I've work on farms.
Farmers in the extended family, too.
I've seen the miles and miles of corn, soy, wheat, desert, salt water, etc.
as I criss-crossed the US and the world.
You shouldn't jump to conclusions on where someone's data is coming from.
The record here on the sbox shows I read the NY Times, and
a sampling of other news sources that try to do real journalism.
But there are other sources:
E.g. I have friends in research academia who have studied food and populations issues for the UN, etc.
Who have gotten my help proofing, checking computer systems, math analysis, etc.
How much of the real data has you analyzed/used?
But let's go back to the interesting factoid you offered:
Iowa could feed the world with corn.
Not true, but kinda close, if you want people to die slowly of
Our species needs a diet that includes nutrients other than calories:
essential amino and fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, phyto-nutrients, etc.
None of which you get from corn.
You need a lot more land to do that.
Corn is a great cash crop for agri-business. It's a bad choice for the long term.
It uses up top soil and needs artificial fertilizers, GMO, etc to be profitable.
I've already said we had enough land to feed everyone alive, and then some,
if we could agree to use it to do so.
Cutting back factory production of meat is part of it, but not all of it.
From a system viewpoint, of maximizing food production, while
minimizing ecological impact, meat can be grown in traditional ways,
and be a once a week or so treat for those who want it,
not an every meal staple for the richest.
Too much of a start on the textbook.