The Swiss voice in the world since 1935
Personal feed

Sign in to add topics to your feed.

Sign in now
Bookmarks

Sign in to add articles to your saved list.

Sign in now
Demographics
Culture
Future of Work
History
Top stories
Debate
Newsletter

To what extent should the state intervene in the food that ends up on our plates?

Hosted by:

As a correspondent at the Federal Palace for SWI swissinfo.ch, I report on federal politics for the Swiss Abroad. After studying at the Academy of Journalism and Media at the University of Neuchâtel, my career path initially took me to various regional media, working in the editorial offices of Journal du Jura, Canal 3 and Radio Jura bernois. Since 2015, I have been working in the multilingual editorial department of SWI swissinfo.ch, where I continue to practise my profession with passion.

Is it a step towards more sustainable farming or a “vegan diktat”? The food security initiative, which goes to a vote on September 27, is sharply dividing opinion.

The proposal, launched by environmental campaigner Franziska Herren, aims to increase Switzerland’s food self-sufficiency rate from the current 46% to at least 70%. To achieve this, it calls on the government to adapt agricultural policy in ways that encourage the production and consumption of plant-based foods over animal products.

The initiative has reignited the debate over the state’s role in shaping our diets. What do you think? Is it legitimate for the government to promote certain eating habits in the name of sustainability, or does this amount to an infringement on consumers’ freedom of choice?

More

Join the conversation!

Contributions must adhere to our guidelines. If you have questions or wish to suggest other ideas for debates, please, get in touch!
J
Jorg Hiker

My friends have been asking me about this, because they see the current vegan initiative as being similar to the clean water initiative from 2021. What mechanisms exist in Swiss law and democratic practice to prevent repeated referendums on essentially the same matter? Some people abroad view this cynically as a loophole that dissolves Swiss direct democracy - citizens can vote, but certain issues are put to a vote repeatedly until a different result is achieved.

L
Lpbibliotecaria
The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

I’m afraid this initiative doesn’t stand a chance. Most people can only think in the short term. In 20 years’ time, or perhaps sooner, we will not only regret it but we will have to explain to our children why we were so foolish. People bear no responsibility towards younger generations; there is a great deal of selfishness: the only thing that matters is one’s own interests.

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
Ghamari
The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

The state should ensure security of supply, but not dictate citizens’ diets. The Swiss approach is based on subsidiarity: the federal government sets measurable targets for supply, the environment and resilience to crises. Cantons and local authorities shape how these are implemented, taking into account soil conditions, climate and regional culture. Farmers make business-oriented decisions about their production, whilst consumers retain their freedom of choice. Subsidies should be allocated on the basis of verifiable impact, not ideology. Food security is achieved through many strong regional producers, diverse farming methods and short supply chains, not through a centrally imposed model.

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
Peter1

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
mrch6003
@Peter1

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
sceptic
@mrch6003

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.

Nick Kyriazi
nkyriazi@comcast.net

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
mrch6003
@nkyriazi@comcast.net

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
sceptic
@nkyriazi@comcast.net

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
sceptic
@mrch6003

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
Jorg Hiker

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
Jorg Hiker

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
mrch6003
@Jorg Hiker

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
Jorg Hiker
@mrch6003

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
dr. Gianluca Latino
The following contribution has been automatically translated from IT.

The issue, in my view, runs deeper than **State ≠ individual freedom**. The State certainly has a role to play when food, land, water, public health and security of supply give rise to collective externalities. But regulating the conditions of the system is different from dictating what should end up on our plates. **Food security ≠ self-sufficiency; sustainability ≠ a state-imposed diet; freedom ≠ the absence of rules.** A good policy should make costs and consequences transparent, correct distorted incentives and preserve diversity and choice. The point is not to decide what to eat, but to build a resilient food system without turning a public objective into a private prescription.

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.

M
MEJRC
@dr. Gianluca Latino

I totally agree with your thoughts. I agree with your last sentence in particular. I get the impression from other readers, particularly these vegans who have a very distorted idea of the basic enjoyment of eating !!! I do emphasise enjoyment of eating. I understand that these people have a funny idea for example, don`t eat an egg because if you leave it long enough it becomes a chicken, or I think the prize has got to be, don`t drink milk because it comes from a cow. ????? !!!!! I do realise that a " sort of milk " is made from other products but please don`t ram your vegan way of life down my throat. Try

W
webertum@wanadoo.fr
The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

This initiative was actually heading in the right direction, but was unfortunately nipped in the bud by its own mother even before the vote. Franziska Herren, sadly, lacks political acumen and the ability to network. What a shame! Nevertheless: the federal government and politicians are doing far too little for public health and are persistently and maliciously ignoring their responsibilities. And they are providing massive support for unregulated, expensive agriculture that benefits the few and harms the many.

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
jepyerly@websud.ch
The following contribution has been automatically translated from FR.

To this day, vegans, environmentalists and a section of the ‘caviar left’ have been trying to sow discord in our country. Fortunately, the Swiss people, who are very intelligent, have not believed this nonsense spouted by spoilt children. I suggest we drive a herd of vegans out to graze on the alpine pastures. If our elected representatives were serious, they would ban spending money on an impossible referendum.

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.

M
MEJRC
@jepyerly@websud.ch

Your contribution is absolute dynamite, --- wonderful. If you should need some help into the mountain pastures, let me know, ----- pleeeeeease.

B
Bonheur
The following contribution has been automatically translated from FR.

We need a healthy diet, but it shouldn’t be too expensive. I’m waiting for the details before I vote.

Il faut une alimentation saine, mais pas trop chère. J’attends les détails pour voter.

J
jepyerly@websud.ch
The following contribution has been automatically translated from FR.

It is a well-established medical fact that vegans need to take dietary supplements to make up for the trace elements not found in vegetables. Furthermore, for safety reasons, the grass on alpine or sloping pastures must be grazed. I propose we run a trial over one summer season, taking vegans out to graze on the grass. It is true that only 46 per cent of our food is produced in Switzerland. However, the donkeys who voted ‘NO’ on 14 June are incapable of realising that there are 2 million too many humans in Switzerland. Everything is being concreted over at the expense of food production.

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
we-are-all-animals
@jepyerly@websud.ch

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
mrch6003
@jepyerly@websud.ch

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.

Nick Kyriazi
nkyriazi@comcast.net
@jepyerly@websud.ch

Please list the dietary supplements that are not found in plant foods.

dario giandeini
Dario Giandeini
The following contribution has been automatically translated from IT.

It’s all very well to have provocations. But when a provocation is based on arguments that are doomed to fail from the outset, we’re pushing the boundaries – or rather, crossing them. A referendum that is bound to be soundly rejected costs a great deal and diverts resources that could be put to better use elsewhere.__Politicising food, which is essentially a cultural issue, might be attributed to the right, whereas here it is being ‘ideologised’ by the left, which will in no way benefit from it – quite the opposite!__Food evolves as countries evolve. New trends arrive with migration and are more or less widely accepted and adopted. Giving the state the power to regulate what goes on our plates is unthinkable and undemocratic. If one of the objectives is to improve environmental sustainability, this will not be achieved by pushing a single issue, but by combining several factors.__Urban sprawl, which robs agriculture of fertile land, must be combated – for the sake of consistency – alongside a redefinition of crop quality. Nor will raising public awareness succeed unless it goes beyond a group that communicates through slogans. Indeed, we are witnessing a further polarisation between those who shout slogans and those who prefer to take responsibility for what they eat. __The state must act as a state and lay the foundations for fostering a culture of nutrition; under no circumstances should it regulate what people can grow or eat.

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
mrch6003
@Dario Giandeini

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
sceptic
@mrch6003

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'?)

SWI swissinfo.ch - a branch of Swiss Broadcasting Corporation SRG SSR

SWI swissinfo.ch - a branch of Swiss Broadcasting Corporation SRG SSR