It's not even that though -- we can distribute, very well. We can send grain in container ships, do air drops, land trains, all sorts. We can process, preserve, etc. to avoid spoiling.
None of that is the problem that causes famine.
We don't want to feed people who aren't paying; or people in power don't see it as useful.
It's not a practical problem it's all political, surely?
"a distribution problem" is not a problem of how to physically transport something over a distance. A "distribution problem" in economic terms is how good are allocated to those who want it, or rather, how this allocation fails. It fails, for example, in places where there is no or insufficient government or rule of law. So the GP was already saying what you are, but in a more nuanced (and better) way. Saying 'it's all political' is just saying 'it's all the fat cat's fault'. But it's much more subtle than that; for example, endemic corruption also causes economic misallocation, and it's a cultural problem, not a 'political' one per se.
>"Famine is caused by poor [food] distribution, not poor production."<
The thread was specifically about food surplus, the GP & parent comments both specify it.
There's no reason to think either had the definition you use in mind. Surely that's "allocation"; I don't find your definition apparent -- unqualified "distribution" primarily in economics sources (I checked Economist, Investopedia, couple of other s) refers to "income distribution".
Given how blunt and lacking in nuance you found my post it's interesting you deliberately miscast "politics" as limited in scope to the actions of rich capitalists.
Saying "it's political" means it's down to motive and not ability. We can distribute food to everyone, people at some level "choose" not to. Do you disagree?
None of that is the problem that causes famine.
We don't want to feed people who aren't paying; or people in power don't see it as useful.
It's not a practical problem it's all political, surely?