I was trying to go a bit deeper than that, like for example the many valuable food sources out there, and we have people starving. Or establishing how we're told what we can eat. But I think you summed it up okay.
1) That's a distribution problem rather than a "what do we eat" problem regarding starving people. We HAVE enough food for 99% of the population (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that), but the distribution of that food to all of the people that need it is the issue. Besides, get hungry enough and there is NO food that is taboo. Cannibalism, eating insects, even your neighboor's cat or dog. Get hungry enough and you WILL eat it, because the survival instinct overrides your pre-existing conditioning. Or you starve.
2) "What we're told we can eat" is merely societal conditioning. One society conditions its members that beef is taboo (the Sacred Cow) but chicken is fine. Another conditions that dog meat or horse meat is acceptable. If you change your conditioning (say, convert to Hinduism) part of reconfiguring your conditioning is to replace one set of arbitrary limits (in this case whatever you currently think is "taboo" to eat) with the arbitrary limits of the societal framework you're accepting (in this case, beef becomes "taboo" and other things that might have been taboo to you will now be socially acceptable).
Ditch the need or desire to follow societal conditions and there are NO taboos that are imposed from outside. Your only limits become the limits you place on yourself, not just with food but with everything.