10.10.2026
Federally Imposed Uncertainty
Dear readers,
The nod to the Austrian pop-rock band EAV (“Erste Allgemeine Verunsicherung” – “First General Uncertainty”), which stormed the German-language charts in the 1980s, is intentional. As with the songs of this band, seen mainly as a bunch of jokers, the play on words in the title hides a more serious point.
“Interested but overwhelmed” is the headline of the latest Nutrition and Physical Activity Monitor from the research institute gfs.bern. The survey, now in its 13th edition, produced a striking result. A record 89 percent of respondents are interested in nutrition and exercise. Yet their sense of being well informed on these topics has never been lower: only 68 percent feel well informed. According to the study’s authors, this suggests that the growing flood of information and the many, sometimes contradictory recommendations are making it harder for people to find their bearings. “More than half of respondents find it difficult to distinguish false information from scientific facts,” project leader Sophie Schäfer of gfs is quoted in foodaktuell.
That is food for thought. In the last swiss-food newsletter, we showed that labels do not always take scientific facts very seriously and can also mislead consumers. “Labels are marketing, and marketing is not subject to scientific criteria” was a common, laconic response. But because environmental claims can command a higher price, some have been too casual with them. As a result, the so-called Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EmpCo Directive (EU) 2024/825) has applied in the EU since 27 September 2026. It covers all companies that target consumers in the EU, including those based outside the EU. It prohibits vague or generic environmental and sustainability claims made without scientific proof, in other words greenwashing. Terms such as “climate-neutral”, “environmentally friendly” or “green” are now prohibited unless backed by concrete, verifiable evidence.
In Switzerland, the Federal Act on Unfair Competition (UCA) was already tightened on 1 January 2025. Under Article 3(1) UCA, anyone who makes false or misleading statements about themselves, their goods, works or services acts unfairly. Since 1 January 2025, claims relating to climate impact must additionally be substantiated by objective and verifiable evidence. In March 2026, the Federal Office for the Environment specified these requirements in a guidance document of more than thirty pages on assessing climate-related claims under the UCA. Climate claims based solely on offsetting measures, such as the purchase of certificates, are now permitted only under strict conditions, if at all. The EmpCo Directive and the FOEN (Federal Office for the Environment) guidance share the same goal: to clarify the legal requirements for climate-related claims. In doing so, they give companies a framework for communicating about their climate impact with legal certainty. These regulations do mean extra work. From the perspective of science-based companies, however, it is welcome that the state wants to prevent greenwashing, and with it the glossing over of facts at the expense of other market participants. Consumers should have the greatest possible certainty that they get what they are willing to pay more for. It is a concrete contribution, a kind of “general reassurance”, towards distinguishing false information from scientific facts, as called for by the gfs Nutrition and Physical Activity Monitor.
Unfortunately, some federal offices do not live up to this standard. Contrary to all legal and scientific evidence, they prefer to keep general uncertainty alive by every means available. This dubious honour currently goes to the Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO), on the subject of chlorothalonil. Instead of providing clarity, it is creating uncertainty and thereby earns the first “EAV Ignorance Award”. The second prize goes to the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN): the very office that fights corporate greenwashing so meticulously is itself contributing to the uncertainty here.
Let us be clear from the outset: we all want clean drinking water and effective protection of drinking water resources. New contamination should be prevented wherever possible, and existing inputs should be effectively reduced.
A precautionary value is therefore right and important as a “warning value” for determining whether action is needed. Any intervention or measure, however, must be based on the actual risks: measurement results must be assessed substance by substance, on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
In fact, the Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO) was on the right track in this respect. In 2019, the authorisations for plant protection products containing the active substance chlorothalonil were reviewed. On that occasion, the FSVO concluded in its own expert assessment, based on the existing scientific studies, that the chlorothalonil breakdown products most frequently found in groundwater were not relevant, meaning not hazardous to humans or the environment.
A week later came the U-turn: the same office now declared that all breakdown products (known as “metabolites”) were relevant because the parent substance was. The EU directive the FSVO cited as its reference has no such automatic rule when substance-specific scientific data are available. Syngenta challenged this flip-flopping and this automatism on behalf of all affected companies. After six years, in spring 2026, it was proven right on this point, with unmistakably clear communication both in the Federal Administrative Court’s judgment itself and in its press release. The court found the FSVO’s previous blanket automatism (“all metabolites relevant”) to be legally untenable. From the press release: “First of all, the argument that all chlorothalonil metabolites are relevant is rejected. Rather, the classification of four metabolites as not relevant is to be upheld, including metabolites R471811 (M4) and R417888 (M12), which are detected relatively frequently in groundwater.”
Whether “relevant” or “not relevant” is relevant
Whether a breakdown product of a chemical is classified as “relevant” or “not relevant”, meaning harmless to humans and the environment, makes a real difference. “Relevant” breakdown products (known as “metabolites”) are subject to much lower limits: 0.1 micrograms per litre, compared with maximum values of up to 10 micrograms per litre for “non-relevant” metabolites.
Bottom line: the FSVO’s U-turn lowered the maximum value for these breakdown products by a factor of 100 overnight. The same water that had previously been considered “clean” was suddenly “contaminated”.
At the same time, the authorities stress in every statement that “the drinking water can be consumed without concern”. But the damage is done, and public unease has been successfully stirred up.
It is one thing that the FSVO did not wait for the court’s decision and instructed cantons and municipalities in 2020 to implement drinking water protection measures immediately. In 2024, it went a step further with a directive obliging water suppliers to carry out remediation within two years. It did so even though an interim decision by the Federal Administrative Court could have been read as a warning. That does not make matters any better.
What is truly troubling from a rule-of-law perspective, however, is that the office is ignoring the clear and legally binding court ruling and sticking to its remediation directive, despite questions from the cantons and parliamentary enquiries. On 29 September 2026, it also published a list documenting how far cantons and municipalities have implemented Directive 1/2024, a directive that should in fact be amended.
Formally, then, the federal requirements remain in force. The case of the municipality of Pfaffnau illustrates how this is causing maximum uncertainty among municipalities as well. The local authorities there stated that the blanket precautionary value applicable under the FSVO’s previous requirements “was not set on the basis of a substance-specific toxicological assessment, but according to the principle ‘when in doubt, as low as possible’”. They added that “the exceedance poses no health risk and that the Federal Administrative Court, in its judgment of 12 March 2026, expressly found that the substance R471811 (M4) measured here (i.e. in Pfaffnau – ed.) is ‘not relevant’ to health”. But they also said that “the municipality takes its responsibility for an impeccable drinking water supply seriously and is working on long-term solutions”.
With all due respect: that is “Federally Imposed Uncertainty ” of the first order.
And the Federal Office for the Environment? The graph showing exceedances—which the FOEN continues to present in an “alarming” manner—would suddenly look harmless, and the dramatic text would have to be revised—if only the FOEN would take note of the Federal Administrative Court’s ruling.
At least the court’s clearly worded judgment is directly applicable. Cantons and municipalities are therefore free to disregard Directive 1/2024 with regard to the metabolites now judicially confirmed as non-relevant. They can choose not to start unnecessary remediation measures or source closures that are no longer justified, or stop those already under way. In doing so, they can counter the Federally Imposed Uncertainty , with the court’s blessing.
Your swiss-food editorial team
