There is no doubt that the world produces enough food for everyone, and that the chief impediment to feeding everyone is political - but where specifically do you get the data that just Iowa and Kansas are sufficient to feed the entire world?

For the record, I never said--nor meant to imply--that Kansas and Iowa alone in the world are so capable. I simply said they are capable. The point partially being, that if the U.S. alone wanted to end world hunger outside the economic/political considerations, it is fully capable of doing so from a scientific standpoint.

I think that is stretching things a bit, and every study I have seen has found that despite increasing yields due to new crop varieties, a good deal of real estate is needed to feed the world. In fact, if it were not for the green revolution in the 1960s humanity would have exceeded its ability to feed itself.

Such real estate could be provided at a rapid pace with modern technology, and it's totally untrue that the world is overpopulated with food supplies being genuinely scarce.

That said, I do believe that before long we will reach a point where food is so cheap as to essentially be free, but I just don't see a way to get there without capital investment.

If only I lived in a world where capitalism operated the way it does on your planet, I'm sure that food would get increasingly affordable every year and it wouldn't be such a major fiscal expenditure on my part every month. Which is why I see taking food off the for-profit market is the best way to end hunger, not invest more money into making it profitable.