Food prices continue to be extremely low because population doesn't expand to drive prices up.
My argument is that population expands to fit abundance.
How do you have both of those happening at the same time? Keep in mind that population growth in the US has remained at the 1% for three or four decades while coexisting with cheap food prices. There has been no population expanding to fit abundance going on.
Do you see population rapidly expanding to consume all of our employment opportunities?
What if I told you that the labor force would slow its expansion during high unemployment?
And that's relevant how?
What if that actually happened from 2008 to 2012? What if the population somewhat dipped during that time?
I'll note that you refer to a four year period with a lot of other stuff going on. Meanwhile I referred to your own example which was a far longer period of time (at least a century) which doesn't show that effect. And we also can compare countries world-wide and not see that effect. You just cherry picked a brief span of time.
You haven't provided any argument that says that expanding beyond our means would not cause population to slow its growth, while I have shown good reasoning that it does and demonstrated the effect actually occurring during times when poverty (and thus individual access to means) has increased.
And I don't have to. We aren't expanding beyond our means. This is not a relevant scenario.
The developed world, which are the countries with by far the most abundant food production, have the lowest fertility. One doesn't have to go far to explain why. There are two well known effects that cause this situation: first, women in the workplace mean lower fertility; and second, higher survival rates of children to adulthood mean lower fertility.