The initiators of the Food Initiative have lost. But does that mean environmental protection is among the losers too? The "Luzerner Zeitung" fears that the clear No will in future be used as an argument against more environmental and climate protection. This reading falls short. Agriculture does not become more sustainable by producing less. What matters is how carefully it uses all resources. Anyone who wants to protect both the environment and the food supply should therefore see productive agriculture not as a problem, but as part of the solution.

Sustainability therefore requires progress, not retreat. Robust varieties, new breeding methods, precision technology and effective crop protection help to prevent crop losses and use resources in a more targeted way. Those who harvest more on the same area need less land for the same amount of food. This can reduce the pressure on additional natural areas.

The initiators' contradictory goals

The initiative aimed to raise the net self-sufficiency rate to at least 70 percent. To achieve this, agriculture was supposed to produce fewer animal-based and more plant-based foods, while at the same time using fewer pesticides and fertilisers. Green National Councillor Christine Badertscher, who campaigned against the initiative, also stressed after the vote that the No was not a rejection of sustainable agriculture. However, she questioned whether it could be implemented.

This is exactly where the debate needs to continue. Switzerland should produce food on its existing land while using as little soil, water and energy as possible. That requires innovation and effective protection against crop losses. Sustainability does not demand less production, but more resource-efficient production. Restricting the means of protecting crops without providing effective alternatives makes it harder to achieve precisely the production that is supposed to be strengthened.

Imports and trade as pillars of supply

Honesty also requires acknowledging this: Switzerland covers only about half of its food needs itself. Imports remain necessary even with higher self-sufficiency. The question is therefore not whether we depend on other countries, but how we shape this dependence. A broadly based supply network helps to absorb shortfalls, as Conradin Bolliger of réservesuisse also explains in the "Agrarpolitik" podcast of 6 October 2026.

But domestic production and stockpiling alone are not enough: we must also be able to import, especially what we cannot grow here: bananas, cocoa, coffee, mangoes, pineapples, cashew nuts, avocados and much more. This is where the value of free trade agreements such as those with Malaysia and the Mercosur states lies. They reduce trade barriers and create more predictable rules, including for food. Such agreements do not guarantee deliveries in every crisis. But they improve the conditions for trade that is necessary anyway. Reliable relationships should be built before the harvest fails.

In addition, Swiss consumers want freedom of choice and flexibility, not paternalism. This was clearly shown by the gfs Food Monitor published at the end of September 2026. Or, as farmer Thomas A. Glauser aptly put it in a letter to the editor in the "Schweizer Bauer" of 23 September: "Food security is too important for symbolic politics. Our farmers need reliable framework conditions, planning certainty and entrepreneurial freedom. Consumers need transparency and genuine choice. A strong Swiss agriculture sector does not come from a state-controlled menu, but from farming families who are able to produce and from consumers who are free to decide what they buy and eat." (translated)

The No to the Food Initiative is an opportunity to resolve the contradictions in the agricultural debate. Demanding more self-sufficiency while taking important tools away from farmers and slowing down trade: the numbers simply don't add up.

Keywords: Food Initiative · Self-sufficiency rate · Agriculture · Crop protection · Free trade agreements · Security of supply · Mercosur · Innovation