Not the OP (though I am the GP), but if you are planning for emergencies, the food that you stock should be non-perishable, or at least long-lasting, and you can always eat the oldest stock and replenish it with newer one.

If the main concern is food waste - as it probably was in the article that we are discussing - disaster planning is not the problem. Impulsive buying of attractive stuff that you cannot finish later is.

> We had a toilet paper shortage during Covid, you really can’t imagine a food shortage?

We had a run on food as well. What happened is that we prioritised food delivery, with in some instances the support of the army IIRC. Something we understandable were not willing to do for toilet paper.

There is a simple reason for that: you cannot have a functioning country if there is a famine and governments will do everything they can to keep a grip on their country.

If it comes to this, having a well stocked pantry becomes the least of your worries as you now have to defend it against your starving neighbours. They won’t be deterred by tough guy smugness.

It’s a good idea to have stocks because it helps mitigating short-term price spikes or unforeseen circumstances such as an accident. Not having stocks won’t cause anyone to starve.

The simple answer is that you should keep some “just in case” calories in your pantry, not in fat rolls. Best of both worlds.

Totally. But in the or case, I think most people are voting for quantity over quality, and I'm not seeing a great deal of evidence that it's an insufficient method (so far).

FWIW, kids are great but I have no interest in having any - I'll leave this world to you fine folks to kill each other over.