<p>An acquaintance once told me that Europe is not self-sufficient in terms of food consumption as it does not have enough farmland and farmers to produce enough for all its people, especially in terms of things such as wheat and meat consumption, and hence must rely on the United States to provide such supply such food products in exchange for other products. His claim is that such dependency and exchange of goods is due to the fact that Europe is not and could never be self-sufficient in terms of food production.</p>

<p>Is this true?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-17T18:02:14.517Z
While the notion is true that Europe is importing food at the moment, the question whether it *could never be* is probably off topic on this site. It would be more on-topic to ask about the Economist's normative stand on this.
FooBar
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-17T22:29:54.323Z
OK, I'm interested. What's the Economist's normative stand on this? Also, why doesn't Europe produce its own food? After all, this question is of a very economic nature and I'm trying to learn more. Thanks.
John Sonderson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-17T22:53:16.723Z
Perhaps you might think of this in terms of population dynamics. If the population of Europe is such that there are not enough resources and labor to produce sufficient food, population will decline (or resources and labor will divert to food production) until we reach asymptotic stability. This is a gross oversimplification but it is an easy way to think about whether or not Europe ever could sustain itself.
123
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-18T12:17:01.193Z
So basically, what you are saying is that the reason Europe is not self-sufficient in terms of food consumption is not that there are not enough land resources to devote to agriculture to feed the entire population, and not due to the fact that European countries may have entered into trade agreements with countries like the US, but rather because there are too many European people living in cities and not enough working on farmland. Is this what you are saying? Thanks.
John Sonderson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-18T20:26:16.623Z
I doubt very much this is true for the entire of Europe - it may be true for some of its member countries, the UK for example.

It's not a question of too few people working farmland - manpower hasn't played a part in this since the combine harvester was introduced. The US and Canadian prairies are currently extraordinarily productive and efficient farmlands, and its extremely hard for non-US producers to compete. If the crop in the USA failed for some reason - I rather suspect local hydroponic production could fill the gap in the US and elsewhere if necessary.
Lumi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-18T21:23:00.893Z
Interesting. However I don't understand why US and Canadian prairies would be more productive and efficient than their European counterparts, given that the machines employed are likely the same and as you pointed out only a few people are needed on a large surface area of fields, so only a small percentage of the population needs to be concerned with farming), the fertilizers and other chemicals used are probably the same ones (but I'm not sure, are they or are they not?), and the climate in Europe is theoretically more favorable for most crops.
John Sonderson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-18T21:23:39.973Z
So where does the productivity and efficiency advantage of US and Canadian prairies you mention come from?
John Sonderson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-31T19:48:50.130Z
Western Europe doesn't have any prairies.  Either way, I think this is more a question of ecology?
gerrit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-01T20:03:32.953Z
Which countries are you talking about specifically? Perhaps not prairies, but I've seen lots of fields used for farming as well as livestock in the Western European countries I've been to. Anyways, understanding these issues is important.
John Sonderson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-18T03:36:06.577Z
Canada and the USA put together are about twice the size of Europe, with a slightly lower population. Assuming similar productivity and similar proportions of arable land, they are going to significantly outproduce Europe. At which point efficiencies of scale take over.
Lumi
<markets><consumption>
Europe not self-sufficient in terms of food requirements and consumption?
John Sonderson
# Europe not self-sufficient in terms of food requirements and consumption?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-01-17)

An acquaintance once told me that Europe is not self-sufficient in terms of food consumption as it does not have enough farmland and farmers to produce enough for all its people, especially in terms of things such as wheat and meat consumption, and hence must rely on the United States to provide such supply such food products in exchange for other products. His claim is that such dependency and exchange of goods is due to the fact that Europe is not and could never be self-sufficient in terms of food production.

Is this true?

Thanks.

**Tags:** markets, consumption
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: While the notion is true that Europe is importing food at the moment, the question whether it *could never be* is probably off topic on this site. It would be more on-topic to ask about the Economist's normative stand on this.  
> **username_0**: OK, I'm interested. What's the Economist's normative stand on this? Also, why doesn't Europe produce its own food? After all, this question is of a very economic nature and I'm trying to learn more. Thanks.  
> **username_2**: Perhaps you might think of this in terms of population dynamics. If the population of Europe is such that there are not enough resources and labor to produce sufficient food, population will decline (or resources and labor will divert to food production) until we reach asymptotic stability. This is a gross oversimplification but it is an easy way to think about whether or not Europe ever could sustain itself.  
> **username_0**: So basically, what you are saying is that the reason Europe is not self-sufficient in terms of food consumption is not that there are not enough land resources to devote to agriculture to feed the entire population, and not due to the fact that European countries may have entered into trade agreements with countries like the US, but rather because there are too many European people living in cities and not enough working on farmland. Is this what you are saying? Thanks.  
> **username_3**: I doubt very much this is true for the entire of Europe - it may be true for some of its member countries, the UK for example.  It's not a question of too few people working farmland - manpower hasn't played a part in this since the combine harvester was introduced. The US and Canadian prairies are currently extraordinarily productive and efficient farmlands, and its extremely hard for non-US producers to compete. If the crop in the USA failed for some reason - I rather suspect local hydroponic production could fill the gap in the US and elsewhere if necessary.  
> **username_0**: Interesting. However I don't understand why US and Canadian prairies would be more productive and efficient than their European counterparts, given that the machines employed are likely the same and as you pointed out only a few people are needed on a large surface area of fields, so only a small percentage of the population needs to be concerned with farming), the fertilizers and other chemicals used are probably the same ones (but I'm not sure, are they or are they not?), and the climate in Europe is theoretically more favorable for most crops.  
> **username_0**: So where does the productivity and efficiency advantage of US and Canadian prairies you mention come from?  
> **username_4**: Western Europe doesn't have any prairies.  Either way, I think this is more a question of ecology?  
> **username_0**: Which countries are you talking about specifically? Perhaps not prairies, but I've seen lots of fields used for farming as well as livestock in the Western European countries I've been to. Anyways, understanding these issues is important.  
> **username_3**: Canada and the USA put together are about twice the size of Europe, with a slightly lower population. Assuming similar productivity and similar proportions of arable land, they are going to significantly outproduce Europe. At which point efficiencies of scale take over.  

---

## 0 answers

