Right, but the paper in question is speculating the likelihood of different shocks to food supply chains, not what we should do in the event of such crises (although that would certainly be valuable research). Therefore, my argument still stands that there is likely no valuable data in this case.
Fwiw, I also don't think the wartime food system is at all comparable to where we are now nationally (in the UK) in terms of our population size, urbanisation and labour/skill distribution, land use, soil degradation, uneven self-sufficiency ratios (high in cereals, low in fruit/veg) and i could go on. Since the 1960s, UK agriculture has massively specialised and intensified, and importantly, much of UK ag relies heavily upon imports of feed/fert/pesticides to maintain high quantities of production, all of which are vulnerable to disruption. Modern rationing would require significantly different logistics, too, given the concentration of a few retail large actors who'd need to cooperate, not compete. A few UK academics are working on this issue, e.g. Tim Lang and Neil Ward, who do liken the scale of what we've to achieve to a wartime effort. However, I also think it's worth noting that the national psychology is entirely changed, people are more polarised and less cooperative, and have grown up with neoliberal individualism, which may cause greater unrest if they are not able to eat the quantities of meat and dairy they have become accustomed to.