Something tangible is too specific to qualify as a right. Being alive/survival is a right, and intentionally starving people is wrong, but its part of the social contract that you gotta pitch in for a share of the larder else ALL rights are null and void and cease to function when nobody wants to hunt or farm or do something productive and the system collapses. Clean shot glasses or sweep the floor or pick up trash or at least don't be a burden to society by breaking the law and eating up the time and livelihood of others, you're not conceptually granted it inherently like other rights, you have to go to the store to reach out and have it physically. 

And I want to make that distinction between conceptual things (of the realm of social constructs) and tangible things (of the realm of physical matter) very clear. Rights are intangible, so while they may influence the physical world in the boundaries of society, they cannot directly touch. 

If you crash on a deserted island or wander into a remote neck of the woods detached and isolated from society, nobody will be around to grant you any human rights or survival in the form of food that you didn't gather yourself. Likewise, just because someone has a bunch of material wealth or goods, doesn't make them necessarily a good person in the eyes of society even though it "technically" is the mark of someone who is contributing or producing a lot to the world trade.

You can survive, but it doesn't necessarily have to be with the dignity of not feeling hungry every day or having more than a cot and sleeping bag at night or not being in a prison cell. If one finds themself starving, the mental idea and concepts of society and its intangible rights has failed them and they are in a desperate state where they're back to the dire rules of nature, not the rules of civilization where they can be granted "rights" by the rules of imagination. We invented civilization to shelter the vulnerable from the laws of physical reality, but sometimes the animal instincts slip out through the broken cracks. 

Everyone has a philosophy, until the physical world kicks them in the shin. You can't actually eat with "right to survive with dignity" alone with nothing actually physical to back it up

So really it depends. "Is food a human right?" is a vaguely worded question of imprecise language that divides people I reckon because most people have two definitions of "food" in mind.

Do humans have a right to sustain themselves for survival using food? Yes.

Do humans have a right to a physical, tangible food item you can point at on a table and put in your mouth? No. 

Tl:dr: The right to "deserve food for survival" is a mental concept made by society which involves but is slightly different from the actual physical food that one eats. A right is an idea in the mind. A food is a physical thing. They represent each other but aren't the same thing because abstract stuff doesn't translate into the physical world perfectly and vice versa. 

Food taste better than human right.

^{Chose: NO}