This sounds bad to say, but if there's more people than food, then we have too many people. It's supply and demand. When times are good, before having a kid, think: "We'll have to feed this kid for a couple of decades. Will I be able to feed them if a famine came?" If no, then don't have more kids than can be provided for.
The article is somewhat accurate, but with a few problems. The food that is supposedly "destroyed" is in fact given away to anyone who wants it. It's not wasted. The free market would adjust price points and be better than subsidies, but subsidies do not actually hurt small farms and benefit large farms; they're just more beneficial with economy of scale. Most farmers say they prefer subsidies by pointing to current prices for particular products, but those prices would be wholly different in a free market farming system.
Ethanol from corn was something that Bush, in his infinite wisdom, preached up as an Awesome Solution to Our Energy Problems. Everyone who knew anything about ethanol said at the time that sugarcane and switchgrass were far more efficient at making ethanol, but he was trying to get the farm vote...and here we are.
There's lots of people now who are solving hunger and vacant lots in one shot: making "community gardens", where people from the neighborhood start farming a small plot with food that can be eaten. Plus, it's good exercise, and something for kids to do besides getting high. We're talking people in inner-city areas, that otherwise would never even consider growing their own food even if they were trapped on a deserted island. This link is to a liberal blog, but it's the only place I can find a good article about it.