The "free market" solution to take food out of people's table is a very good way to have some politicians at the gallows in no time (see Arab Spring)
Free market agriculture has been far more successful at eliminating hunger than any other system.
There is no free market in agriculture.
World hunger has not been 'solved' and any success cannot simply be credited to 'free markets' for a such a large scale complex human social problem.
It makes sense for countries to protect their domestic food production as a military asset - cutting off the food supply is a common warfare tactic. Subsidies also come about because of powerful agricultural lobbying interests. As to if subsidies reduce hunger, the evidence is scant to none. There is plenty of evidence, however, that they result in inefficient misallocation of resources, such as water.
Check out the great American pig slaughter during the Depression:
Subsidized agriculture has been responsible for pretty much ending hunger in most of the world. Free market agriculture hasn't been responsible for ending any hunger.
That depends on what you count as a "subsidy". Are all the roads, dams, diverting of rivers, etc counted as "subsidies"?
> Its effect has been shown quite convincingly in Massachusetts and China.
Modern subsidized agriculture in both countries has quite convincingly showed it.
Not sure why you are now moving the goalpost to welfare.
Archaeological bone evidence of the pre-Columbian Indians is that they periodically had famines. Having land is not a sufficient condition for having a consistent, sufficient food supply.
The US, around 1800, was the first country in history to achieve a consistent food surplus.