Accueil / Fédéral / Popular initiative « For food sovereignty. Agriculture concerns us all »
Refusée Fédéral Agriculture et alimentation 23 septembre 2018

Popular initiative « For food sovereignty. Agriculture concerns us all »

On 23 September 2018 — the same day as the fair food initiative — Swiss voters decided on the popular initiative « For food sovereignty. Agriculture concerns us all », launched by the farmers union Uniterre. The text sought to…

Oui — 31.6% Non — 68.4%
Participation : 37.2%
L'enjeu de l'époque

On 23 September 2018 — the same day as the fair food initiative — Swiss voters decided on the popular initiative « For food sovereignty. Agriculture concerns us all », launched by the farmers union Uniterre. The text sought to reorient agricultural policy toward small family farms and a diversified agriculture, free of genetic engineering.

Submitted in 2016, the initiative responded to the falling number of farms and pressure on farm incomes. It demanded that the Confederation guarantee remunerative prices, promote agricultural employment, and subject imported products to Swiss social and ecological standards.

The Federal Council and Parliament recommended rejection, deeming the text too interventionist and redundant with existing agricultural policy. A broad coalition from the agrarian right to business saw a risk of higher prices and protectionism, at odds with Switzerland's trade commitments.

The verdict was unequivocal: 68.4% no (31.6% yes), with turnout around 37%. Only two French-speaking cantons gave the text a majority.

Methodological note : This card treats the vote factually and impartially. The verdicts concern only the verifiable campaign arguments — those that can be checked against facts observed since the vote — and not the ballot itself.
▲ Cantons that accepted
Jura (about 54%) and Neuchâtel (about 53%), the only cantons to return a yes majority.
▼ Cantons that rejected
The other 24 cantons. Clear rejections in the rest of French-speaking Switzerland (Geneva, Vaud, Fribourg, Valais) and overwhelming ones in German-speaking Switzerland, where the no often exceeded 70%.

Actors and personalities

▲ Yes camp
Uniterre (sponsoring farmers union)
Social Democrats and Greens (partial support)
Peasant agriculture movements (La Vía Campesina)
Small producers and short supply chains
▼ No camp
Federal Council (Johann Schneider-Ammann, EAER)
SVP, FDP, CVP, BDP
Swiss Farmers Union (SBV)
economiesuisse and export circles
Worth noting : Notably, the Swiss Farmers Union — meant to represent the farmers concerned — campaigned against a farmers union initiative, illustrating the divisions within the agricultural world over which model to pursue.

Arguments and verdicts

▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp)
Halt the disappearance of family farms
« Two to three farms disappear every day in Switzerland; peasant agriculture must be supported. »
— Uniterre, 2018 campaign
✓~ Partly confirmed
The diagnosed structural decline continued after the vote: Switzerland had about 51,000 farms in 2018 versus just over 48,000 in 2023 — nearly one farm fewer per day. The actual pace is below the « two to three » claimed, but the trend was real.
Source : FSO, farm structure survey
Reduce dependence on food imports
« Switzerland increasingly depends on imports to feed itself. »
— Initiative committee, 2018
✓~ Partly confirmed
The net self-sufficiency rate stayed around 50% after 2018, with no improvement. The heavy import dependence stressed by the initiators persisted; the rejection changed nothing about this structural fact.
Source : FOAG / Agristat, self-sufficiency rate
▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp)
Agriculture is already heavily supported; the initiative is superfluous
« Agricultural policy and direct payments already frame and support farms extensively. »
— Federal Council, 2018 dispatch
✓~ Partly confirmed
The existing framework was maintained — about CHF 2.8 billion in direct payments per year — and even strengthened on sustainability: after the 2021 rejection of the pesticide initiatives, Parliament adopted a pesticide-reduction trajectory (Pa. Iv. 19.475). The claim that the system was already acting was partly borne out.
Source : Parliament; FOAG
The status quo protects farms better than a straitjacket of rules
« Multiplying rules would raise prices without saving farms. »
— Cross-party No committee, 2018
✗~ Partly refuted
Maintaining the status quo did not halt the decline of farms, which continued at the same pace after 2018. The implicit claim that the existing model sufficed to preserve farms was only partly borne out.
Source : FSO, farms 2018-2023

Factual record

0
Confirmed
3
Partly confirmed
1
Partly refuted
0
Refuted
~
The farms kept disappearing
The number of farms fell from about 51,000 (2018) to just over 48,000 (2023). The structural decline denounced by Uniterre continued, regardless of the initiative fate.
Source : FSO
Sustainability advanced by other routes
After the rejection, Parliament adopted a pesticide-reduction trajectory in 2021, and the organic share reached nearly 20% of land in 2023. Part of the goals carried by the farming camp advanced outside the proposed framework.
Source : Parliament; FSO
~
An agricultural Röstigraben confirmed
As with the sister initiative voted the same day, only French-speaking cantons supported the text, confirming a persistent linguistic divide over the agricultural model and the role of the state.
Source : FSO, 2018 votes
Analyse éditoriale
Conclusion

The decisive rejection of the food sovereignty initiative confirmed voters caution toward any dirigiste reorientation of agricultural policy. Yet later facts partly vindicate the initiators diagnosis.

The disappearance of farms continued and import dependence remained high: on these points Uniterre was right, even if the initiative would not necessarily have reversed these heavy trends. The No camp was right to stress that agriculture was already heavily supported, but maintaining the status quo did no more to halt the decline of farms.

At heart, the vote settled a question of method more than of goal: should prices and a peasant model be guaranteed by law, or should the market and direct payments steer the transition? Subsequent developments — pesticide trajectory, the rise of organic — show gradual adjustment rather than the rupture the initiators wanted.