Primer: I will lay out a few key premises, and based on those, I will make a conclusion. Those which I perceive to be potentially controversial, I provide further elaboration in the footnotes. This argument is simple induction, and lays the philosophical framing of the proposition. If you take umbrage with something, for the sake of clarity and efficiency, refer to it by the letter beside the premise, or the footnote number.
To stem a few arguments right out of the gate:
The retort that my argument is invalid because it doesn't use specific examples, falls, because the reasoning within can be applied to any relevant situation, however argument by enumeration is severely flawed.
When determining whether something is deserved, we must look at the most important actors in the scenario, and therefore must look to the wellbeing of the country, thus the happiness of the individual argument falls.
A: When we make generalized claims (poor people) we must assume the most common scenario.
B: The most common scenario for a person to find themselves in, is that they are living in a country.
C: A country is simply a geographic area, governed by one political apparatus, wherein its people have significant cultural similarities.
D: This group of people, is a society.
E: It is in the best interest of the country to ensure the increased prosperity (financial, intellectual, physical) of its citizens.
F: The way to increase prosperity for the most amount of people, is to raise the minimum amount of prosperity that one can attain.*1
G: If people are unable to achieve that level of prosperity, it clearly isn't a minimum.
H: Ability to eat one's fill is one of the most basic forms of prosperity.
I: The ramifications of global economic systems upon a country's citizens are not the fault of the individual citizen, but the responsibility of the country.*2
Conclusion: Therefore, if countries should establish a minimum amount of prosperity for their citizens, and available food is an essential instance of prosperity, then no, poor people do not deserve to go hungry.
*1 : When the wellbeing of a country is dependent upon the whim of a small number of people, the country is worse off than when it is dependent upon a larger number. By just establishing opportunity, countries create a system which is detrimental to their own wellbeing, as it promotes a much smaller number of people with prosperity. By establishing minimum levels of prosperity though, the country ensures that it is not dependent upon an extremely small group of people.
*2 : The actions of one individual do not have a significant impact on the global financial system. If a country's wellbeing is dependent upon its citizens, and it is the one causing these financial changes, then it is beholden to those citizens who were negatively affected.