In first world countries, e.g. US and Europe, the amount of food wasted is massive and if there's anybody still starving in these countries, that's not because of a food shortage.
Also the wasted food cannot be shipped to countries that need it, like Africa, without a high cost, unless you're talking about food low in nutrients, like sugar, flour or corn, that can be stored for months or years and that does nothing to help those populations, because they need proteins, they need nutrients.
So the starvation argument makes absolutely no sense.
Also I believe that in some cases a lower yield per acre should reduce the costs. If you eliminate the waste, if you make the distribution channels efficient, if you keep the soil healthy, production costs should in fact go down.
I'm not commenting on the soundness of the above argument, merely trying to make sure its premises are correctly interpreted. :)
I think other comments, however, did address the discussion of people who struggle to afford food at current prices-- additionally, in the U.S. specifically, 40% of food is wasted [1]. Maybe just a decrease in U.S. food supply would be in order? Or specifically countries where food waste is that high?
