There are many ways we can increase our food production capacities. One of them I outlined here:
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20083004-17248.html

However, thinking “in the box” seems to be on the way.

From the article: "The inventions of terminator technology that has decimated local agricultures has been permitted because it fits neatly within a perverse rendering of fairness moderated by market economies and copyright excesses.

Terminator technology is not directly used, but the intentions of its invention - the philosophies of moneymaking from patents and “gene-protection” liabilities are infused within agribusiness."

Is Leanne acknowledging in the second quoted paragraph that "termintor technology" has never been released or even field trialed? If so, how don't these two sentences contradict each other?

How can something "decimate local agricultures" without being used? Just by mere mention of them? That's some strong technology alright.

I believe that there is no food shortage crisis within Australia as many foods are allowed to waste in the fields because labour is too costly or not available to harvest the crops. I have written a feature on this subject that will be published later this month.
I have recently returned from my fifth trip to China and I have also written another feature on food production in that country, which I also believe will be published later this month.
My opinion in both instances is that there is not a shortage of food, only the inability to pay the rising cost of food. Many people live in poverty and are unable to buy food.

It is amazing how people can talk about this crisis without any mention of the p-word. Haiti may have been self-sufficient in rice in 1986, but (from the CIA World Factbook) they have an average family size of 4.79 children per woman. The population is growing at 2.5% per year, implying a population doubling time of 28 years. If there was enough in 1986, why does this imply that there will be enough for almost twice as many people today?

The "p" word is critical; Poverty, not Population.
We have decades of data demonstrating very clearly that populations drop, indeed to less than replacement levels as they become wealthier and better educated.
I would suggest the main driver of this phenomenon is simple economics.
When children are regarded as an asset, either to work the farm or business, or support parents in old age, families are large.
When children are forced into schools, they become more of a cost instead of an asset, and family sizes fall.
There are a number of other factors, of course, but compulsory education (with a good canteen) is a good start, particularly for girls.
For a more complete analysis, check Demographic transition,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
The population problem will disappear when we start treating all kids as if they were our own.

Grim,

Most of humanity is and always has been in a Malthusian trap. Technological advances occur, then population grows to consume the gains and restore the customary level of misery. That is why, despite more than 500 years of progress, the high living standards enjoyed by survivors of the Black Death were not matched until the late 19th century, as explained in the lecture on the 14th century in Radio National's Thousand Years in a Day series (2000). By the early 20th century, malnutrition was again so widespread that the British Army had to lower its minimum height requirement (see Barbara Tuchman's history, "The Proud Tower").

We got out of the trap because development brought policies and advances that made big families expensive to the parents, unnecessary to ensure surviving children or support in old age, and easily avoidable: urbanisation, compulsory education, civil rights and economic opportunities for women, modern contraception, vaccination programs, etc.

The problem with just assuming that development will fix everything for everyone, is that there aren't enough resources or enough global capacity to deal with the wastes. It would take 3 Earths to sustainably give everyone a modest European standard of living, with present technology (see article and graph by Daniele Fanelli on p. 10 of the 7/10/07 New Scientist). It may also take several generations for cultural attitudes to change and up to a further 70 years to stop population growth after fertility rates fall down to or below replacement level. Haiti currently has about 800 m^2 of cultivated land per person. The theoretical minimum for food self-sufficiency, according to the FAO, is 530 m^2. Population is set to double in 28 years...