Although the safe storage life of some foods can be quite a long time, all the "staples" that I've looked into will lose significant nutritional value long before they become unsafe to use. Nutritional life isn't the same thing as safe storage life.

If you must have enough in storage for a year, with an average storage life (rotation time) of a year, you quite obviously must always eat from the oldest first, and the only sustainable way to do that is to always eat year oldest food (not really best practice for best health?) or you must assume that during the time when you're "really needing" your stored food you'll eat less than normal (which obviously implies you're eating more than is healthy now?). There seems to be some sort of logical conflict here(?).

If you do stockpile enough to get through any major interruption of the supply chain, good locks and suitable guns and ammo may be needed to keep your stockpile when your neighbors who didn't store enough begin to run out.

Storing the food isn't the real problem. What really has to be studied is why you need it and what "storage (and retention) conditions will apply when you need it. Just "having it" for when some vague "something happens" isn't really going to be sufficient by itself if there really is (someday) a reason why you might want to have it.

Good storage methods for things it's more economical to buy in "bulk package" quantities makes good sense; and there are lots of things that qualify if you include the transportation costs of more frequent shopping trips, but that line of thought requires you to look at what''s most economical rather than at any specific "survival time" requirement.

Stockpiling for catastrophic events is an entirely different matter that requires a completely different rationale that I'm not sure has been explained here.

John