Certain people believe that states should decrease the amount of food traded internationally and instead focus on growing most of their crops. I totally agree with this claim, since it can help increase countries’ food security and preserve national identity.
The most important consideration is that it can strengthen food security. This is because the country will be less reliant on foreign suppliers. It reduces the country’s vulnerability to foreign suppliers using food exports as political leverage. By this I mean that export restrictions could decrease food availability, since less food is being imported. This may result in a domestic food shortage. With the help of local agriculture a country can grow a significant part of its food supply and not be as harshly affected. For example, in recent years the Azerbaijan government supplied farmers with land and cheap agricultural equipment to grow food to reduce risks of shortages.
Secondly, it protects cultural heritage, since fewer international foods will be introduced. This results in less competition between local and international brands, causing more traditional brand production, since It’s going to be the most widely available option. . In other words, national products are grown differently in different climates, as a result, it creates a sense of cultural uniqueness. As a consequence, traditional agricultural practices and local cuisines are protected. To illustrate, the introduction of ‘Tabiat’ tomato paste, indirectly caused sales in ‘Bizim tarla’ tomato paste, which is local food, to drop. This causes production of the local tomato paste to slow down.
In conclusion, I highly agree with this statement, since it increases food security and protects cultural identity, which is important enough for countries to produce their own food.