Feeding initiative: rejected with 72.5% of no (cross-border guide)

Context

In brief

• 72,5% no: food initiative rejected
• All cantons voted against
• Voter turnout: 47,03%
• Objective: 70% self-sufficiency in ten years

Key facts

• Outcome → 72,5% no
• Voter turnout → 47,03%
• Final poll → 64% no
• Filing → 16 agosto 2024
• Valid signatures → 112’736
• Self-sufficiency → from the current 45% to at least 70% in ten years
• Promoters → Franziska Herren and six other people
• Cantons → all opposed

With 72,5% voting no, the Swiss people rejected the food initiative. All cantons voted against it; voter turnout was 47,03%. The last poll before the vote indicated 64% opposition.

A national result, with local differences

In Ticino, the text was rejected by 68,66%, one of the lowest shares; in Grisons, opponents reached 75,01%. The no vote exceeded 80% in Uri (80,82%), Schwyz (81,02%), Appenzell Innerrhoden (80,29%) and Obwalden (80,26%). Nidwalden reached 79,85%. The lowest rejection rates were in Geneva (62,63%), Basel-Stadt (63,16%) and Neuchâtel (65,49%). Verzasca and Campo Vallemaggia, in Ticino, instead accepted the initiative.

The proposal, filed on 16 agosto 2024 with 112’736 valid signatures, was titled «For a secure food supply – by strengthening sustainable domestic production, more plant-based foodstuffs and clean drinking water (Food Initiative)». It called for significantly greater agricultural production to reduce dependence on foreign countries and increase food security. The text aimed to shift consumption and production towards plant-based foods, protect the environment and water, and increase net self-sufficiency from the current 45% to at least 70% within ten years.

Behind the text were Franziska Herren, from the association «Clean Water for All», and six other people. Lukas Golder, a political scientist who spoke on SRF, judged the issues interesting but the implementation too rapid and radical. The committee conducted the campaign largely on its own: Greenpeace Switzerland and the Greens left voters free to choose, while all other parties recommended voting no.

Herren reminded Keystone-ATS that the problems remain and also attributed the defeat to disinformation. «We did not want any menu imposed by the state», she said, explaining that 70% was a target, not a rigid constraint. Markus Ritter, of The Centre and president of the Swiss Farmers’ Union, considered the Federal Council’s goal of bringing self-sufficiency to 50% by 2050 realistic. The Keystone-ATS report completes the picture of a vote without the structural change expected for agriculture over the next ten years.

Operational details

What the vote indicates

A rejection of the requirement, not of the issues

The vote blocks the proposal to turn into a constitutional requirement a fast-track approach: more domestic production, more plant-based foods, protection of the environment and water, and net self-sufficiency at 70% within ten years. The source does not, however, describe an abandonment of the issues, but rather a disagreement over instruments, timing and the degree of obligation.

For the Greens, ecological agricultural policy is not swept away by the no vote; the scorching summer with worrying records cited by the party shows the need for more ecological agriculture. The PVL separated rejection of the rigid threshold from rejection of healthy soils, clean water and sustainable agriculture.

For those living in Switzerland, the immediate consequence is political: the national requirement sought by the initiative will not apply, and the source does not quantify effects on food prices or household budgets. To consider the debate alongside everyday expenses, one can consult costo della vita in Svizzera, without attributing to the vote figures that the text does not provide.

The Centre, along the same lines, argues that security of supply and protection of resources should be pursued through feasible measures. The PLR spoke of paternalism by the environmental left; Petra Gössi added that it is unacceptable to demonize meat. These positions shift the debate from the objective to the choice of instruments.

Economiesuisse interpreted the no vote as a rejection of heavy state intervention; the USAM also regarded it as a signal against state paternalism in other sectors. The territorial map also deserves attention: all Cantons rejected the text, but Verzasca and Campo Vallemaggia accepted it. The national result does not erase this local difference.

Recommended tools

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

Key points

How to follow the dossier after the vote

A checklist for reading upcoming proposals

If you want to accurately assess the political follow-up, start with the scope of the request. The initiative's name combines four axes: sustainable national production, plant-based foods, clean drinking water, and security of supply. Noting these elements prevents confusing the text with the discussion on meat consumption alone.

1. Set the timeframes. The filing dates back to August 16, 2024; the proposal indicated ten years for its goal, while the Federal Council is cited for a 50% target by 2050. These are the time references present in the source.

2. Compare the baseline and the goal. The indicated baseline was 45% net self-sufficiency; the text asked for at least 70%. In Herren's statement, however, the 70% self-regulation was a goal to be pursued and not a rigid constraint. This distinction helps to understand if a future proposal speaks of a mandatory threshold or a political direction.

3. Check the territorial level. The cantonal result was negative everywhere, while two Ticino municipalities approved the initiative. To correctly read the consensus, therefore, separate the national decision from the local exceptions already reported.

4. Compare positions before drawing a conclusion. The Greens left freedom of vote; GLP, The Centre, FDP, Economiesuisse, and USAM motivated their 'no' in different ways, ranging from rigid thresholds and feasible measures to freedom of choice and state intervention. The source does not indicate forms, appeals, or individual obligations following the vote: the concrete step to follow is the debate on future measures.

Do not turn the result into a personal obligation: the text concerned the direction of Swiss agriculture and the source does not describe individual procedures to be started. The practical check therefore consists of distinguishing what was proposed from what the parties declared after the 'no'.

To link this monitoring to daily expenses without inventing effects on prices, use the cost of living in Switzerland. For a personal check of monthly income, close the check with the salary calculator.

Source: swissinfo.ch