At every point in the supply chain (grow, pick, sort, package, deliver...) a % of produce becomes more expensive to keep than to throw. So it being dropped.
I'd think that most such waste are still used efficiently. They may not be fit for the stresses of being shipped and stored the full distance to the supermarket and in your home, but much can still be used for animal feed and compost.
Right. Also, there are plenty of other uses of vegetable (by which I mean all non-animal, not just veggies) waste matter too, uses of all kinds, including industrial, home, medical, etc. Just randomly check out say Wikipedia articles for 10-20 common vegetable matter sources, such as corn, coconuts, bananas, soy(a)beans, guar, etc., to get a better idea about this.
Not exactly. For example, if you have a picker machine harvesting 80% of crop, and manual work ain't cheap (it's Norway), you'd probably throw 20%. But you can't "ungrow" it in any meaningful sense. Agriculture is complex.
If it's cheaper for that person to commute in order to eat then it's probably less wasteful from a financial perspective at least. Definitely possible to be even less wasteful of course, but I think without perfect weather and population models (which will never truly exist) it'll be hard to eliminate waste to a certain extent.
Something like this is usually not done out of economic incentives, but because of ethical and emotional incentives. In the end people do it to feel good, but might do more harm, just in another way.
Donating your overproduced (and likely subsidized) food to poorer countries also disincentivizes food production there, thereby perpetuating the food shortage problem.