Sweden’s food preparedness could provide enough domestically produced calories for a population considerably larger than its own. The main risk during a prolonged crisis is not necessarily a shortage of agricultural output, but the failure of the systems needed to process, transport, store and distribute food.
According to figures reported by SVT, food produced by Swedish agriculture, aquaculture and fisheries amounts to approximately 3,530 kilocalories per person per day. The Swedish Food Agency (Livsmedelsverket) estimates that domestic production could cover the energy requirements of about 14 million people, compared with Sweden’s population of roughly 10.6 million.
This does not mean that Sweden could maintain its present diet or food system unchanged during a major disruption. Researchers argue that measuring preparedness only through the proportion of domestically produced food can obscure the infrastructure and imported inputs on which Swedish production depends.
Sweden’s food preparedness extends beyond farms
Public discussions about Swedish food security often begin with the claim that around half of the food consumed in the country is imported. This has contributed to the assumption that Sweden would simply run out of food if international trade were interrupted.
Elin Röös, a researcher at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, SLU) and research director at the PLATE research centre, told SVT that this is a widespread misconception.
“The food is more than sufficient for the Swedish population,” she said.
The distinction is between the food that Sweden produces and the food that Swedish consumers currently eat. Sweden imports many finished products and ingredients, but it also exports part of its agricultural output. A disruption to trade would therefore change the composition of available food rather than automatically eliminate the country’s calorie supply.
A PLATE analysis of Sweden’s food self-sufficiency estimates that domestic agriculture produces between 150 and 200 percent of the population’s energy needs and between 200 and 250 percent of its protein requirements.
Enough calories do not guarantee a balanced diet
The figures also reveal a substantial imbalance in what Sweden produces. Domestic output provides between 110 and 140 percent of the country’s fat requirements, while fruit and vegetable production covers only about 20 percent of recommended needs.
In a prolonged crisis, Sweden could therefore have enough energy, protein and fat while facing a much narrower and less nutritionally balanced diet. Reduced imports without a corresponding increase in domestic horticulture could have consequences for public health, particularly if shortages continued for an extended period.
The surplus of calories also includes crops used to feed livestock. PLATE notes that animals consume more energy and protein from food-grade crops than they return through meat, milk and eggs. This means that the way agricultural output is allocated could become as important as its total volume during a severe disruption.
Food preparedness is consequently not a fixed percentage. It depends on whether production can be adapted, whether diets can change and whether available raw materials can be converted into food that people can actually obtain and prepare.
The vulnerable links between production and the plate
The most significant weaknesses may lie between farms and consumers. Modern Swedish agriculture relies on electricity, fuel, fertilisers, machinery, spare parts, digital systems and functioning transport networks. Processing plants, refrigerated warehouses, distribution centres and supermarkets must also continue operating.
“Too much focus on producing more becomes problematic,” Röös told SVT. “It is necessary to consider what is needed for this production to function and for it to reach the plate.”
A country can therefore produce sufficient grain, milk or meat and still experience shortages if electricity failures stop processing facilities, fuel shortages interrupt deliveries or insufficient storage capacity causes products to spoil.
This approach shifts the debate from nominal self-sufficiency to food-system resilience. The relevant question is not only how much food Sweden produces in an ordinary year, but which parts of the supply chain are most exposed to interruptions and how quickly they can recover.
Södertälje is testing a local supply chain
Researchers have pointed to Södertälje, southwest of Stockholm, as an example of preparedness planning that considers the entire chain.
The municipality has worked with local producers to grow pulses for public meals, linking agricultural production with processing, procurement and school kitchens. According to Röös, the project combines emergency preparedness with environmental objectives and local economic development.
Its significance lies less in the quantity of pulses produced than in the relationships established before a crisis. Farmers, processors and municipal kitchens already know what they are expected to supply, receive and prepare.
This reduces the risk of producing raw materials without having the facilities or agreements required to use them.
Sweden’s strategy still prioritises higher production
The Swedish government adopted Food Strategy 2.0 (Livsmedelsstrategin 2.0) in March 2025. Its three principal areas are greater robustness across the food chain, export promotion, and Swedish food quality and gastronomy.
The strategy aims to increase domestic production while improving profitability and competitiveness. The government has also assigned measures to public authorities for the 2025–2030 period and has presented stronger food production as part of Sweden’s preparedness for crises and war.
Higher production may increase the system’s margin of safety. The PLATE findings nevertheless suggest that additional output alone cannot solve weaknesses in energy supplies, storage, processing and logistics.
For Sweden, food preparedness is ultimately a question of connections. The country may produce enough calories, but resilience depends on whether farms can continue operating and whether their products can travel through the entire chain to households, schools, hospitals and care facilities. A food system is not secure merely because food exists. It is secure when that food can still reach people under pressure.
