Rarely has a popular initiative faced such a tough stance in parliament as the so-called "Food Security Initiative", which will be voted on on September 27. The request sounds tempting at first glance: Switzerland should become more independent in terms of food and increase its self-sufficiency rate from today's 42.5 to 70 percent.

However, a look at the text of the initiative and agricultural practice quickly reveals that the demands fundamentally contradict each other. It was launched by Franziska Herren, who already failed at the ballot box in 2021 with her Drinking Water Initiative. Back then, she also wanted to reduce pesticides and solve it via direct payments. Herren is mistaken. The assumption that farmers simply want to be compensated financially for waiving these tools falls short. Being a farmer means wanting and being able to produce food.

Less crop protection, higher yield – how is that supposed to work?

The initiative aims to simultaneously strengthen the cultivation of plant-based foods and drastically restrict the use of crop protection products. However, crops such as rapeseed, potatoes, fruit, and vegetables are precisely the ones reliant on effective crop protection to prevent losses caused by pests, fungal diseases, or extreme weather conditions.

The Federal Council outlined this conflict of objectives in its response to an interpellation by Centre National Councillor Martin Candinas: a higher level of self-sufficiency combined with a severe restriction of crop protection is not realistic. Additionally, the Federal Council stated that resource efficiency would decline – meaning the yield in relation to inputs used, such as land, labor, water, and fertilizer.

The consequences of missing crop protection products for Swiss producers are demonstrated by the example of Basel-Country farmer René Ritter in growing protein crops: due to a lack of effective protective agents, he suffered two total crop failures in chickpea cultivation within three years. Instead of the expected harvest of two to three tons, he was recently only able to harvest a single wheelbarrow full.

The seed contradiction: lower yields for higher expectations

The second, often overlooked contradiction concerns seeds. The initiative calls for the promotion of "natural, open-pollinated seed and planting material" – varieties whose seeds farmers can multiply themselves. The argument of initiator Franziska Herren: a growing share of imported seeds consists of non-reproducible hybrid varieties that must be repurchased every year. More open-pollinated seeds, according to her logic, would strengthen the independence of the food supply, implying that farmers want to propagate their own seeds.

The problem: hybrid varieties produce significantly higher yields than open-pollinated varieties thanks to the so-called heterosis effect – up to 30 percent more in the case of corn. That is why they have long been the standard for growing corn, sugar beets, rapeseed, and many types of vegetables in Switzerland. Farmers – whether organic or conventional – are not looking to propagate their own seeds, even though they are allowed to do so for their own use under plant variety protection law. They require high seed quality and therefore rely on certified seeds from specialized breeding companies. If open-pollinated seeds were generally promoted more strongly, the overall yield of Swiss agriculture would drop, along with agricultural income and the self-sufficiency rate that the initiative actually aims to increase. Hybrid varieties are by no means environmentally harmful – on the contrary: through their high yields, they help keep the land area required per ton of food produced smaller and conserve natural resources.

The motives behind the demand are understandable: independence from global seed corporations and the preservation of genetic diversity. However, this goal cannot be achieved free of charge – the price for it is a lower yield, which is the exact opposite of what the initiative promises. In short: the initiative is dishonest. Something is promised to the people, but the implementation and management of target conflicts are left to the legislature.

Nebelspalter editor Alex Reichmuth also highlights the issue: increasing the self-sufficiency rate to 70 percent while simultaneously introducing restrictions could only be enforced if large segments of the population switched to a purely vegan diet. This not only ignores actual consumer needs but also massively restricts citizens' freedom of choice.

SVP National Councillor Ernst Wandfluh takes the same line. The Food Security Initiative is a label fraud. "At first glance, the initiative sounds sympathetic. But in the end, it brings the exact opposite. Because a state mandate to primarily eat and produce plant-based foods is counterproductive," he writes on Nau.ch. Especially in mountain regions, livestock are an essential component of a sustainable diet. They make an essential contribution to security of supply, the maintenance of our cultural landscape, and the preservation of mountain areas.

Markus Ritter, President of the Swiss Farmers' Union, also finds using more arable land for food instead of animal feed senseless, as the Centre National Councillor stated to "10 vor 10". The consequences of accepting the Food Security Initiative would be a weakening of the domestic agricultural and food industry as well as an increase in food prices. Practically all agricultural associations support the "No" campaign of the Farmers' Union. Only BioSuisse and the Smallholders' Association decided on a free vote. This is particularly astonishing because organic farming relies specifically on liquid manure as fertilizer, as synthetic fertilizers are not permitted.

Innovation and sustainability instead of anti-liberalism

The Food Security Initiative pursues romantic approaches that are hardly feasible in practice. To genuinely strengthen our food security, exactly the opposite is needed: openness to technology, targeted innovation in plant breeding, practical crop protection, and a market-oriented agricultural policy (AP2030+). This is the only way to combine ecological, economic, and social sustainability.

Keywords: Food Security Initiative · Self-sufficiency rate · Crop protection · Seeds · Hybrid varieties · Food security · Franziska Herren · Agricultural policy