FOOD SECURITYThe Psychosocial Imperative of Food Security Preparedness
The dust has barely settled on the 2025 Australian federal election and the returning government has already reaffirmed its commitment to delivering a national food security strategy. But unless we address the psychological and cultural barriers that shape Australians’ perceptions of food security, even the most technically sound strategies will fail to achieve their intended effect.
The dust has barely settled on the 2025 Australian federal election and the returning government has already reaffirmed its commitment to delivering a national food security strategy. That’s a welcome and long-overdue step forward. But unless we address the psychological and cultural barriers that shape Australians’ perceptions of food security, even the most technically sound strategies will fail to achieve their intended effect.
Australia’s food system has long been defined by abundance. We produce far more than we consume, exporting more than 70 percent of our agricultural output. This surplus has bred a pervasive optimism bias: a belief that the system will consistently deliver, regardless of geopolitical shocks, climate impacts, or global economic volatility. We’ve been conditioned to believe in the robustness and efficiency of our markets, reinforced by the reliability of just-in-time supply chains that have rarely faltered, until recently.
ASPI’s National Food Security Preparedness Green Paper makes clear that this is no longer a safe assumption. From fertilizer to diesel fuel and key chemicals, Australia’s food production and supply chains rely on a complex web of international trade, much of which flows through increasingly fragile or contested trade routes. Rising geopolitical tensions, climate volatility and conflict-driven supply disruptions have exposed the cracks in this system.
Despite the lessons of the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent global disruptions, many Australians continue to assume food security is a given. This is a classic case of normalcy bias, an underestimation of the likelihood and potential impact of a disaster simply because such a disruption hasn’t yet occurred on a scale we understand. In response to new threats and risks, the psychological reflex is often to downplay, delay or dismiss. This is a very natural response to cognitive dissonance, where threatening information clashes with long-held, comfortable beliefs.
This psychosocial gap between risk and perception has consequences. If policymakers are designing strategies based on credible, forward-looking assessments of threats and risks, but the public continues to believe everything is fine, then government interventions will lack traction.
