Agriculture Is Not PR: Why Food Security Must Lead Agricultural Policy

14 February 2026, New Delhi: In global agricultural discourse, success is often measured through export figures, market expansion, and trade competitiveness. Headlines celebrate billion-dollar export milestones and new international market access. Yet a more fundamental question frequently remains unasked: are agricultural policies first ensuring safe, nutritious, and affordable food for domestic populations, or are they being shaped to project strength in global markets at the cost of internal resilience?

For countries like India, agriculture is not merely an economic sector. It is the backbone of rural livelihoods, employing roughly 45–50 percent of the workforce, with small and marginal farmers accounting for more than 85 percent of holdings. When such a large share of citizens depends on agriculture for survival, policy frameworks cannot treat food production solely as a tradable commodity. Announcing global leadership while farmers face economic vulnerability risks creating a disconnect between macroeconomic narratives and ground realities.

Global Crises Exposed Fragile Supply Chains

Recent global disruptions have underscored how quickly food systems can become unstable when overly dependent on international trade flows.

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the fragility of global supply chains. Lockdowns, labour shortages, transport restrictions, and port closures interrupted food distribution worldwide. Even short-term disruptions led to warnings of rising food insecurity during 2020–21, demonstrating how localized shocks can cascade into global shortages. The key lesson was unmistakable: when international logistics falter, local production, storage, and distribution systems become the last line of defense against hunger.

The Russia–Ukraine conflict further destabilized global grain and oilseed markets. As two major exporters of wheat, maize, and vegetable oils faced disruptions, supply tightened and prices surged. Many countries responded by imposing export restrictions to safeguard domestic consumers, reinforcing an enduring reality of geopolitics—nations prioritize internal food security over market commitments during crises.

Trade frameworks may encourage openness in stable times, but emergencies consistently drive governments to intervene in order to protect their populations.

Rising Production Does Not Eliminate Strategic Vulnerabilities

India’s agricultural production has reached record levels in recent years, particularly in cereals. However, increased output does not automatically translate into food system security. Dependencies in critical commodities introduce new forms of risk.

Edible oils are a prominent example. A substantial portion of domestic demand continues to be met through imports, leading to multi-billion-dollar import bills annually. Such reliance exposes the country to price volatility, currency fluctuations, and geopolitical uncertainties. Strategic vulnerability is not defined only by how much food a nation produces, but also by where it remains externally dependent.

The Case for Strong Local Food Systems

Strengthening local food systems is therefore not an ideological alternative to globalization—it is a pragmatic risk-management strategy.

When production, processing, and distribution operate closer to consumption centers, several benefits emerge simultaneously. Food retains freshness and nutritional value. Post-harvest losses decline due to shorter transport chains. Farmers capture a larger share of value within regional economies. Crop planning aligns better with agro-ecological conditions, conserving water and soil resources. Most importantly, communities retain the capacity to feed themselves during emergencies.

Research across multiple regions suggests that decentralized food systems improve economic balance, social stability, and environmental sustainability while enhancing resilience to shocks.

Trade Agreements Must Align With Agricultural Sensitivities

Ongoing discussions around comprehensive trade frameworks—whether bilateral or multilateral—highlight both opportunities and risks. Trade is not inherently detrimental to agriculture; it can enable technology transfer, diversified markets, and price discovery. However, asymmetries in subsidy regimes and production support between countries can expose domestic farmers to unfair competition from highly subsidized imports.

At the same time, consolidation within the global seed and agrochemical industries has created significant market concentration. With only a handful of multinational firms controlling large shares of agricultural inputs, concerns arise about pricing power, varietal access, and long-term food sovereignty. Excessive dependence on concentrated supply chains can become a strategic liability, particularly during global disruptions.

The convergence of pandemic shocks, geopolitical conflicts, export restrictions, and market concentration underscores the need to reassess how trade policy intersects with national food systems.

Rebalancing Policy: Trade as a Means, Not the End

The objective is not to retreat from global markets but to ensure that trade complements—rather than compromises—domestic food and livelihood security. Agricultural trade must be calibrated to safeguard nutrition, resource sustainability, and farmer viability before pursuing export expansion.

This requires embedding food security considerations into broader national strategy, placing it alongside energy and defense in long-term planning. Policy evaluation metrics should extend beyond production volumes to include nutrition outcomes, water use efficiency, and resilience indicators.

Investment in decentralized cold chains, local processing infrastructure, market reforms, and Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs) can strengthen value-chain participation while improving supply flexibility. Mission-mode research and funding for pulses and edible oils can help reduce structural import dependence. Similarly, seed improvement, water-efficient intensification, and value-addition technologies must be prioritized to enhance productivity without ecological strain.

Public procurement systems—including food distribution programs and nutrition schemes—can further support localized sourcing, reinforcing both farmer incomes and dietary diversity.

A Strategic View of Agriculture’s Future

The central message is straightforward. Complete disengagement from global trade is neither practical nor desirable. Yet trade delivers meaningful benefits only when it reinforces, rather than undermines, a nation’s ability to feed its people and sustain rural livelihoods.

Policymakers, researchers, and civil society must collectively determine which crops, at what scale, and for which markets are appropriate—ensuring domestic needs are fully secured before external expansion. Reversing this order, by prioritizing markets over human sustenance, risks exchanging long-term resilience for short-term economic gains.

Agriculture must therefore be understood not merely as an export engine, but as a foundational pillar of national stability—linking food, livelihoods, environment, and sovereignty into a single strategic continuum.

Also Read: John Deere Unveils Redesigned 1 Series Compact Utility Tractors for 2027

Global Agriculture is an independent international media platform covering agri-business, policy, technology, and sustainability. For editorial collaborations, thought leadership, and strategic communications, write to pr@global-agriculture.com