Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, we have a massive grainfed meat livestock sector that in an emergency could basically all be slaughtered in favor of feeding the grain to people. But we also have recent history demonstrating that this will not be allowed to happen, no matter how much starvation there is in poorer countries, we WILL have our steaks. Not negotiable.
Distribution is hard too. It’s not as simple as “we have food and we are mean”. Look at how Hamas for example was seizing food supplies meant for starving Palestinians. Who is going to deliver food aid to, idk, Sudan and ensure only the hungry get it? What guns and soldiers will protect it? Who is going to pay for it? Other countries have a lot of money and excess food too - EU, China, Brazil. I would look forward to…
"Local government distributes food relief to starving residents"
They're the same picture, it's just a judgement call on whether you see them as legitimate. Whether or not that's the case with Hamas, Israel & the US have ensured that Hamas's paramilitary wing specifically are the most legitimate of the local governing bodies, ranging from overturning Palestinian democracy when they attempted to turn into a political party 20 years ago and operating a occupation puppet government in the West Bank, to ensuring that grievances exist with regular provocations at holy sites, with embargoes, or power cuts, to literally assassinating not-explicitly-Hamas-aligned public figures who become popular in Gaza.
The nice thing about food aid is that no matter who seizes it, it's food aid. Unless they're literally lighting it on fire, its entire political power is derived from it eventually being eaten by somebody, and a warlord plus 500 tons of peanuts does not add up to a 500 ton warlord. Better: In some forms of food aid, it rapidly spoils, so its utility to the local power structure is zero if it's hoarded.