"Food" is not a single commodity, but rather about a million different items which largely substitute for one another when it comes to basic "or die" sustenance. If bananas suddenly cost $100/pound, my choice wouldn't be to pay $100/pound or die, I'd simply stop buying bananas, and buy more of other food instead.
Drugs are not comparable, because there's typically only a handful of drugs that are effective for a given condition, and often just one.
Given the famines that regularly happen in countries that don't have free market food supplies, I wouldn't take it as a given that food is implicitly plentiful.
The inexpensive prices for drugs cited in the article happened before the US government got heavily involved with running the health care industry. Maybe that's a coincidence, but I doubt it.
It is comparatively free. You don't have to go through many regulatory hoops to grow food and sell it. It's not remotely comparable to concocting a medicine and selling it.
The end of famine in America happened around 1800, as the free market and the industrial revolution fixed that problem. Famine persists in other areas that insist on collectivized farms or have other problems that prevent free market agriculture, such as warfare.
Even the Soviet Union had to import wheat from Kansas, and allowed farmers to farm their own plots and sell the results, because the collectivized farms could not produce enough.
Drugs are not comparable, because there's typically only a handful of drugs that are effective for a given condition, and often just one.