Leggi l’articolo in italiano 

We invest heavily in energy security. Yet, as I have argued for years, we take something even more fundamental for granted: food availability. In a world of fragile supply chains and growing geopolitical tensions, food security can no longer be assumed. It is time to treat it for what it is: a key component of national security. 

What Happens

We worry a great deal about energy. And rightly so. Without oil and gas, factories stop, transport slows, and economies stall. The European debate of recent years reflects this: energy security, strategic autonomy, diversification of supply.  

But there is an even more fundamental form of security that we continue to take for granted: food availability, framed as physical availability, not dietary choice. The equation is simple: without energy we slow down, without food we cannot sustain life. Yet while energy sits at the centre of public policy, this topic remains largely absent from the debate.

The Signals We are Not Reading

If we were to ask the European Commission or most national governments, they would struggle to say how much high-quality food is actually available to guarantee citizens a balanced diet in a crisis scenario. 

Some countries, however, are starting to take a different approach: Finland and Sweden are strengthening their preparedness strategies by explicitly including food security. Others are moving in the same direction, including Indonesia. Meanwhile, China continues to build strategic food reserves: according to estimates from the USDA, it holds more than half of global wheat reserves and an even larger share of maize and rice. 

The context has changed — pandemic, war, pressure on global trade routes — and recent disruptions, as highlighted by the World Bank and the OECD, have had immediate effects on both prices and availability. Global supply chains work extremely well, but they are not designed to withstand prolonged shocks.

A System that Does Not Allow for Error

Over the past decades, we have built a highly efficient global food system: specialised production, smooth trade flows, optimised logistics. This efficiency, however, allows no room for error. The system is interconnected and depends on the strength of every link: when one breaks, the effects cascade rapidly. Furthermore, it is highly concentrated: a significant share of global cereal exports is controlled by a small number of countries. When one of them stops, the impact is immediate and global. 

We have optimised for cost and speed, much less for resilience. So the question becomes inevitable: what happens if the flow stops?

Less Secure Than it Seems

Europe is a global agri-food power, but it is not self-sufficient. According to the European Commission and Eurostat, the Union depends significantly on external inputs: plant proteins such as soy (largely imported), key fats including palm oil, fertilisers, and energy. This means that Europe’s caloric security depends not only on what it produces, but on what it can import, process, and distribute. And this is where vulnerability becomes visible.

Stockpile or Trust?

Faced with this fragility, a concept that seemed outdated is returning: strategic stockpiling. But at what level?

National stockpiles offer control and speed of response. An European-level coordination could provide greater efficiency and diversity. Reliance on global trade remains the most efficient option, but also the most exposed to geopolitical and logistical risks.

Each option carries a cost: higher stockholding costs, complex governance at the European level, and greater vulnerability in the case of global trade. There is no perfect solution. But there is an unavoidable question: how much security are we willing to pay for and at what cost? 

The Questions we Avoid

What kind of foods should be guaranteed in a crisis, just quantity, or also nutritional quality? Who defines what is essential? How much trust can we place in trade routes and partners in a volatile geopolitical environment? These questions continue to remain on the sidelines of debates. 

As noted by the World Economic Forum, food security is being treated as a core component of national security. And yet, we continue to approach it as a secondary issue.

From the Plate to Availability

Public debate is largely focused on what we eat: labels, taxes, classifications, ingredients. Policy intervenes on the plate, while ignoring availability. This is a structural mistake: without availability, there is no choice. Without access, even the most sophisticated nutrition policies become irrelevant. Before debating what people should eat, we should ensure that there is something to eat.

Towards a More Realistic Approach

The answer is likely neither autarky nor blind reliance on global markets. A combination is needed: targeted strategic reserves, open but diversified trade, stronger logistical resilience, and a clearer recognition of food security as a central economic and geopolitical priority for Europe. This is not about changing the model, but about strengthening it.

The Invisible Security

Energy is visible: its crises are immediate and loud. Food goes largely unnoticed, until it runs out. This is precisely the risk: realising too late. 

Read Free Trade Drives Competitiveness >>>