The Food Initiative is off the table. Its problems aren't.

On 27 September 2026, Switzerland voted on the popular “Food Initiative”. The initiative sought to increase Switzerland's self-sufficiency: in future, at least 70 per cent of the country's food needs were to be met by domestic production. To achieve this, Swiss agriculture was to shift its focus from animal to plant-based products.

The initiative also called for better protection of drinking water and for safeguarding soil fertility and biodiversity. Fertilisers and pesticides were to be used more sparingly, and the upper limits for nitrogen and phosphorus were no longer to be exceeded. All of this would have had to be achieved within ten years.  

Parliament rejected the initiative unanimously, and voters followed suit at the ballot box. While the Federal Council agreed with the proposal's general direction, it considered the ten-year deadline unrealistic and the enshrinement of administrative targets in the Constitution inappropriate. Yet the "no" vote leaves the pressing environmental and food security issues unresolved – and the federal government still has a duty to act. 

Food security and self-sufficiency

The initiative required Switzerland to meet at least 70 per cent of its calorie needs from domestic production within ten years (the net self-sufficiency rate). By comparison, this figure averaged 45 per cent between 2022 and 2024. The target was therefore ambitious. Yet the topic remains relevant: independently of the initiative, the federal government aims to gradually increase self-sufficiency to 50 per cent by 2050.  

Raising the self-sufficiency rate requires changes both in agricultural production and in our eating habits. Significantly more plant-based foods would need to be grown, while the production of animal feed and animal-based products would need to be scaled back. Such a shift could be encouraged, for example, by reducing subsidies for livestock production. At the same time, food waste would have to be reduced (in line with the federal target of halving it by 2030), and consumers would need to adopt more plant-based diets. This does not, however, amount to "compulsory veganism": around 60 per cent of Switzerland's agricultural land is permanent grassland. This land cannot be used for crops and will continue to support grass-based milk and meat production.

The transition would therefore have to take place primarily on arable land. Bread cereals and protein peas for human consumption would have to be cultivated where feed cereals and feed maize are grown today. Pigs and poultry would largely have to make do with by-products from food processing, and their numbers would decrease accordingly. 

That said, greater self-sufficiency is not the same as genuine resilience to crises. A high share of domestic production helps in the event of trade conflicts or war, but when local weather extremes strike, international trade acts as an essential insurance. In 2024, for instance, Switzerland offset weather-related crop failures by importing five per cent more. A legally mandated level of self-sufficiency would restrict this adjustment mechanism. 

Drinking water 

Switzerland obtains around 80 per cent of its drinking water from groundwater and springs, with the remainder coming from lakes. Contamination of groundwater by pesticide residues has been more than halved since 2019. However, high nitrate levels in areas of intensive agriculture and substances such as PFAS continue to compromise water quality.

The dry summer of 2026 also demonstrated that water volume itself is becoming a problem: over 190 municipalities called for water-saving measures, whilst at least 151 imposed bans on water use. At present, there is no comprehensive overview of when, where and how much water is being extracted, nor is there priority order in the event of a shortage. The federal government is developing a national water management strategy; the Federal Council’s decision is expected at the end of 2027.  

Biodiversity and over-fertilisation   

Protecting ecosystems also suffers from an enforcement gap. One driver is ammonia, which escapes mainly from slurry and livestock housing. It is deposited in forests and nutrient-poor meadows, where it acts as an unwanted fertiliser and crowds out rare species. The federal target of no more than 25,000 tonnes of nitrogen per year has been exceeded by more than 60 per cent for years. It was precisely this gap that the initiative sought to close. For now, all that remains is the statutory reduction pathway: by 2030, agriculture is to release 15 per cent less nitrogen than it did ten years ago. This is unlikely to be sufficient to meet the target.  

The initiative’s core concerns – clean drinking water, intact ecosystems and greater self-sufficiency – are widely shared. The disagreement was about the pace, how binding the targets should be, and whether the Constitution is the right place for them. With the “no” vote, the debate returns to ordinary politics: to the consultation on the AP30+ agricultural policy, the nutrient reduction pathway and the Water Management Strategy 2027. It remains to be seen whether these environmental targets can be met without constitutional pressure – or whether the next referendum will follow in a few years’ time.

Prof. Dr. Sabrina Eisenbarth is an Associate Professor of Environmental Economics and Director of the Swiss Institute for International Economics and Applied Economic Research (SIAW-HSG) at the University of St.Gallen.

Image: Unsplash / @hdbernd