No subsidies for meat and animal products.

Problem

• Factory farming is responsible for 15% of greenhouse gas emissions. Animals are very inefficient energy suppliers. If plants were consumed directly instead of being fed to animals, over 70% of greenhouse gas emissions could be saved.
• Animal husbandry leads to over-fertilization and pollution of water bodies.
• Factory farming and the killing of animals is ethically questionable.
• Diseases and germs in factory farming are fought with antibiotics, often prophylactically, which leads to resistant germs that threaten health.
• Meat consumption is mostly unhealthy and causes various health damages.

Solution

• Subsidies for meat and animal products are prohibited.
• The cost of meat should reflect the full costs including environmental costs.
• The import of meat will be charged with corresponding surcharges.
• Reasonable transition periods are set for the termination of subsidies so that farmers have time to adapt.
• Subsidies and indirect subsidies of all kinds for meat shall be prohibited.

Benefit

• There are fewer greenhouse gas emissions because the financial incentives for producing animal-based foods decrease.
• Less land is needed for agriculture because it is much more efficient to produce plant-based foods directly.
• Less animal production reduces problems such as over-fertilization, water pollution, and biodiversity loss.
• A lower availability of animal products could lead to healthier diets and fewer diet-related diseases.
• Ending subsidies saves taxpayers' money, which can be used to reduce taxes.

Public support

Total votes: 276

Breakdown: FullyOnBoard: 171, SoundsGood: 46, NoChance: 20, Concerns: 16, NothingAgainstIt: 16, NeedForDiscussion: 7

Discussion

• J. R. (2026-07-02): A reduction can be fully supported, as long as ethical farming is also rewarded
• ↳ A. V. (2026-07-03): That's right. What worries me is how difficult it is to regulate products outside Switzerland. It would be a shame if imports from abroad suddenly became more profitable than domestic production.
• T. M. (2026-06-25): The subject at hand is unfortunately far too complex to be turned into a single petition – is it the advertising for meat (I read figures ranging from 6 to 36 million) or the subsidies for meat production (I haven’t seen any figures for that) that are being criticized? What about the argument that in certain places grassland farming (and thus as much livestock as can be fed) is the only option? Arguments that harmful crops produced abroad (e.g., avocado) are not subsidized by our tax money are not very helpful from a holistic perspective. Eating good meat, processing a lot of vegetables yourself in the kitchen, establishing a connection to food, and recognizing the people who produce it for us would be more important to me. I haven’t bought foreign meat for many years, and even with Swiss meat I make sure it is produced sustainably and humanely. That taste is evident.
• ↳ D. M. (2026-06-26): It is not about individual decisions here, but that no tax money is wasted overall. State interventions such as subsidies inherently have a detrimental effect on the economy (welfare loss) and therefore require a special justification, which does not exist with regard to the following disadvantages of the meat industry compared to plant-based agriculture: - Animal suffering - Inefficiency: Independent food security is more efficiently ensured by plant-based agriculture. - Environmental burden (water bodies, soils, etc.) - Disease risk - Health disadvantages such as antibiotic resistance
• F. R. (2026-05-11): This is not an initiative that benefits civil society; on the contrary, it further divides society. Bans and mandated educational measures have no chance against the voting public. I no longer know the current figures, but the Swiss eat only a fraction of the animals raised and slaughtered here; the “unattractive” meat cuts are wasted because many no longer know how to use them in the kitchen. (Even 60 years ago, Prof. Leemann at ETH proposed a model that would allow farmers to acquire farms at their agricultural yield value by putting agricultural land (such as the Swiss forest) under “protection” and thus only trading at yield value. If later, due to settlement pressure, land were annexed, the value difference would have to flow into an agricultural fund and not into the farmer’s pocket.)
• ↳ F. R. (2026-05-12): Thank you for the reaction: Yes, the jump came from my chain of associations: agriculture is the most subsidised and also regulated economic sector worldwide. Every intervention tends to lead to a chain of corrective measures (not only the shift of subsidies already prompted by the initiative), possible exceptions (e.g. “Bündnerfleisch” is known to come from South American filet pieces that lead to jobs in GR), and problems in cross‑border shopping, etc., not to mention the consequences in international trade agreements. This initiative sounds correct and well‑meaning, but in my opinion it creates additional burden for the federal government and the market, it raises the price of meat products in Swiss stores and Swiss restaurants, and in the voting debate it is not perceived as sensible but as coercion and education. For me it is effect mania, which unfortunately again leads to a 30 % yes vote share despite all sensible arguments.
• ↳ R. P. (2026-05-12): Thank you for the explanations, Felix R.. But could one not also view the current situation (financing of meat advertising through tax money) as coercion and education? Why is “no subsidy for meat advertising” perceived as “education,” but not the financing of meat advertising? Isn’t it actually the opposite? I see it more like this: Currently, Swiss farmers are “educated” to produce meat, milk, and sugar because they receive the highest subsidies for that. More freedom for farmers would be beneficial for everyone.
• ↳ C. T. (2026-05-21): Agreed. It is an initiative that can generate a lot of traffic and discussions on this platform… but it divides the country and is hardly capable of gaining a majority. Interesting are topics that span from left to right, from socialist to liberal, from vegan to meat‑eater, from traditionalist to modern global citizen… finding acceptance everywhere. This addresses the problems that we all carry and that are recognized as problems.
• D. H. (2026-03-20): But then the costs & ecological balance of imported vegetables and fruits would also have to be included, as well as the damage to agriculture outside of Switzerland.
• ↳ R. P. (2026-03-20): What does imported vegetables have to do with subsidies for Swiss meat? Imported vegetables are not subsidized with our tax money.
• D. M. (2026-02-19): I consider cutting subsidies the right way to curb lobbying and relieve the federal budget. I do not consider banning subsidies to be effective. Bans have hardly shown any effect or usually miss the mark with unintended side effects (e.g., narcotics law). Cutting subsidies for meat production is a good start to reduce the nearly 50 billion CHF in subsidies in the federal budget. I am already looking forward to when the sacred cows - the subsidies - are slaughtered. Just don't be disappointed if other industries also get caught in the crossfire (subsidies for climate-friendly heating, daycare centers, public transport, or pharmaceuticals and other domestic industries). By the way, if antibiotics are problematic in (farm) animals, shouldn't we also ban/restrict them in humans? Or does it make a difference that humans are (still) not consumed?
• ↳ R. P. (2026-03-20): Yes, excessive antibiotic use is also problematic in humans. However, they are not used prophylactically and in such high quantities in humans, but only targeted and (nowadays) sparingly. In addition, the antibiotic-containing feces of livestock are spread on the fields and thus contaminate our environment. Feces from (sick) humans go to sewage treatment plants and not directly into the environment.
• J. M. (2026-02-15): Less subsidies lead to less production, less supply, but not automatically to less demand. The customer does not automatically change their eating habits. I see the greatest danger in this idea that Switzerland will be flooded with cheap EU/Mercosur meat. There, often more lenient animal welfare laws apply (= higher animal suffering) and the long transport route causes unnecessarily much CO2. The abolition of subsidies could therefore prove to be a shot in the foot.
• ↳ O. H. (2026-02-17): A valid objection, but the concept of the initiative addresses exactly these risks: Equal rules for imports: The initiative provides that the same high animal welfare and ecological standards apply to imported meat as domestically. Cheap meat from the Mercosur area could therefore not simply flood the market with lower standards. Cost truth: Currently, meat is artificially cheapened by tax money. The initiative wants to end these distortions. Since meat consumption is already declining, a price reflecting the 'ecological truth' would support this trend. Less dependency: Today Switzerland imports enormous amounts of feed (e.g. soy from Brazil). A system change would reduce foreign dependency and massively lower the CO2 footprint. The goal is not a 'shooting oneself in the foot', but a market that rewards quality and ecology instead of supporting mass with subsidies.
• ↳ R. P. (2026-03-20): The federal government currently finances meat advertising with around 6 million Swiss francs annually. If this subsidy were stopped, it could indeed have an impact on meat consumption. I don't believe millions would be invested in meat advertising if it had no influence on consumption. And if the subsidy on the production side were removed, plant-based products (which are not subsidized) would become more competitive. As a result, they would be purchased more often, and with increasing sales, larger quantities could be produced, which would lower the price even further.