And yet walk into any supermarket in the developed world and see what's on the shelves. Pineapples in Europe? No problem. Seafood in Alice Springs? Crappy but there.
Countries around the world are becoming more developed and prosperous. As they become more prosperous and wealth they demand lifestyles and consumptions similar to that in "first world" countries.
An alternative solution which others here seem to imply is that these developing nations need to have their population growth repressed or should a never achieve a standard of living equal to that in "developed" nations.
All of these issues boil down to economics. I'm not going to wade through everything you posted, but I did see one that strongly refuted the idea that 'pineapples in Europe' is a big issue. The vast majority of food is produced and consumed within the borders of individual nations.
This is only true for nations occupying quite large geographical areas, covering a wide gamut of climates, like Australia & the USA.
I don't know if the USA does grow pineapples, bananas, etc within the contiguous states, but it doesn't matter, as they do in Hawaii.
The rest of their climate range allows the growth of multiple crops that would be imports for countries of smaller area.
The same applies to Australia, where the Northernmost parts grow tropical fruit with ease, whereas in the south, other crops are the mainstay.
Countries like the UK are large importers of food from other countries, as they have more limited crop options.
Traditionally, the UK (& other countries in Europe) exported manufactured goods & imported primary produce, but as other countries have developed their manufacturing capacity, their export market has declined.
And international trade will generally only happen where there is an economic incentive, so those developing nations can 'demand' all they want, but unless they can pay for it, they don't get. And, surprise surprise, if they can pay for it, those very nations who are living high on the hog now--the ones presumed to be 'the problem--will likely be the ones to step up and produce that food. The US has plenty of food (which is why we're all fatter now) and plenty more to export.
How come the USA imports Australian beef?
As for repressing population growth or development, the choices seem clear--gain the ability to produce the food, gain the ability to buy it, or eat less. That's not externally applied repression, it's just economics. How on earth would me switching to tofu burgers change any of that?
My opinion is that many trade imbalances are caused by the silly exchange rates.
If an Australian goes to Thailand, he can live like a king on what would be a quite modest amount of money in this country.
At home, he can can feed his family, live in a house, whilst working to make enough to get by
People aren't dying of hunger in the streets in Thailand, so an equivalent man can do all these things on a wage which converts to below poverty level in Oz.
If the exchange rate was based on a parcel of goods & services of equal value in each country, the $A & the Thai Baht would be at parity, or close to it.
Instead, currencies are traded like shares, giving some ridiculously low values, & others undeservedly high ones.
This can be disadvantageous for those at both extremes