It's a bit of a tangent but the major reason why there is starvation in the world is poor distribution rather than a bottleneck in production.
In the West the problem is over-production whilst in the so called Third World the problem is either climatological, Multi-National-Corporational or Tin-Pot-Dictatorial.
Most of the famines that have made the headlines for the past twenty years were eminently avoidable and could've been handled by the indiginous farmers if it weren't for the internicine civil wars rampaging all over the place.
Leaving that aside, the agriculture that is described as the alternative to Organic farming methods is not sustainable. It's narrow visioned methodology is what has resulted in vast mono-cultures with vulnerabilities to all kinds of diseases that, surprise, surprise, can only be kept viable by the application of even more chemicals. It is also not a surprise that the money behind the development of these crop types comes in large part from the agricultural chemical corporations.
Now understand I'm not going all 'conspiracy theory' here. It was only natural business sense that these companies would foster the environment that most suited them. The problem is that it makes for a precarious situation in which a plant disease mutation could cause real trouble.
Organic farming is not a fad (it's how we grew food for millenia prior to the twentieth century) and there is no need for it's products to be 'marked up' to the extent that
Kwiter gave an example of. Chemical fertiliser and pesticides cost money, an awful lot in some cases and altho' putting a farm onto a non-industrial footing does induce higher expenses at first, running costs do not have to be outlandish.
Oops, as always seems to happen when I get the bit between my teeth, I'm starting to wander .. plus, my missus is calling me, ironically enough, for dinner
.
More chat later I hope.