Interesting discussion here although the article itself seems to miss the point. This situation appears to rather accurately reflect Marx’s last stage of government capitalism. That is a bit ironic and also covers only part of the disaster.
Obviously there is a problem with supply and pricing that should, I agree, be left to the market. But that is a late stage government capitalist problem. Our primary food supplies are large industrial farms. That is fine as the, as noted, can handle market fluctuations.
It is an excellent idea to support, indirectly, gig farmers working to enhance local foods for local use. This would work for diversity, innovation, and happiness with satisfying work and good food as a major pleasure.
But Universal Basic Income is the missing component. By taking a percentage of regional or national gross product to provide UBI maintaining above subsistence income to everyone, we subsidize the individuals involved and remove all organizational subsidies and individual welfare.
The result is to subsidize innovation by people while making them functionally equal to the disproportionately wealthy in our current system allowing them to learn and innovate. This removes the increasingly intolerable burden of subsistence thus granting freedom to everyone while simultaneously reducing the forces seeking to load market economics to their own ends.
Free markets work best for commodity goods and nonessential services. This can also provide open and transparent support to important services limiting direct government outlays to essential human and planetary care. The UBI guarantee is best structured, I think, as a percentage allocation of the planet as asset (or region as asset or, worst case nation) for each individual. Income then is actually a return on capital asset based on something like GDP.
This creates the market based agriculture you want while shifting assets to everyone and eliminating the need for artificial subsidies.