Are you prepared to pay more for animal products if it means keeping animals in a more species-appropriate manner?
The factory farming initiative wants to anchor the protection of the dignity of farm animals and the ban on factory farming in the constitution. This would have an impact on Swiss agriculture.
Critics complain that animal products would become more expensive if the initiative is adopted. Initiators say we have to reduce our meat consumption anyway in view of climate change. What’s your opinion?
From the article Swiss factory farming ban to be decided at the ballot box
Intensive livestock farms will be stopped, it is a fact of history and civilization as well as health. This will happen when the level of education and culture increases, those who are against it are because they are fundamentally...ignorant ( not in an offensive sense but in the sense that they do not know the elements on which they base their judgment)
Gli allevamenti intensivi saranno fermati, è un fatto storico e di civiltà oltre che di salute. Ciò avverrà quando il livello di istruzione e culturale aumenterà, chi è contrario è perché è fondamentalmente...ignorante ( non in senso offensivo ma nel senso che non conosce gli elementi su cui basa il suo giudizio)
Put a label on the animal products to differentiate the ones that come from species-appropriate practice and let the people decide what they want to buy.
I already buy more expensive meat hoping that it will be a better guarantee of well-being for the life of the animal (organic label). Nevertheless, as these standards are still insufficient, especially because of the question of transport and slaughter, I buy less and less meat and I am moving towards a vegetarian diet because I am so disgusted with the current method of breeding which is extremely cruel to animals, disrespectful of our environment and, in fine, of our health.
J'achète déjà la viande plus chère en espérant que celle-ci soit un meilleur gage de bien-être pour la vie de l'animal ( label bio). Néanmoins ces normes étant encore insuffisantes notamment à cause de la question du transport et de l'abattage, j'en achète de moins ne moins et m'oriente vers un régime végétarien tant je suis écœurée du mode d'élevage actuel extrêmement cruel pour l'animal, irrespectueux de notre environnement et, in fine, de notre santé.
It is important to remember that beef and lamb are usually raised on uplands unsuitable for arable crops . It is also important to consider that very little scrutiny has been given to the climate lobby that raising animals is detrimental because that discussion is “ settled” according to them. Many meat alternatives have seriously dubious ingredients list and environmental claims!
Would the money really go towards improving animals' life quality or...monies going to 'improve' those fleecing us?
The initiative would change the guidelines that regulate the keeping of farm animals. This would result in higher costs, which would then be passed on to consumers.
Die Initiative würde die Richtlinien ändern, die die Haltung der Nutztiere regeln. Daraus erst würden höhere Kosten entstehen, die erst nachträglich auf die Konsumenten übergewälzt würden.
What is the reality?
We invested in great animal welfare (straw bed and run) as early as 1996 when we converted the Swiss barn. We marketed our meat under the label Coop Naturafarm. About 4 years ago, the customer asked us to withdraw from the label, because the label meat was not selling well enough. The initiative wants to
invest in meat that the consumer will not buy in the end. The people buy most organic about 13 percent or conventional and for me quite incomprehensible, meat from abroad. The consumer has it in his own hand, if more label meat is bought - more label meat is produced. What saddens me especially in such votes, when I realize how some people have no idea about agriculture and consequently often little respect. In the future, do we have to bring school children into contact with practical agriculture through school?
with practical agriculture? Something has to happen, otherwise the understanding of our agricultural world will become more and more curious.
Wie sieht die Realität aus?
Wir haben beim Umbau des Schweizenstalles bereits 1996 in ein grosses Tierwohl (Strohbett und Auslauf) investiert. Wir haben unser Fleisch unter dem Label Coop Naturafarm vermarket. Vor ca. 4 Jahren hat uns der Abnehmer gebeten aus dem Label aus zu steigen, da das Label-Fleisch nicht genügend Absatz finde. Die Initiative will
in Fleisch investieren, welches der Konsument am Schluss nicht kauft. Die Leute kaufen am meisten bio ca. 13 Prozent oder konventionell und für mich ganz unverständlich , Fleisch aus dem Ausland. Der Konsument hat es selber in der Hand, wird mehr Label Fleisch gekauft - wird mehr Label Fleisch produziert. Was mich gerade bei solchen Abstimmungen traurig stimmt, wenn ich merke, wie manche Leute keine Ahnung von der Landwirtschaft haben und demzufolge auch oftmals auch wenig Respekt. Müssen wir in Zukunft durch die Schule bereits Schulkinder mit der praktischen Landwirtschaft in
Verbindung bringen? Etwas muss geschehen, sonst wird das Verständnis von unserer Landwirtschaftwelt immer wie kurioser.
Thank you for your contribution! I think it's a great idea for schoolchildren to have a practical involvement with agriculture. This way they can link theoretical knowledge with practical action - that would truly be lessons for life!
Danke für Ihren Beitrag! Die Idee, dass Schulkinder auch praktisch mit der Landwirtschaft zu tun haben, finde ich toll. So können sie theoretisches Wissen mit praktischem Handeln verknüpfen - das wären dann wahrlich Lektionen fürs Leben!
I can confidently confirm what Mr. Hurni says. In addition: the meat trade is run by large distributors who are stakeholders whose profit does not consider elements that the initiative has forgotten. Sustainability (social aspect), which would lead to losing an unquantifiable number of farms in our country, is not considered. Importing meat (from unsustainable foreign farms) cannot be controlled except at a very high cost. The committee promoting the initiative does not include people with the necessary minimum skills to understand the agricultural world, with all its actual connections with the land. NO!
Posso serenamente confermare quanto afferma il Signor Hurni. Inoltre: il commercio della carne è gestito dai grandi distributori che sono stakeholder il cui profitto non considera elementi che l'iniziativa ha dimenticato. La sostenibilità (aspetto sociale) che porterebbe a perdere un numero non quantificabile di aziende agricole nel nostro paese, non è considerata. Importare la carne (da allevamenti non sostenibili esteri) non può essere controllato se non a costi molto elevati. Nel comitato promotore dell'iniziativa non figurano persone con le necessarie minime competenze per capire il mondo agricolo, con tutte le sue effettive connessioni con il territorio. NO!
De jure, the live animal is negotiated as a commodity. In this case as a potential food commodity. From a human point of view, I do not find it cruel that an animal is killed, but that it is born only to be killed inevitably. Its life serves exclusively the purpose of its factory exploitation and use to be led. Therefore I redeem with the coming vote a word which I have already given. The handling of the (useful) animal is a reflection of the society.
De jure wird das lebende Tier als Ware verhandelt. In diesem Fall als potentielle Essware. Aus menschlicher Sicht grausam finde ich dabei nicht, dass ein Tier getötet wird, sondern das es einzig dazu geboren wird um unausweichlich getötet zu werden. Sein Leben dient ausschliesslich dem Zweck seiner fabrikmässigen Verwertung und Verwendung zugeführt zu werden. Daher löse ich bei der kommenden Abstimmung ein Wort ein das ich bereits gegeben habe. Der Umgang mit dem (Nutz-)Tier ist ein Spiegelbild der Gesellschaft.
So what do we do, we hunt wild animals instead?
It is well documented how inefficient animal farming is in feeding us in terms of land use and subsequent environmental destruction, just google it.. (1/8th as efficient as arable farming) .
Meat is bad also for all our health - the WHO advised some time back to eat zero red meat and to significantly reduce (or stop it..) consumption of white meat.
So, yes, it's in all our interests to promote healthy land use and healthy farming, even if it means change in the industry.
Thank you for your contribution! Would you advocate a reduction of animal products in this case, or a complete renunciation?
Danke für Ihren Beitrag! Würden Sie in dem Fall für eine Reduktion von Tierprodukten plädieren, oder gleich für einen kompletten Verzicht?
I made a personal decision to become vegetarian some 32 years back, which at the time was a decision based on what I considered a question of morals, I am pretty much a vegan now for the additional reasons of climate change and health.
I had once hoped (or expected, even) that more people would also make a similar choice, based on logic or by simply looking out the window ( or listening to scientists..) and seeing what is happening to our world.
Clearly this was a little naive because, as we have seen with every single referendum on the subject recently, people seem to have more interest in their bank account than what the future holds for our children and grandchildren..
So, whilst I personally would like the Swiss government (and people..) to pull their heads out of the sand and DO something, I am not very optimistic. "Abwarten und Tee trinken" seems to have become official government policy instead of doing their jobs..
Actually farming is the biggest threat to biodiversity. Impulsed by unbalanced diets like vegan, the mass farming will not only degrade the soil but will also contribute to the extinction of wild animals. Why not we just respect nature and behave like what we really are, Omnivores.
Simply because of the afore-mentioned inefficiency of land use. If you require 8 times the area of land to feed the same amount of people, it would be wrong to say that raising animals is the lesser threat to bio diversity.. That's clearly not the case.
I would prefer we use land efficiently (i.e. minimalist) and re-forest unused land (i.e. return it to it's original state..) with government subsidies to maintain it in its "best" state to increase bio-diversity of all species (and not treat it as a wood resource to be cut down every x years..)
Switzerland "only" has 32% forest cover, Austria has 48% for example and is increasing it, which has to be a goal surely, and not having more land unnaturally used for pasture..
Yes, I will pay more but only if this money goes to the farmers and not to anybody else. Not the government, especially not to vegan industry.
Thank you for your contribution! Do you buy directly from farmers? That would probably be the most direct way, where the money goes to the producers. When buying through retailers, of course a portion goes to the intermediaries...and through VAT, a portion goes to the government anyway.
Danke für Ihren Beitrag! Kaufen Sie direkt bei Landwirten ein? Das wäre wohl der direkteste Weg, bei dem das Geld zu den Produzenten geht. Beim Einkauf über den Handel geht natürlich ein Teil an die Intermediäre...und über die Mehrwertsteuer geht ohnehin ein Teil an den Staat.
Hi Anona, may I ask what you mean by the vegan industry?
Yes, I buy from farmers. Eggs, milk, meat and some other nice things they make. There are several around my home and I admire their hard work. And the way they put the food for you, all nicely packed with their own hands, it is so authentic. We need to get rid of industries and not farmers and hard working people. Industries are the main responsible for the planets pollution.
All these producers who see now a potential market with vegan trends and are swarming the supermarkets with their highly processed foods all packed in tons of plastic with a lot of chemicals inside. Just read the labels. It is always the same. Sugar companies affirmed decades ago that their products provided healthy energy, and now we know sugar is the leading cause of metabolic diseases, obesity and heart diseases which kill millions every year. Not worth mentioning tobacco or alcohol. Industries do no care about our health or the planet. They only care about their own profit. Vegan products are just another trend within a saturated market and being sold under the false claim that it is good for the planet, the same way as sugar was presumably healthy energy decades ago. We need to wake up and start thinking a little more…
I have the feeling that farming is being attacked and aimed to be destroyed with the excuse of animal abuse in order to promote vegan industry, putting our food in the hands of big corporations. This new industry will also create even more plastic, garbage, will cause more damage to the oceans, to the ecosystem as agriculture is the biggest threat to biodiversity, to finally magnify CO2 excess.
Vegan diet is highly industrialized and not sustainable at all, and if we have realized already, global warming has been promoted with the Industrial Revolution.
Meatless is not automatically climate-friendly, you're right. However, the meat industry also pollutes the environment. Either way, it seems to me that our food production will have to be more environmentally friendly in the future.
Fleischlos ist nicht automatisch klimafreundlich, da haben Sie Recht. Die Fleischindustrie belastet allerdings auch die Umwelt. So oder so: Mir scheint, dass unsere Nahrungsmittelproduktion in der Zukunft umweltfreundlicher gestaltet werden muss.
I fully agree. We shall seek for more natural and sustainable ways to live. Be that food, housing, transportation. We have more than what we need. We live in excess and pollute carelessly every corner of this planet. If you go to any supermarket, around 80% of the stuff there is not needed and even worse, it is unhealthy. Sodas full of sugar, sweets, processed foods of all kind, junk food, all that pollutes not only during production but also generates an immense amount of trash. So before we start with meat, one of the most nutritionally dense and valuable foods, let’s first start with removing tobacco, alcohol and all the junk food. I can bet that once we are done with this, meat industry will not even need to be looked at anymore.
Conflating issues is not going to change the fact that meat farming is both inefficient and that meat is bad for our health (ask the World Health Organisation who have recommended a complete stop on consumption of red meat..).
It is also true that stopping sugar loaded foods, processed foods and tobacco (why are the Swiss still smoking so much..) would benefit us all.
The great thing is, these are not mutually-exclusive and we CAN do both ;-)
I am a meat producer in Switzerland.
For us, who are already the most globally respectful of animal welfare, the initiative would be destructive and unsustainable.
Sono produttore di carne in svizzera.
Per noi, che siamo già i più rispettosi mondialmente del benessere animale, l'iniziativa sarebbe distruttiva e insostenibile.
Thank you very much for your contribution! Is there any point on which you agree with the initiative? Or do you think the whole package is wrong?
Vielen Dank für Ihren Beitrag! Gibt es einen Punkt, in dem Sie mit der Initiative einverstanden sind? Oder halten Sie das gesamte Paket für falsch?
I have been asked to elaborate on my statement.
The essential points why the initiative is counterproductive and should be rejected are as follows:
The wording is misrepresented. The noble intent of ensuring animal welfare is a value of every person of good will and of all farmers, who derive their livelihood from animal welfare. If the intiativist aims to reduce meat consumption, the wording should be different. At another controversial and unacceptable point is the bio suisse 2018 reference directive, which is already outdated by other directives and technological and organizational development. Mentioning bio suisse in the law is neither plausible nor appropriate. Further questionable and impractical is placing the import and imported meat supply chains on the level of the Swiss national supply chain. The latter is nearly perfect, controllable at multiple levels, traceable. The imported meat supply chain is not controllable except at very high cost. Any control (I challenge anyone to prove to me the real - not paper - traceability of a randomly chosen, statistically relevant sample) would be purely administrative, at very high cost compared to the control currently in place. Last but not least, shopping tourism and parallel trade.
Mi è stato richiesto di approfondire la mia affermazione.
I punti essenziali per cui l'iniziativa è controproducente e va rifiutata sono i seguenti:
La formulazione è travisata. L'intento, nobile, di assicurare il benessere animale è un valore di ogni persona di buona volontà e di tutti gli allevatori, che dal benessere animale traggono fonte di sussistenza. Se l'inziativista mira a ridurre il consumo di carne, la formulazione dovrebbe essere diversa. Atro punto controverso e inaccettabile è la direttiva di riferimento bio suisse 2018, che già oggi è superata da altre direttive e dallo sviluppo tecnologico e organizzativo. Citare bio suisse nella legge non è né plausibile né opportuno. Ulteriore elemento discutibile e non praticabile è il porre l'importazione e le filiere delle carni importate sul livello della filiera nazionale svizzera. Quest'ultima è quasi perfetta, controllabile a più livelli, tracciabile. La filiera della carne importata non è controllabile se non a costi molto alti. Un eventuale controllo (sfido chiunque a dimostrarmi la tracciabilità reale - non cartacea - di un campione scelto casualmente, statisticamente rilevante) sarebbe puramente amministrativo, a costi altissimi rispetto al controllo attualmente attivo. Non da ultimo, il turismo degli acquisti e il commercio parallelo.
Thank you very much for your comments!
Vielen Dank für Ihre Ausführungen!
A referendum on whether "intensive livestock farming" should be banned would be preferable in itself. In Japan, it is unlikely. Livelihood security for current farmers will be an issue. There will be a strong public demand for meat to be consumed as before. Thus, the focus has been on the enrichment of human life, and animal welfare has not been emphasized to date. However, animal welfare and environmental ethics are very important. We believe the referendum is justified. Japan should learn from it.
「集約畜産」を禁止すべきかを国民投票すること自体が好ましいことだ。日本では考えにくい。現農家の生活保障が問題になる。肉を従来通りに消費したい国民の声は大きいだろう。このように、人間の生活の豊かさに焦点が当てられ、動物福祉はこれまで重視されてこなかった。しかし、動物福祉、環境倫理は非常に重要だ。国民投票は正当だと考える。日本も見習いたい。
Very interesting, thank you! Do you think that the topic will be more important in Japan in the future?
Sehr interessant, vielen Dank! Glauben Sie, dass das Thema künftig in Japan wichtiger sein wird?
In fact, I haven't eaten meat for 1-2 years. I just don't feel like it anymore, sometimes it starts to disgust me when I chew. However, when I was younger, I enjoyed a good fillet of beef.
So good for me, it's just a matter of time.
Concerning the intensive breeding of animals: independently of the fact that I am not attracted by meat anymore, I find it revolting. Animals are creatures in their own right, and deserve to have the life they are supposed to have in nature. We have no right to treat them the way we do.
It's clear that animals eat each other in the wild, but they don't inflict long captivity on each other, or transport in abject conditions. There are probably some species of insects that keep their prey alive to devour it little by little (spiders with their cocoon?), but mammals, to my knowledge, kill and eat afterwards.
Maybe only our adorable little felines (cats), who like to play with the mouse or the bird they have captured... But then again, they are so proud when they bring us a mouse... It's like a trophy. It's hard to tell them off.
So yes, I am clearly in favor of lowering meat consumption and paying more for it if necessary, in order to protect the dignity of animals.
En fait, je ne mange presque plus de viande depuis 1-2 ans. Je n'en ai tout simplement plus envie, parfois ça commence à me dégoûter lorsque je mâche. Pourtant étant plus jeune j'appréciais bien un bon filet de boeuf.
Donc tant mieux pour moi, ça s'est fait tout seul avec le temps.
Concernant l'élevage intensif des animaux: indépendamment du fait que je ne suis plus attirée par la viande, je trouve ça révoltant. Les animaux sont des créatures à part entière, et qui méritent d'avoir la vie qu'elles sont censées avoir dans la nature. Nous n'avons aucun droit de les traiter comme nous le faisons.
C'est clair que les animaux se mangent aussi entre eux dans la nature, mais ils ne s'infligent pas de longues captivités, ou des transports dans des conditions abjectes. Il existe probablement quelques espèce d'insectes qui garde leur proie en vie pour la dévorer petit-à-petit (les araignées avec leur cocon?), mais les mammifères, à ma connaissance, tuent et mangent ensuite.
Il n'y a peut-être que nos adorables petits félins (les chats), qui aiment jouer avec la souris ou l'oiseau qu'ils ont capturé... Mais bon, ils sont tellement fiers quand ils nous ramènent une souris... C'est comme un trophée. Difficile de les engueuler.
Donc oui, je suis clairement pour baisser la consommation de viande et la payer plus cher si nécessaire, ceci afin de protéger la dignité les animaux.
Good for you. I stopped eating meat for 4 years and I got so sick that I almost lost my health irreversibly. Eat what you need. Thats how nature works.
I would pay a little more but only in the security that the money would really go to improve breeding conditions through strict controls. This being the case, and given that the livestock farms in Switzerland are already quite decent, it seems to me that the initiative is a politically correct luxury, but one that would mainly affect the classes who are already struggling to make ends meet and who also have the right to buy meat.
This initiative is indirectly aimed at having meat eliminated from our canteens for climate policy reasons: but this is shooting on the pianist because it hits the poorer classes without any concrete results for the climate.
Pagherei qualcosa di più ma solo nella sicurezza che il denaro andrebbe veramente a migliorare le condizioni d'allevamento tramite controlli rigorosi. Così stando le cose e visto che gli allevamenti in Svizzera sono già abbastanza dignitosi, mi sembra che l'iniziativa sia un lusso politicamente corretto, che però colpirebbe soprattutto le classi che stentano già ad arrivare a fine mese e che hanno il diritto pure loro di comperare carne.
Con questa iniziativa si mira indirettamente a fare eliminare la carne dalle nostre mense per motivi di politica climatica: ma così si spara sul pianista perché si colpiscono i ceti meno abbienti senza alcun risultato concreto per il clima.
Thank you for your contribution Mr. Brenni! Even the initiative committee admits that prices will rise. The question I ask myself: Is there actually a right to consume meat? Sure, it is normal in our culture. But a large part of the world's population already eats much less meat than we do...
Danke für Ihren Beitrag Herr Brenni! Auch das Initiativekomitee gibt zu, dass die Preise steigen werden. Die Frage, die ich mir dabei stelle: Gibt es eigentlich ein Recht auf Fleischkonsum? Klar, das ist in unserer Kultur normal. Aber ein grosser Teil der Weltbevölkerung isst bereits heute sehr viel weniger Fleisch als wir...
While in Nigeria I used to purchase beef filet for our usual shopping. Reaching to Switzerland I was shocked at the price when buying 'my usual' beef filet. We switched a lot to chicken. I suppose with the new laws now probably being passed the price of chicken will need to double as well. Contemplating a vegetarian future ... (not really, I left Switzerland again).
Well meat here is of the highest quality so it costs more than many other types of beef.
Benefits
Health
Eating less meat but healthier, double benefit for our health.
Ecology
Less waste, less exploitation, less emissions, less transportation for fodder, etc.
It would be nice if we finally began to look a little beyond our own paltry self-interest and all together, Swiss and non-Swiss, began to care about the common good, climate "first and foremost."
Ethics
Greater respect for animals, which are eventually killed anyway (other than wolves)
Disadvantages?
A few fewer barbecues--no one should die, even in Switzerland.
With respect to energy supply problems, the difficulties in getting ribs should be more manageable.
I eat meat (very little), and I assure you that you can have wonderful feasts even without eating meat.
But, of course, there is little illusion, and again I will wake up on the Monday after voting to find out from the newspapers that I voted "wrong."
Vantaggi
Salute
Mangiare meno carne ma più sana, doppio vantaggio per la nostra salute.
Ecologia
Meno sprechi, meno sfruttamento, meno emissioni, meno trasporti per il foraggio, ecc.
Sarebbe bello che finalmente si cominciasse a guardare un po' oltre il proprio pingue interesse e che tutti insieme, svizzeri e non, cominciassimo ad interessarci del bene comune, climatico "in primis".
Etica
Maggiore rispetto degli animali, che alla fine vengono comunque ammazzati (altro che lupi)
Svantaggi?
Qualche grigliata in meno...non dovrebbe morire nessuno, nemmeno in Svizzera.
Rispetto ai problemi di approvvigionamento energetico, le difficoltà a procurarsi le costine dovrebbero essere più gestibili.
Io mangio carne (poca), e vi assicuro che si possono fare delle bellissime feste anche senza mangiare carne.
Ma, naturalmente, c'è poco da illudersi e anche questa volta mi sveglierò il lunedì dopo le votazioni per scoprire dai giornali di aver votato "sbagliato".
You cannot tell how much meat people need. Some need more and some need less. Different metabolisms, thats what biodiversity looks like. I think we should first remove completely all the non essential industries before we even speak about meat. Sugar, tobacco, alcohol and junk-food far exceed the levels of pollution and planet exploration than meat.
Mass productions of anything, anywhere has done a lot of damage all over.
Absolutely! Eat less meat and if, only buy meat that comes from an animal-friendly husbandry. Factory farming initiative is a step in the right direction! A transition period of 25 years allows all farmers a compatible transition to animal-friendly/species-appropriate husbandry.
Absolut! Weniger Fleisch essen und wenn, nur Fleisch einkaufen, das aus einer tierfreundlichen Haltung stammt. Massentierhaltungsinitiative ist ein Schritt in die richtige Richtung! Eine Übergangsfrist von 25 Jahren ermöglicht allen Bauern einen verträglichen Übergang zu einer tiergerechten/artgerechten Haltung.
ABSOLUTELY and I am trying to buy more products from Switzerland rather than imported 'meat' which is killing the planet by flying it half way around the world!!
I was aghast to see one supermarket selling chicken from Chile!
It might be good for their economy but it is not good for the environment shipping/flying products/fruit/vegetables/meat/fish all over the world... surely?
I also would question, if only in my head, that we send animals to be slaughtered in nearby countries 'because it is cheaper' and yet don't take into account that the animal is so stressed by the time it reaches its destination to be slaughtered and then we eat this.. Traumatised meat I would call it.
Someone commented: Buy from Argentina, Brazil and Australia.
Yet in australia, sheep and cattle are transported to the slaughterhouse... so you might have the best conditions but this destroys everything by the time the animal gets to be slaughtered.
I knew a woman many years ago, she lived in Sydney, and she only ate Lamb from her brothers Organic farm because it was slaughtered on the premises and therefore did not get stressed from 'travelling time'...
And even if I still eat meat, I'm not impressed by all this 'shipping around the world' and eat less than I did a few years ago and I'm more thoughtful now that 'why shouldn't these animals be in good conditions just like I want to be in good conditions ??
Thank you for your answer! On the one hand, the initiative provides for stricter guidelines in Switzerland, on the other hand, these should also apply to imported meat - so that the guidelines are not circumvented via imports. Is that a good alternative for you?
Danke für Ihre Antwort! Die Initiative sieht einerseits strengere Richtlinien in der Schweiz vor, andererseits sollen diese auch für importiertes Fleisch gelten - damit die Richtlinien nicht über Importe umgangen werden. Ist das für Sie eine gute Alternative?
Good question!! I hear people saying that this cannot be so - should also apply to imported meat .... but in the end I agree to this ...but, I think it is problematic, to say the least, but we have to start somewhere... it is 2022 and I am very different than when I would have disagreed twenty years ago. Again, if I am going to be eating meat why shouldn't I have stress free meat/animals. There is always a fight that things have to be cheaper and cheaper and this is really nonsense I think and drives people into situations where shortcuts are made, corruption can happen and care for animals and humans gets cheapened. I've seen milk reduced in price in my homeland and the farmer gets less - people have to live not just us city folks who have it easy and live off the backs of farmers that provide our sustenance. I would not have such a wonderful life if I had to grow everything my self. So it is a yes from me..
Yes absolutely
Ja unbedingt
Thanks for your answer. Would you also be willing to consume less meat products?
Dank für Ihre Antwort. Wären Sie auch bereit weniger Fleischprodukte zu konsumieren?
You can find an overview of ongoing debates with our journalists here. Please join us!
If you want to start a conversation about a topic raised in this article or want to report factual errors, email us at english@swissinfo.ch.