政府应在何种程度上引导公民的饮食习惯？
L
以下评论已自动从DE翻译成中文。
我认为，这项倡议恐怕没有成功的希望。 大多数人只能着眼于眼前。20年后，或者可能更早，我们不仅会后悔，还会向我们的孩子解释，为什么我们当时会如此愚蠢。人们对年轻一代毫无责任感，自私自利之风盛行：唯一重要的只有自己的利益。
Ich glaube, diese Initiative hat leider keine Chance. Die Mehrheit von den Leuten können nur kurzfristig denken. In 20 Jahren, oder vielleicht früher, werden wir es nicht nur bereuen sondern werden wir an unsere kinder erklären, wieso waren wir so dumm. Die Leute tragen keine Verantwortlichkeit gegenüber die jüngere Generationen, es gibt viel egoismus: das einzige was zählt ist das eigene interesse
G
以下评论已自动从DE翻译成中文。
国家应保障供应安全，但不应为公民制定饮食计划。瑞士模式即“辅助性原则”：联邦政府为供应、环境和抗危机能力设定可量化的目标。各州和市镇则根据当地土壤、气候及区域文化来制定具体实施方案。 农民以企业家精神自主决定生产方向，消费者则保留选择自由。补贴应基于可验证的效果发放，而非基于意识形态。粮食安全源于众多实力雄厚的地区生产者、多样化的种植方法和短供应链，而非来自中央强行规定的模式。
Der Staat soll die Versorgungssicherheit gewährleisten, aber nicht den Speiseplan der Bürger schreiben. Der schweizerische Weg heisst Subsidiarität: Der Bund setzt messbare Ziele für Versorgung, Umwelt und Krisenfestigkeit. Kantone und Gemeinden gestalten die Umsetzung nach Boden, Klima und regionaler Kultur. Landwirte entscheiden unternehmerisch über ihre Produktion, Konsumenten behalten ihre Wahlfreiheit. Fördergelder sollten nach überprüfbarer Wirkung fliessen, nicht nach Ideologie. Ernährungssicherheit entsteht durch viele starke regionale Produzenten, vielfältige Anbaumethoden und kurze Versorgungsketten, nicht durch ein zentral verordnetes Modell.
P
以下评论已自动从EN翻译成中文。
不，瑞士不应补贴任何食品生产，尤其是为了迎合不健康的饮食习惯。瑞士可以也应该对进口商品征税，正如其他国家可能对瑞士的出口商品征税一样。显然，瑞士无法种植某些农产品，例如香蕉。对于某些农产品（例如小麦），其他国家可以以更低廉的成本生产出质量更好的产品。进行商品贸易是合理的。 通过监管和征税，作为多数的公民（应为强制性）可以决定土地和地形的最佳用途。人民可以决定将部分土地闲置（即保持自然状态）。他们还可以决定，所有需要占用土地的食品生产均通过进口满足。 然而，任何政府都不应通过补贴或监管来决定个人消费何种食品——那将是一种独裁式的社会化。瑞士虽标榜民主，但在某些政策（例如气候政策）上，它实际上已经转向了社会主义政府。除了商品和服务贸易之外，瑞士绝不应与欧盟有任何其他往来。
No Switzerland should not subsidise any food production especially to cater for unhealthy diets. Switzerland can and should tax imports just as other countries may tax exports from Switzerland. It is clear that Switzerland can not grow some produce eg bananas. For some produce (eg wheat) other countries can grow it cheaper and better quality. Trading products makes sense. Through regulation and taxing the citizen as a majority (should be compulsory) can decide on the best use of land a terrain. The people could decide that some land is used for nothing (ie remains natural). They could decide that all food production that requires land used is imported. However, no government should determine by subsidies or regulation what any food a person consumes -that would be socialisation by dictatorship. Switzerland talks about democracy but in some policies (eg with Climate) it has already moved to a socialist government. Switzerland should never have anything to do with the EU other than trade goods and service.
M
以下评论已自动从EN翻译成中文。
@Peter1
瑞士政府每年用于农业补贴的资金约为36亿至37亿瑞士法郎。其中超过80%流向畜牧业，不到20%用于种植业。在瑞士许多地区，如果没有补贴，畜牧业将难以维系；因此，如果按你的想法来，许多农村社区将会崩溃。 你或许乐见这种结果，但你必须清楚，这将是必然的后果。__就气候而言，如果瑞士依赖粮食进口，将面临重大问题。 我们已经看到，从欧洲到亚洲再到美洲，许多主要粮食产区的粮食产量开始下降。这已经导致食品价格上涨，但用不了多久，还将引发粮食短缺。 各国已经开始禁止粮食出口，因为它们的粮食产量既不足以养活本国人民，也不足以通过出口让粮食生产者从海外高价销售中获利。__如果瑞士无法依靠国内生产实现粮食自给，这将使该国处于非常脆弱的境地。 __就粮食生产的效率而言，就单位土地面积的营养物质产量而言，植物农业的效率要高出5至10倍。__不仅如此，在瑞士，大部分耕地都用于种植饲料作物，而不是供人类食用， 但这些作物的营养价值中约有80%至95%最终无法惠及人类——因为它们被喂给了动物，而动物仅能将其中5%至20%的营养转化为人类消费的肉类或乳制品等。 在土地和水资源稀缺的情况下，这种做法极其浪费。____你提出的将食品行业完全交由市场驱动的设想，依赖于正在萎缩且即将崩溃的供应链。它基于这样一个假设：我们总能买到他人的食物，但现实情况却越来越不是这样。 这种想法还基于这样一个假设：我们应该相信市场能够满足社会的需求，而事实上，市场实际上是为了满足市场中最具权势者的需求而运作的。对于手表和汽车这类商品，这或许没问题，但若将其应用于食物等维持生命必需的物品，则无异于自取灭亡。
The Swiss government spends roughly CHF 3.6–3.7 billion a year on subsidies to agriculture. more than 80% of that goes to animal agriculture and less than 20% on plant agriculture. There are many parts of the country where animal agriculture would end without subsidies so if you had your way, many rural communities would collapse. You might be happy with that outcome but you just need to know that would be the consequence.__In terms of the climate, Switzerland is going to face a major problem if it relies on food imports. We are already seeing that food yields are starting to fall across many major areas of food production from Europe to Asia to the Americas. that is already driving increases in food prices but it will not be long before it also leads to food shortages. Countries have already started banning exports of food because they do not have enough to both feed their own people and allow for exports to allow food producers to make profit from selling at higher prices overseas.__That will leave countries like Switzerland very vulnerable if it cannot feed itself based on domestic production. __When it comes to the efficiency of food production, plant agriculture is 5-10x more efficient in terms of production of nutrients per unit area of land. __And not only that, but in Switzerland, the majority of arable land is being used to grow crops for animals, not for human consumption, but then about 80-95% of the nutritional value of those crops are lost to humans because they are fed to animals which only convert 5-20% of those nutrients into meat or dairy etc that humans consume. It is incredibly wasteful when land and water are scarce.____Your idea of leaving the food industry to a purely market-driven system relies on supply chains that are in the process of contracting and will start collapsing. It relies on the assumption that we can always buy other people's food, but that is increasingly not the case. It relies on the assumption that we should trust the market to serve the needs of society when in fact, markets actually work to satisfy the needs of the most powerful people in those markets. That might be fine when it comes to watches and cars, but it is a recipe for societal collapse when you apply that to things like food which are required to live.
S
以下评论已自动从EN翻译成中文。
@mrch6003
因此，如果农业补贴助长了对环境危害极大的畜牧业，那么最简单的政策就是取消这些补贴。 畜牧业将不复存在，环境状况会得到改善，而且由于可以减税，人们口袋里将多出37亿。此外，还可以取消监管、行政管理和合规审查，这预计还能节省3亿瑞士法郎。
So, if the agricultural subsidies promote animal agriculture which is very detrimental to the environment, the simplest policy would then be to abolish the subsidies. The animal agriculture would disappear, the environment would be better off, and people would have 3.7 billion more in their pockets since taxes can be reduced. In addition, regulation, administration, and compliance controls could be eliminated which would probably save another 300 million CHF.
以下评论已自动从EN翻译成中文。
作为一名纯素自由意志主义者，我反对强制手段。处理这一情况的最佳方式也是不涉及强制的：停止对动物产业（以及其他所有行业）的补贴。 ____所有补贴都是从全体纳税人那里拿钱，然后给某些企业。这使得这些企业的产品或服务能够以更低的价格出售，从而鼓励消费者购买这些产品或服务。 对肉类、乳制品和蛋类生产商提供补贴，本质上是从纯素食者那里拿钱，转给非纯素食者。这是不道德的。____让价格真实反映肉类、乳制品和蛋类的实际成本，届时我们自会看到人们会做出怎样的选择。
As a vegan libertarian, I am against coercion. The best way to handle the situation is also the one without coercion: stop subsidizing the animal industries (and everything else). ____All subsidies take money from the entire tax-paying public and give the money to certain businesses. This enables the products or services of those businesses to be sold at lower prices. This encourages consumers to buy those products or services. Subsidizing meat, dairy, and egg producers essentially takes money from vegans and gives it to non-vegans. That is immoral.____Let prices reflect the true costs of meat, dairy, and eggs, and we will see what people choose.
M
以下评论已自动从EN翻译成中文。
@nkyriazi@comcast.net
市场反映的是最有钱一族的消费偏好，而非社会的整体需求。如果谈论的是对奢侈品的非必需消费，这倒无妨；但涉及人们赖以生存的食品时，这种做法就非常危险了。____补贴的目的是鼓励那些可能无利可图但对社会有益的生产活动。 但当然，由于各行业的游说力量，现实中情况并非如此。____目前，瑞士超过80%的农业补贴流向了畜牧业。 我同意应当削减这一比例并优化补贴对象，因为这种做法实际上使那些极度浪费且破坏环境的农业生产比理应有的更具生存能力。 我同意这些产品的价格应该更高，以反映其真正的生产成本，包括转嫁给环境的那部分成本。____我在山区生活过一段时间，因此能理解为什么人们会希望补贴这些地区的农业——因为如果没有这些农民，当地社区就会崩溃。 不过，作为一名纯素食主义者和环保主义者，我也明白从长远来看，将这些地区回归自然或许是更好的选择。____顺便说一句，将补贴称为“胁迫”未免言过其实。 这固然是政府对市场的干预，但发达经济体中的每一个市场，从创建到维系，实际上都是由政府自下而上建立并维持的（从产权的执行开始），因此，对于国家试图塑造市场以满足社会需求的行为，你也不必过于介意。
Markets reflect the spending preferences of those with most money, not the overall needs of the society. That is fine when you are talking about discretionary spending on luxury items, but when it comes to food which people require to just stay alive, it is a very dangerous approach.____Subsidies are there to encourage production that might not be profitable but is socially beneficial. But of course, thanks to the lobbying power of industries, that is not what they go to in real life. ____At present, more than 80% of farm subsidies in Switzerland go to animal agriculture. I agree that that needs to be reduced and better targeted because it is actually making farming that is very wasteful and environmentally destructive more viable than it should be. I agree that those products should be more expensive to reflect their true costs of production, including the externalised costs on the environment.____Having lived in the mountains for a while, I can understand why you might want to subsidise farming in those areas because without those farmers, the communities would collapse. Then again, as a vegan and environmentalist myself, I can see why in the long run, it might be better to return those areas to nature.____BTW it is too much to call subsidies coercion. It is the government intervening in markets, but literally every market in an advanced economy is created and sustained by the presence of government from the ground up (staring with the enforcement of property rights) so you cannot get too upset about the state trying to shape a market to meet the needs of society.
S
以下评论已自动从EN翻译成中文。
@nkyriazi@comcast.net
是的，完全同意。让人们保留自己的钱，自己决定想要消费什么。他们可以自由选择完全素食，这完全没问题，这是他们的选择……
Yes absolutely, I totally agree with this. Let people keep their money and decide themselves what they wish to consume. They would be free to choose all Vegan and that is perfectly fine, it is their choice..
S
以下评论已自动从EN翻译成中文。
@mrch6003
当然，补贴就是胁迫和抢劫。国家违背人民意愿夺走他们的钱，这就是抢劫。结果，人们手头所剩无几，只能用剩下的钱购买国家补贴的商品。这正是教科书上所说的胁迫。____此外，市场并不只反映那些最有钱的人的偏好。 你怎么能说出这种话？走进瑞士的任何一家超市，你会发现各个价位都有丰富的选择，甚至包括低价的自有品牌产品。说市场只服务于最富有的人，简直是荒谬至极！
of course subsidies are coercion and robbery. The state takes peoples money against their will, which is robbery. As a result people have little money left and the only thing they can afford to consume with what remains is what the State subsidizes. This is schoolbook coercion.____Also, markets do not only reflect the preferences of those with the most money. How can you even maintain that ? Enter any supermarket in Switzerland and there is plenty of choice in all price ranges down to low price generic brand products. Proposing that the market only caters to the richest is ridiculous!
J
以下评论已自动从EN翻译成中文。
欧盟的类似举措产生了负面影响。欧盟委员会曾提出一项关于让人们食用昆虫（黄粉虫、蟋蟀等）的立法。据称这是为了减少二氧化碳排放。大量纳税人的钱被用于官僚机构的咨询、研究以及通过这项食用昆虫的法律。 右翼人士批评该法案具有“奥威尔式”色彩。这一构想最终以失败告终，因为人们拒绝购买掺有昆虫成分的食物，但官僚们却用纳税人的钱领走了报酬。 此前，丹麦曾对黄油和其他动物脂肪征收额外税款，称之为“罪恶税”。富裕的丹麦人照常饮食，但穷人，尤其是退休人员，却无力负担日常采购。这些案例表明，此类法律不仅在行政成本上代价高昂，还会对社会产生负面影响。
Similar initiatives in the European Union had negative effects. European Commission introduced legislation about giving people insects to eat (meal worms, crickets etc). Supposedly CO2 friendly. Much taxpayer money was spent on bureaucracy consulting, researching and passing this insect-eating law. Right wing criticized it as Orwellian. The idea flopped because people refused to buy food with insect additions, but bureaucrats cashed their bills from taxpayer money. Earlier, Denmark introduced extra tax on butter and other animal fat, calling it 'sin tax'. Rich Danes ate as before, but poor people, especially pensioners, were unable to afford shopping. These case studies are examples, that such laws are expensive in terms of bureaucratic cost, and have negative side effects on society.
J
以下评论已自动从EN翻译成中文。
别管别人的饭碗。别告诉我该吃什么。别打着环保的幌子暗中加税。
Don't stick your nose into others plate. Don't tell me what I should eat. Don't hide new taxes under environmental do-gooding.
M
以下评论已自动从EN翻译成中文。
@Jorg Hiker
那么，政府是否应该停止每年向畜牧业提供约150亿瑞士法郎的补贴（约为对植物农业补贴金额的4倍）？____这样一来，肉类、乳制品和鸡蛋的价格将会大幅上涨。你接受吗？
So should the government stop spending about CHF15 billion a year on subsidies to animal agriculture (about 4x what is spends on subsidies to plant agriculture)?____That would make your meat, dairy and eggs much more expensive. Are you fine with that
J
以下评论已自动从EN翻译成中文。
@mrch6003
抱歉，但你的逻辑有误。动物性产品通常来自无法种植植物的土地，以及植物性食品的副产品。在瑞士，用于生产乳制品和肉类的牧场位于那些坡度过陡或气候过冷、不适合耕作的土地上。 我不确定你对瑞士的食品生产了解多少，但正是这种“回音室”式的推理，才让我无法支持这些倡议。
Sorry, but your logic is flawed. Animal products are generally made from land where you can't grow plants, and from leftovers from plant-based food. In Switzerland, pastures used for producing dairy and meat are located on land that's too steep or cold for farming. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Swiss food production, but this kind of 'echo chamber' reasoning is exactly why I can't get behind these initiatives.
D
以下评论已自动从IT翻译成中文。
在我看来，这个问题比**国家 ≠ 个人自由**更深层。当粮食、领土、水资源、公共卫生和供应安全产生集体外部性时，国家无疑发挥着作用。但规范体系的运行条件，与规定餐盘里该放什么，是两码事。 **粮食安全 ≠ 自给自足；可持续性 ≠ 国家规定的饮食；自由 ≠ 无规则。** 一项良好的政策应当使成本和后果透明化，纠正扭曲的激励机制，并维护多样性和选择权。 关键不在于决定吃什么，而在于构建一个具有韧性的食品体系，同时避免将公共目标转化为对个人的强制规定。
La questione, a mio avviso, è più profonda di **Stato ≠ libertà individuale**. Lo Stato ha certamente un ruolo quando alimentazione, territorio, acqua, salute pubblica e sicurezza degli approvvigionamenti producono esternalità collettive. Ma regolare le condizioni del sistema è diverso dal prescrivere ciò che deve finire nel piatto. **Sicurezza alimentare ≠ autarchia; sostenibilità ≠ dieta di Stato; libertà ≠ assenza di regole.** Una buona politica dovrebbe rendere trasparenti costi e conseguenze, correggere incentivi distorti e preservare pluralità e scelta. Il punto non è decidere cosa mangiare, ma costruire un sistema alimentare resiliente senza trasformare un obiettivo pubblico in una prescrizione privata.
W
以下评论已自动从DE翻译成中文。
这项倡议原本是朝着这个方向推进的，但遗憾的是，在投票前就被其发起人本人亲手扼杀了。弗兰齐斯卡·赫伦遗憾地缺乏政治敏锐度和人脉拓展能力。真可惜！ 尽管如此：联邦政府及政界在公共卫生方面做得远远不够，并始终恶意地忽视其应尽的职责。同时，他们还大力支持那种缺乏监管、成本高昂的农业模式——这种模式只惠及少数人，却损害了大多数人的利益。
Diese Initiative geht eigentlich in die Richtung, wurde aber leider schon vor der Abstimmung von der eigenen Mutter zu Tode gebracht. Franziska Herren verfügt leider über kein politisches Gespür und die Fähigkeit zu netzwerken. Schade! Trotzdem: Der Bund, die Politik macht viel zu wenig für die Volksgesundheit und ignoriert mit konstanter Bosheit die anstehenden Pflichten. Und unterstützt massiv eine ungeregelte, teure Landwirtschaft, die wenigen dient und vielen schadet.
J
以下评论已自动从FR翻译成中文。
迄今为止，纯素主义者、环保主义者以及部分“香槟左派”一直试图在我国制造分裂。幸运的是，非常聪明的瑞士民众并没有相信这些被宠坏的孩子所说的胡言乱语。 我建议让一群纯素食者去高山牧场吃草。如果我们的民选代表是认真的，他们就不会允许把钱花在一场根本不可能举行的公投上。
Jusqu’à ce jour, les végans, écolos, une partie de la gauche caviar ont essayé de semer la zizanie dans notre Pays. Heureusement, la population suisse, très intelligente , n'a pas cru à ces balivernes d'enfants gâtés . Je conseille que l'on conduise un troupeau de végan pour brouter l'herbe des alpages. Si nos élus étaient sérieux, ils interdiraient de dépenser de l'argent pour une votation impossible.
B
以下评论已自动从FR翻译成中文。
饮食要健康，但不能太贵。我正在等待详细信息，以便投票。
Il faut une alimentation saine, mais pas trop chère. J’attends les détails pour voter.
J
以下评论已自动从FR翻译成中文。
医学上已证实，纯素食者必须服用营养补充剂，以弥补蔬菜中缺乏的微量元素。此外，出于安全考虑，高山牧场或坡地上的牧草必须由牲畜采食。 我提议在夏季进行一次试验，让纯素食者去吃草。确实，瑞士仅能自产46%的食物。 但是，那些在6月14日投下“反对票”的蠢驴们，却无法意识到瑞士的人口已经超出了200万。一切都在被混凝土覆盖，却以牺牲食物生产为代价。
C'est médicalement connu que les humains végan ,doivent ingurgiter des compléments alimentaires , pour compenser les oligo-éléments que l'on ne trouve pas dans les légumes. D'autre part, les herbages des prairies alpestres ou en pente , pour des question de sécurité, doivent êtres broutées. Je propose que l'on fasse un essai d'une saison estivale, conduire les végan pour brouter l'herbe. C'est vrai que seul le 46 % de nourriture est produite en Suisse. Mais, les ânes qui ont voté NON le 14 juin , sont incapable de constater que l'on a 2 millions de trop d'humains en Suisse. Tout se bétonne au détriment de la nourriture.
W
以下评论已自动从EN翻译成中文。
@jepyerly@websud.ch
众所周知，膳食补充剂行业并非因纯素食者而存在，否则该行业早就破产了。同样众所周知的是，动物被补充的营养远比普通民众所知要多得多、多得多、多得多。 我们是否也该把抗生素和其他药物纳入讨论范围？__此外，纯素食者可能会反驳说，他们可以在山上放牧吃草，这主意不错…… 而你在参观屠宰场的那天，要体验一下牛的一生吗？__说真的，我们从动物身上获取的热量仅占其摄入总量的18%，我们完全可以直接食用植物，这样不仅能减少土地使用、降低环境破坏，还能在改善健康的同时提高食品生产效率。只要脑子稍微转两下，谁都能明白这个道理。
It is well-established that the supplement industry does not exist because of vegans, otherwise they would be bankrupted. It is also well-established that animals are supplemented, much much much more than what the average citizen is aware. Shall we also bring antibiotics and other medicines into the discussion? __Also, vegans could counter-propose to you, they graze grass in the mountains, good idea... and you endure the life of a cow on the day of visiting the slaughter house?__Seriously, only 18% of calories fed to animals is recovered by us, we can eat plants directly and use less land, destroy less the environment and improve our health while increasing efficiency in food production. Anyone with 2 neurons can understand this.
M
以下评论已自动从EN翻译成中文。
@jepyerly@websud.ch
当你从动物身上获取营养时，你觉得这些动物又是从哪里获得的呢？来自植物！__如今，唯一无法从植物中获取的营养素就是维生素B12。 猜猜动物是从哪里获得这种营养素的？来自它们食物中的营养补充剂！____此外，在大型人群调查中，通常发现约30%至40%的杂食者应该服用膳食补充剂，因为他们无法摄取到所需的所有微量营养素。____另外请注意，在土地资源浪费方面，瑞士种植的农作物中，用于喂养动物的数量（这些动物在人类获取之前会浪费约90%的营养价值）比人类直接食用的还要多。____因此，如果人们能少吃一些不健康的肉类和乳制品，转而多吃健康的植物性食物，那么在瑞士养活1000万人将变得非常容易。
When you get nutrients from animals, where do you think the animals got them? From plants!__The only nutrient that you cannot get from plants any more is Vitamin B12. Guess where animals get that nutrient? From supplements to their food!____Also, in large population surveys, it is usually found that about 30-40% of omnivores should be taking dietary supplements because they aren't getting all the micronutrients they need.____Also note that when it comes to wasting land, more crops grown in Switzerland are fed to animals (which then waste about 90% of the nutritional value before humans can get it) than humans eat.____So it would be very easy to feed 10 million people in Switzerland, if people would eat less unhealthy meat and dairy and eat more healthy plants instead.
以下评论已自动从EN翻译成中文。
@jepyerly@websud.ch
请列举那些在植物性食物中找不到的膳食补充剂。
Please list the dietary supplements that are not found in plant foods.
以下评论已自动从IT翻译成中文。
出现挑衅行为本无可厚非。但当这种挑衅基于从一开始就注定失败的论点时，我们就已触及底线，甚至越界了。一项注定会被明确否决的全民公投耗资巨大，还会占用本可用于更重要事务的宝贵资源。__将饮食——这一本质上属于文化范畴的因素——政治化，通常可归咎于右翼；而在此，却是由左翼将其“意识形态化”，这绝不会给左翼带来任何好处，恰恰相反！__饮食文化随着国家的进步而演变。 随着人口迁移，新的饮食趋势不断涌现，并被社会或多或少地接受和普及。授权国家监管餐盘里的食物内容是不可想象且反民主的。如果目标之一是提高环境可持续性，就不能仅靠推动单一议题，而应综合多方面因素。__为了保持一致性，必须打击那些侵占农业肥沃土地的城市化扩张，同时重新定义农作物的质量标准。如果仅靠某个靠口号宣传的团体，那么针对大众的意识提升也注定不会成功。 事实上，我们正目睹两派之间的进一步两极分化：一派高喊口号，另一派则更愿意为自己的饮食选择承担责任。__国家应当履行其职责，为培育饮食文化创造基础，但绝不能规定谁可以种植什么或吃什么。
Va bene che ci siano provocazioni. Ma quando una provocazione che parte da tesi perdenti in partenza, siamo ai limiti, anzi fuori limiti. Una votazione popolare che sarà nettamente rigettata costa moltissimo e ruba risorse utili per qualcosa di più importante.__Politicizzare l'alimentazione, che è un fattore essenzialmente culturale potrebbe essere attribuibile alla destra, mentre qui viene "ideologizzato" dalla sinistra, che non ne trarrà in nessun caso beneficio, anzi!__L'alimentazione evolve come evolvono i paesi. Nuovi trend arrivano con la migrazione e sono più o meno bene accettati e diffusi. Dare mandato allo stato di regolamentare cosa mettere nel piatto è impensabile e antidemocratico. Se uno degli obiettivi è quello di migliorare la sostenibilità ambientale, non sarà spingendo un solo tema, ma associando più elementi.__La cementificazione, che rapina l'agricoltura di terreni fertili deve essere combattuta, per coerenza, assieme alla ridefinizione di qualità delle colture. Nemmeno una sensibilizzazione della massa, al di fuori di un gruppo che comunica per slogan avrà successo. Anzi, assistiamo ad una ulteriore polarizzazione tra chi urla slogan e chi invece preferisce assumersi la responsabilità di cosa mangia. __Lo stato deve fare lo stato e creare il substrato per far crescere la cultura per l'alimentazione e in nessun caso regolamentare cosa chi può coltivare o mangiare.
M
以下评论已自动从EN翻译成中文。
@Dario Giandeini
政府每年向畜牧业提供120亿瑞士法郎的补贴，而对植物农业的补贴仅为30亿瑞士法郎，这实际上已经决定了我们的饮食结构。____我同意食物不应被政治化。 我们应当就何种饮食最健康、最具成本效益且最符合环境可持续性展开理性讨论。但所有这些考量都指向应大幅减少动物性食品的摄入，因此畜牧业游说团体便将任何提出这些观点的人视为“激进的纯素食主义疯子”而大肆攻击。
The state is already deciding what we eat by spending CHF12 billion a year on subsidies to animal agriculture and only CHF 3 billion on plant agriculture. ____I agree that food should not be politicised. There should a rational discussion about what is most healthy, most cost effective and most environmentally sustainable to eat. But all those considerations point to eating much less animal products, so the animal agriculture lobby goes to war on anyone making these points as radical vegan lunatics.
S
以下评论已自动从EN翻译成中文。
@mrch6003
咱们就商定取消补贴吧！:-)____不明白为什么“我们”需要讨论什么才算健康。吃什么应该由每个人自己决定（“我们”指的是谁？）
Let's agree on eliminating the subsidies! :-)____Not sure why 'we' need a discussion about what is healthy. It is up to each individual to decide what they eat (who is 'we'?)
加入对话