If a popular initiative is accepted, but then only implemented weakly, the initiators usually run a storm. The prime example: the SVP’s mass immigration initiative. But if, contrary to expectations, the drinking water initiative should win a majority on June 13, the opposite could happen.
The initiative wants only those farmers who do not use pesticides to receive direct payments. What kind of pesticide is not precisely defined. Would those that are now permitted in organic farming – such as the widespread copper, also be taboo?
Initiator Herren waves it away
In view of the general wording, the opponents are of course assuming the “worst case” – and accordingly warn that the initiative would also have massive consequences for organic farmers.
Initiator Franziska Herren (54), on the other hand, waves it away. Funds that are used in organic farming are not affected by the initiative, she emphasizes. This is also what it says on the initiative’s homepage: The referendum understands pesticide-free production to mean food production that does not use any chemical-synthetic pesticides. “The substances used in organic farming are not affected by the initiative,” it says.
Four years ago it sounded different
A few years ago, however, it sounded different. During a lecture in January 2018 at the Liebegg Agricultural Center in Gränichen AG, the trained fitness trainer had a set of arguments with her by writing that the initiative also included pesticides of natural origin, “which are sometimes used in organic farming”. Specifically, she named the insecticide pyrethrum, paraffin oil and copper, which is mainly used in viticulture and fruit growing, when asked by the specialist newspaper “Schweizer Bauer” in 2017.
At this point in time, the initiative was in the process of collecting. It was only after the Federal Council had passed its message on the initiative and warned of the consequences of this that men changed their minds and from then on spoke of the fact that organic products would continue to be allowed.
Herren sees no change of opinion
Herren does not want to know about a change of opinion. “We based the initiative on the pesticide definition of the Swiss pesticide reduction plan,” she says. This was published by the Vision Agriculture think tank and is also supported by Biosuisse. Herren quotes from it: “The current strong subsidization of the use of pesticides should be lifted” and says that “also problematic substances that are currently still used in organic farming such as copper or some insecticides are included”.
This commitment to withdrawing from organic farming and the fact that in a few years research will have found a substitute for the “problematic substances for which organic farming has always been criticized” changes the starting point for men. “We have therefore communicated that the substances permitted for organic farming may continue to be used. We will vouch for that. “
Farmer boss Ritter criticizes Hüst and Hott
Farmer’s Association President Markus Ritter, however, criticizes the Hüst und Hott Herrens. It shows that the initiative has not been thought through. “Ms. Herren is now trying to row back because she noticed that the text goes far too far.”
The opponents also accuse gentlemen of having worked improperly with regard to the initiative’s feed passage. According to the text of the initiative, another condition for direct payments would be that farmers can feed their animals with their own feed. Herren claims that this wording only means that feed imports will be banned. A farmer should still be able to buy hay bales from the neighbor.
“Referendum is referendum”
Ritter says that he opposes the proponents’ view that the initiative text can be interpreted flexibly if it is accepted. “Referendum is referendum,” said the Central National Council. “If the electorate says yes to this text, then so be it. But then it also has to live with the consequences. “
Ritter marks the uncompromising because he knows exactly: Even if he listens to his democratic conscience, the initiative would not be implemented as extreme as the opposing camp is now warning. The farmer’s lobby would take care of that.
Peter Mosimann
Franziska Herren is the brain behind the drinking water initiative.
With the drinking water and pesticide initiatives, Switzerland will vote on two proposals on June 13th, which are thematically very similar.
Fitness trainer Franziska Herren (54) is behind the drinking water initiative. She wants, among other things, that only those farmers who do not use pesticides receive direct payments. Farmers are only allowed to keep as many animals as they can feed with feed that is produced on their own farm.
The pesticide initiative, which was submitted by a citizens’ committee from western Switzerland, is even more extreme and wants a complete ban on synthetic pesticides – not just for agriculture. It should also no longer be allowed to import goods that were manufactured using pesticides.
The Federal Council and Parliament reject both initiatives.