If food is not free, Some people will be unable to afford it. This means that they will go without food, And starve. This is a grave violation of human rights, Especially because when you're dead, You can't exercise your other human rights.
You could make the argument that this forces other people to produce that food, Whether they like it or not. I personally disagree. If people enjoy producing food for society, Allow them to do it. If they don't, Then automate it.
Of course, Real life isn't that simple, But I think that the core idea of automating production when doing it manually is unenjoyable is a good idea, And ensuring that such production works for society and not any one specific person is also a good idea.
Let me open with this: What if we were charged to breathe air? People would be outraged. If you had grown up paying to breathe air, You would be outraged at the idea of having free air. Just like you are now outraged with the idea of free food. Why are we charged for the basic things we need to survive? It makes no sense.
Since the beginning of human history, You had to work to obtain things like food and shelter. Over time, The job of getting the food went from each individual to a paid industry (farming). You still had to work for the food, But not in the actual growing of it just as the farmer didn't have to make things he used like machinery or clothing.
How would we actually make food free? Well, We actually wouldn't. Fact is, The government would be paying for it with our tax dollars. This means that only those who pay taxes are paying for everyone to get fed. What makes this worse is that if the government is paying for it, The government CONTROLS it. They decide what you can eat and how much.
What about the cost? Right now, There is no guarantee a farmer will show a profit. This means they may not even be paid for the work they do much less afford to purchase new equipment. This is why min. Wage laws can be different for farmers as they may not have to pay their workers the same as retail or manufacturing rates. If food is free (supplied by the government) farmers would get government contracts, And the field hands would need to be paid the government min. If we look at the billion dollar government contracts for the military and other branches, We can see how much the government overspends when it's other peoples money. When a hammer that should cost about $20 costs our U. S. Navy $435, How much will a loaf of bread cost? Fact is, Industries compete over government contracts because they can make huge profits.
Who pays for the farms? At this point, The farmer or his bank owns the farm. If you own a farm, Are you automatically given a government contract or does it go to the lowest bidder? Picking the lowest bidder may save money on the food we get but what about the farms that don't get contracts? Do they go bankrupt? If only the lowest bidder is growing food, Then there is much less food available. See the issues? The other option would be for the government to purchase the farms. Can you imagine the cost to taxpayers?
I think since most of us can't afford every thing we get the chance to eat anything we want so we will eat everything thing. So limitations are necessary always I'm not saying that not getting enough food is a cool thing but too much is also not the solution.
If you had the option of getting your housing, Water bills, And food expenses covered by some third party, Why wouldn't you take it? Moreover, The problem then is who's going to cover for all the food expenses? More money spent on food by the government means a tighter budget in other areas of the economy, Which could drastically affect people's way of life in the long run (think the Venezuelan government and their excessive spending on its people).