Switzerland’s Big Food Question Keeps Voters Busy at Ballot Box

(Bloomberg) — Switzerland will soon go to the polls on the issue of food, in yet another test of voters’ appetites to answer big questions at the ballot box.

The popular initiative up for consideration on Sept. 27, alongside another one on neutrality, will be the 28th of its kind since 2020. It will ask citizens if more of their food supply should be domestically produced.

That question posed under the unique system of Swiss direct democracy, where individuals can gather enough signatures to trigger a vote, adds to a list of topics put to the national electorate in 2026 on matters ranging from immigration to cash, to restrictions on fireworks.

The number of plebiscites has increased markedly over the years, with yet more taking place in Switzerland’s regions and towns. While backers of the status quo say it shows a vibrant democracy, others ask if it isn’t time for change in a country where often more than half of voters don’t bother casting ballots.

“That the number of initiatives is growing is, in principle, a good thing — the Swiss public is well informed and has a high level of trust in politics,” said Patricia Schafer, a senior fellow at Zurich-based think tank Avenir Suisse. “But the public’s attention span is limited.”

The “Initiative for Food Safety” presented to citizens next month seeks to raise the proportion of groceries consumed in Switzerland that get produced there to 70% within a decade, up from less than 50% now. Implicitly, that would mean eating less meat.

“We would produce more plant-based foods and fewer animal-based foods so that we would have more calories available here and could better provide for ourselves in the event of a crisis,” said Franziska Herren, a 59-year-old entrepreneur who is leading the campaign.

Opponents argue that the Swiss would need to go vegan or radically change their consumption behavior in order to reach the goals.

“Instead of bratwurst, we’d have to eat mostly carrots, or follow a plant-based diet,” said Martin Ritter, head of the Swiss Farmers’ Union.

The initiative stands out in making it to the ballot box despite opposition from across the political spectrum. Switzerland’s government, every member of parliament and all major parties are against it.

As with all initiatives, Herren had to collect 100,000 signatures from eligible voters within 18 months, a number that has stayed the same since 1977. The electorate has since increased by half to 5.7 million, making it easier in relative terms to cross the hurdle.

Fabio Regazzi, a politician from the Center party, said the result is a risk of fatigue at the ballot box. He would favor a higher bar for signatures.

“We hold votes on initiatives that have virtually no chance of passing, but we have to vote on them because the required number of signatures has been reached,” he said.

There’s not much chance of change for now, with both of Switzerland’s biggest parties, the right-wing SVP and left-wing SP, opposing the idea.

Each tends to use such initiatives to pursue their own policy goals. But the parties also argue that initiatives are a sign of a lively democracy, and that the 100,000 bar is still hard to reach within 18 months.

Marc Buehlmann, a political scientist at the University of Bern, agrees on that point. He said that physically collecting signatures has become harder, and highlights the situation at one popular spot, the Bundesplatz in front of Parliament in Bern.

“If you go there today, everyone walks past you with headphones on,” he said. “Very few stop to listen to your cause.”

The landscape could soon change after an initiative passed last September that will give people a digital version of their identity card for use on the internet. The government plans for the so called e-ID to eventually be used to sign initiatives online.

“By then at the latest, an increase of the amount of signatures needed would be appropriate,” said Schafer. “It would make more sense if the threshold were not an absolute number but a percentage of the voting population.”

That would of course make it harder for activists such as Herren. Her success so far is notable for defying political gravity, showcasing a system where grassroots campaigns can influence the national agenda.

What is all the more controversial about her effort is that this is a second attempt. The “Initiative for Food Safety” includes a clause that aims to tackle farmers’ use of pesticides.

That’s reminiscent of the “Drinking Water Initiative” Herren brought to the electorate in 2021 which also targeted that practice. Voters rejected it, with more than 60% opposed.

Herren said this will be her last try at a popular initiative because it involves “so much work,” and a big struggle against political apathy.

Polls ahead of the vote aren’t revealing a clear trend: While one survey published this week showed that rejection looked likely, another suggested either side could still win.

Still, Ritter, who leads the campaign against the food security initiative, is confident of his chances.

“Anything other than a clear no would be a huge surprise,” he said.

©2026 Bloomberg L.P.