificed for the retention of profit, along with the retention of jobs that are hinged to capitalists in the food industry making such profits? The problem is not an inability to produce enough food, but the fact that virtually nothing can be disbursed under a money-based system to anyone unless they have the funds to purchase it.
Here ⚠️ ↗. Be sure to check out the cornucopia of links at the bottom of this page.
Finally, please note that Kansas and Iowa do not use their food-producing capacity at anywhere near their full potential, because that would be harmful to profits and jobs in the food industry under a capitalist system; farmers are actually paid government subsidies not to grow more than a certain amount of food, and huge amounts of food produced in these states per year are wasted and destroyed rather than disbursed to those who need it solely on the basis of need--all for the purpose of protecting profits. The main priority of a resource-based economy would be to see that everyone in the world gets fed, first and foremost; the main priority of a money-based economy is to see to it that those who privately own food production or distribution businesses make a sizable profit, first and foremost.