Having a 'right' to something doesn't mean that someone else has to provide it to you. Having a 'right' to something means that one cannot be denied the ability to provide that something for themselves.
So for food, one could say that hunting and fishing licenses would violate a persons right to food -which directly stems from ones right to life. Also, one could say that making medicinal plants illegal would violate a persons right to medicine -which may also be considered an extension of ones right to life.
However, having a 'right' to life, water, food, medicine or whatever doesn't mean that someone else has to provide those to you. Does having a 'right' to self-defence mean that someone has to defend you if you are unwilling or unable to defend yourself? Does the 'right' to bear arms mean that someone has to provide you with arms or that someone has to bear arms for you?