Your question is fallacious. It is a straw-man question, in which you focus on one version of the way the Problem of Evil is posed. This particular phrasing, in which Good and Evil are treated as real Platonic Forms, assumes an ontology that many people do not agree with. While the majority accept objective morality, and objective morality is most amenable to treating abstract objects as real, the Forms concept behind classical Platonism is not how almost anyone thinks of abstract entities anymore.
Whether Good/evil is a monopole, or bi-pole spectrum is widely debated, and your assumption that it is monopole, and that this is a known fact, is not valid. This is a fallacy if you did it deliberately, the fallacy of deliberate misrepresentation.
Additionally, you use argument by false analogy. Argument by analogy is never valid, there are analogies that support all 5 sides of every question, so the existence of analogies is never support for a claim. Argument by false analogy becomes a fallacy when one's analogy is explicitly not compliant with significant relevant features of the original question, and the differences between the analogy and the original question were selected to avoid satisfying the original issue.
Here are the three deliberate exceptions you introduce into your false analogy: 1) Your Baker has not created the universe, nor set the conditions for its operation, hence does not own explicit responsibility for all states of affairs. The universe is a found object for the Baker, it is not a found object for any creator God, and any creator God owns responsibility for every aspect of it. 2) The Baker is resource limited -- one cannot bake an infinite amount of food. Reshaping the circumstances of the entire universe is beyond the Baker's capability, hence outside her moral responsibility. 3) The Baker is not asserted to be omnibenevolent, hence DESIRING to cure the breadlessness of the found object of the universe is not intrinsic to a Baker, while it is asserted for an omnibenevolent God. Most rationalizations from theists I have seen for the Problem of Evil involve abandoning Omni benevolence for their God, and your Baker is clearly not omnibenevolent, and you seem to be OK with that.
So -- there is no fallacy in what you cited, but instead it is a poor phrasing of the Problem of Evil, in which mostly rejected assumptions are embedded. There are however, multiple fallacies in your question.