On 7 June 1998, Swiss voters rejected by 66.7% the popular initiative "for the protection of life and the environment against genetic manipulation", known as the gene-protection initiative. Not a single canton accepted it. It marked the climax of one of the most expensive and mobilising campaigns of the decade.
Launched by the Swiss Working Group on Genetic Engineering, the initiative sought to write into the Constitution a ban on producing transgenic animals, releasing genetically modified organisms and patenting living things. In practice it also targeted a large part of research.
It faced an unusual coalition: the Federal Council (Ruth Dreifuss, head of the Federal Department of Home Affairs), centre-right parties, business and farming circles, universities and the pharmaceutical industry. In May 1998, four of Switzerland's five Nobel laureates held a joint press conference against it.
The backers — Greens, the left, environmental groups such as Greenpeace and the WWF — denounced a scientific headlong rush. On 7 June, turnout reached 41% and the verdict was clear-cut: a double no from the people and every canton.
▲ Cantons that accepted No canton accepted the initiative. | ▼ Cantons that rejected All 26 cantons rejected the initiative: Zurich, Bern, Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Obwalden, Nidwalden, Glarus, Zug, Fribourg, Solothurn, Basel-Stadt, Basel-Landschaft, Schaffhausen, Appenzell Outer Rhodes, Appenzell Inner Rhodes, St. Gallen, Graubünden, Aargau, Thurgau, Ticino, Vaud, Valais, Neuchâtel, Geneva and Jura. |
Actors and personalities
▲ Yes camp • Swiss Working Group on Genetic Engineering, which launched the initiative • The Greens, the Social Democrats, the Evangelicals, the Federal Democratic Union and the Swiss Democrats • Greenpeace, WWF and environmental organisations • Organic-farming and animal-protection circles | ▼ No camp • Federal Council (Ruth Dreifuss, head of the FDHA) • Majority of Parliament (National Council 107-44, Council of States 40-0) • Christian Democrats, Radicals, SVP, Liberals ; economiesuisse, Employers' Union, Swiss Farmers' Union • Scientific circles (four Nobel laureates), universities, Novartis and Roche |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) Uncontrollable risks to health and the environment « Genetic engineering poses unpredictable and irreversible risks to health and nature. » — Initiative committee and environmental groups (1998) ✗~ Partly refuted Since 1998, neither research nor the medical applications of genetic engineering have produced the catastrophes forecast. In agriculture, however, the fear did not entirely fade, where the precautionary principle was upheld through a moratorium. Source: FOEN ; regulation of GMOs in Switzerland Without a ban, no safeguards « Without a constitutional ban, Switzerland will become an open-air laboratory with no protection. » — Backers (1998) ✗ Argument refuted The ban was rejected, yet a strict legal framework was adopted: the Gene Technology Act (2003) requires labelling, traceability and coexistence, and since 2005 a moratorium has governed agriculture. Switzerland did not become a "laboratory without safeguards". Source: Gene Technology Act (GTA), 2003 | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) A ban would kill research and drive out pharma « Banning transgenic research would doom Swiss science and drive away the pharmaceutical industry. » — Federal Council and scientific circles (1998) ✓ Argument confirmed Research stayed legal and flourished: Novartis and Roche became world leaders and Basel a major biotech hub. The development seen since confirms that a ban would have hit a key sector of the Swiss economy. Source: swissvotes.ch/vote/440.00 ; industry reports Regulation is enough, no need to ban « A constitutional ban is not needed: a law can contain the risks. » — Federal Council (1998) ✓~ Partly confirmed The 2003 Gene Technology Act did create a framework. But voters judged regulation insufficient for agriculture and imposed in 2005 a moratorium on agricultural GMOs, renewed without interruption until 2025. Source: Regulation of GMOs in Switzerland |
Affiches de campagne (16)
Factual record
1 Confirmed | 1 Partly confirmed | 1 Partly refuted | 1 Refuted |
| ✓ | Research that stayed and thrived Genetic engineering remained legal. Novartis and Roche rose to become world leaders, and the Basel region became one of the planet's major biotech hubs. Source: Industry reports ; economic statistics |
| ~ | Agricultural mistrust eventually prevailed Despite rejecting the ban in 1998, voters accepted in 2005 a five-year moratorium on GMOs in agriculture (55.7%), renewed several times until 2025. Source: Regulation of GMOs in Switzerland |
| ✓ | A legal framework built without a ban The 2003 Gene Technology Act introduced mandatory labelling, consumer free choice, coexistence and monitoring — vindicating those who argued for regulating rather than banning. Source: Gene Technology Act (GTA), 2003 |
In 1998, the Swiss clearly refused to write a ban on genetic engineering into the Constitution. The campaign, one of the costliest of its time, saw science and industry mobilise with unprecedented intensity against an environmentalist text.
The no camp's wager — regulate rather than ban — was largely borne out for research and pharma. Having stayed in Switzerland, they became world champions there, vindicating the warning that a ban would have struck an economic pillar.
Popular mistrust, however, did not vanish. From 2005 voters imposed a moratorium on agricultural GMOs, renewed ever since. The 1998 no concerned research and medicine, far less the contents of the plate.
In the end, a subtle split: a victory for science, lasting caution over agriculture. The 1998 vote had merely sketched a dividing line that Switzerland has kept redrawing ever since.