Food initiative: decisively rejected by the cantons (cross-border guide)

Context

In brief

• In the 16 Cantons polled, the initiative was rejected.
• In Ticino, opponents reached 68,66%.
• The text aimed to increase the rate from 45% to at least 70% in ten years.
• Submitted on 16 August 2024 with 112'736 valid signatures.

Key facts

• Outcome → rejected in all 16 Cantons where counting was complete
• Ticino → 68,66% of votes against
• Graubünden → 75,01% of votes against
• Submission → 16 August 2024
• Valid signatures → 112'736
• Net self-sufficiency → from 45% to at least 70% within ten years
• Latest poll → 64% rejection forecast
• Committee → Franziska Herren and six other people

The vote in the Cantons

On 16 August 2024, the initiative was submitted with 112'736 valid signatures. The Keystone-ATS news report states that the text was rejected by all 16 Cantons for which counting had been completed. The opening of the report thus rules out profound structural change in Swiss agriculture over the next ten years.

In Ticino, votes against amounted to 68,66%, one of the lowest shares indicated. In Graubünden, rejection reached 75,01%. Rejection was more decisive, with over 80% of votes against, in Uri, Schwyz, Appenzell Innerrhoden and Obwalden: respectively 80,82%, 81,02%, 80,29% and 80,26%. Nidwalden expressed a slightly lower rejection, amounting to 79,85%.

The proposal and the campaign

The exact name was «For a secure food supply – by strengthening sustainable domestic production, more plant-based foodstuffs and clean drinking water (Food Initiative)». Behind the text were Franziska Herren of the association «Acqua pulita per tutti» and six other people. The initiative called for significantly greater Swiss agricultural production, in order to reduce dependence on foreign countries and increase food security. It also aimed for more production and consumption of plant-based rather than animal-based foods, for the net self-sufficiency rate to rise from the current 45% to at least 70% within ten years, and for better protection of the environment and drinking water.

Political scientist Lukas Golder stated on Swiss television SRF that the issues were interesting, but their implementation too rapid and radical. The text received no support from the political establishment. The small committee conducted much of the campaign on its own: after initial support, environmental associations distanced themselves; Greenpeace Svizzera and the Greens allowed a free vote, while all other parties recommended voting no. The latest poll before the vote forecast a 64% rejection.

Operational details

What the result means

The most concrete way to read the outcome is to distinguish between the starting point and the proposed target. In the source, 45% is the net self-sufficiency rate indicated as the current level; 70% was the minimum threshold that the text called for reaching within ten years. For those living in Switzerland, this difference makes clear that the higher number does not describe an already achieved situation: it is the political objective of the initiative rejected in the 16 Cantons where counting had been completed.

The second point concerns the direction of change. The proposal was not limited to calling for more Swiss foodstuffs. It linked increased production to reduced dependence on foreign countries, a greater share of plant-based foods than animal-based ones, and better protection of the environment and drinking water. The source described implementation as too rapid and radical; its outcome does not open up, over the next ten years, the profound structural change indicated at the outset.

The framework for interpreting before and after

The cantonal reading adds an important difference. The 68.66% in Ticino and the 75.01% in Grigioni show a less pronounced rejection than the over 80% recorded in Uri, Svitto, Appenzello interno and Obvaldo; Nidvaldo, at 79.85%, is just below that threshold. These figures describe different intensities of the no vote, but the source does not attribute local reasons to them: it would not be advisable to add any.

The 64% in the last poll should also be read as a forecast preceding the vote, not as an objective of the text. The parties' positions and the distance of the environmental associations help to understand the campaign, but do not turn the poll into a cantonal result. To complement the political reading with a check of one's own situation, the site offers costo della vita in Svizzera: a tool separate from the voting data.

Recommended tools

For an updated estimate, use the net salary calculator and the CHF-EUR exchange comparator.

Key points

How to use the result

Anyone who wants to verify the news can follow a five-step sequence, all anchored in the reported data.

A five-step procedure

1. Note the origin of the initiative. The date is 16 August 2024, with 112'736 valid signatures. In your notes, it should be indicated as the filing date, because that is how the source presents it. 2. Separate baseline and objective. Write 45% next to the current net self-sufficiency rate and 70% next to the minimum objective; add the ten-year horizon. 3. Order the territorial outcomes. Start with Ticino, at 68.66%, and Grisons, at 75.01%; then record the threshold of over 80% and the values for Uri, Schwyz, Appenzell Innerrhoden and Obwalden, as well as Nidwalden's 79.85%. 4. Check the scope. The news concerns the 16 Cantons with the count completed. Do not automatically turn that block of results into data referring to Cantons not mentioned. 5. Distinguish forecast from vote. The 64% belongs to the last poll before the vote. It must be kept separate from the cantonal results actually reported.

This sequence makes it possible to avoid using 70% as if it had already been reached, or 64% as if it were a result. It also helps avoid attributing to individual Cantons motivations that the source does not set out. For anyone who wants to continue with a personal verification, dichiarazione delle imposte remains a tool distinct from reading the vote and does not alter the agricultural data reported here.

Before sharing the analysis, it is advisable to check three elements: the correct name of the initiative, the reference to Keystone-ATS and the distinction between the committee's campaign, the positions of Greenpeace Svizzera and the Verdi, and the opposing recommendation of the other parties. This is the simplest way to keep facts, objectives and political assessments separate.

For a personal verification of your own economic entries, open calcolatore stipendio/imposte.

Source: swissinfo.ch