Pro/Contra: Costs of the factory farming initiative

23 Aug

0 1812 Post by Mucca.ch

Animal welfare or their own wallets – which is more important to the Swiss electorate? With their initiative, “Sentience Politics” with Green National Councilor Meret Schneider wants to reduce the consumption of animal products and introduce import regulations. All this in favor of animals and nature. But what does this mean for consumers and farmers? Mucca.ch provides an overview of the most important arguments and possible consequences of the Factory Farming Initiative (MTI).

Demands of the factory farming initiative

– Animal-friendly housing with more space, species-appropriate feeding, opportunities for play – Daily access to pasture and slower growing breeds – Gentle slaughtering methods with short transport routes and better control of anaesthesia – Maximum group sizes and fewer animals per hectare of pasture – Import regulations so that only animal products that meet all standards enter Switzerland

A change in agriculture explains Meret Schneider in an interview about the goal of the initiative. Grazing animals such as cattle, cows, sheep and goats are better suited to the topography of Switzerland, where grassland accounts for around two-thirds of agricultural land. At the same time, however, cattle numbers are to be reduced to the standards required by Bio-Suisse, although opponents say that Swiss animal welfare laws are already “among the strictest in the world”.

Today, farmers who keep their animals according to the RAUS guidelines (regular outdoor exercise) receive an annual subsidy if, for example, they let their animals out to pasture for at least 26 days per month in summer. Currently, a maximum of 18,000 laying hens per farm is permitted in Switzerland, with 4,000 for organic farmers. In nearby countries, the numbers are correspondingly higher: in Germany, farms with over 100,000 laying hens are not uncommon, in some cases there are up to 600,000.

The agriculture of the future

Swiss agriculture is changing rapidly: while in 2000 there were still around 70,000 family farms providing our food, by 2020 there were only 50,000 – a decline of 30%. Expand, work more economically, produce cost-covering: In recent years, falling producer prices have forced many farmers to produce more cheaply and buy additional land. To what extent this was good for the environment remains to be seen. The MTI is now demanding more space for fewer animals, which is likely to accelerate the decline of farms and the associated jobs. Direct payments are already vital for the survival of some farmers. For Meret Schneider, the decreasing meat supply is a step in the right direction to reduce the consumption of animal products for climate and resource reasons.

A tightrope walk

It is not clear whether and to what extent Swiss citizens will give up their meat in the future. Surveys assume that if the initiative is adopted, the self-sufficiency rate for chicken would drop from 58% today to 5% and for pork from 92% to 50% – unless consumption drops drastically at the same time. The difficulty, then, is to produce Swiss meat according to organic guidelines, while consumers also take a leaf out of their book and want to eat less meat, pay more for quality and avoid food waste.

Rethinking must take place

The fact is that meat consumption per capita in Switzerland actually increased in 2021. And it is no secret that higher prices lead to more shopping tourism. The initiative demands the same standards for foreign animal products. Only products that meet Swiss standards may be imported. For example, Brazilian chicken or genetically modified Argentine beef should be banned. However, it is not clear how these imported goods will be controlled. For example, it is not defined whether the individual ingredients of processed products must also comply with the MTI standards. The initiators speak of a “pragmatic approach” because it would be too time-consuming to check the ingredients of a finished product for compliance with Swiss standards, i.e. whether, for example, eggs from caged farms are in it. In addition, the new requirements would probably violate some international obligations.

Financial impact

The additional costs of the MTI must be covered by the federal government and the market – and thus by us consumers. Meret Schneider assumes that the required barn conversions and reduction of livestock will cost around CHF 400 million. Furthermore, the cattle farms, which currently receive about CHF 5,000 p.a. for complying with the animal welfare standards (RAUS), would probably have to do without this subsidy. Schneider hopes that this loss will be compensated by higher prices. At the same time, the price pressure caused by cheap imported food should disappear.

What the initiators are calling for is understandable and protects the environment and climate. But the question is and remains whether the timing is right and whether we are not doing more harm than good to Swiss agriculture and our food security. The farmers would be helped most by a change of system if they could once again focus on quality instead of quantity and if this would also be financially worthwhile. Because with the currently very low producer prices, we are doing neither our health nor the environment any good.