Opinion — Countries producing all their own food and limiting imports

When export bans and war sent grain prices soaring in recent years, calls for nations to feed themselves grew louder. I agree that a country should secure its supply of basic foods, but I disagree that it should aim to grow everything and keep imports to a minimum. For most states that goal is neither achievable nor desirable.

The argument for self-reliance is essentially about risk. A country that buys most of its wheat or rice abroad is exposed whenever a supplier imposes an export ban, a shipping route is blocked or its own currency loses value. The war in Ukraine made this plain, as importers in North Africa and the Middle East suddenly faced steep price rises and uncertain supplies of grain. Producing staple crops at home also keeps farmers in work and rural communities alive. For these reasons, maintaining domestic capacity in essentials, together with emergency reserves, is prudent.

Extending this logic to all food, however, ignores geography. Nations with little arable land or fresh water, such as Singapore or the Gulf states, could feed themselves only at enormous cost, and when Saudi Arabia tried growing wheat in the desert, it drained ancient underground water that cannot be replaced on any human timescale. Even fertile countries gain from trade: it is cheaper, and often greener, for Britain to import tomatoes from sunny Spain than to heat greenhouses through the winter. Imports also insure against domestic disaster, since a nation that relies wholly on its own harvest has nowhere to turn when drought or flood ruins it. A diversified supply, in other words, is a form of security rather than a threat to it.

My position, therefore, is one of qualified support. Governments should protect the production of basic foods and hold reserves against a crisis, while continuing to buy what others can grow better, because genuine food security comes from having several sources, not from shutting out imports.