In Switzerland, many people point to the large share of hilly and mountainous areas – referring to Switzerland as a “country of grasslands” – in order to justify the high number of livestock here.
It’s true that about 70 per cent of Switzerland’s land area is mountainous or hilly. There are regions where it’s challenging to have anything other than grass. However, it’s not the cultivation itself that’s difficult. Indeed, up until the 20th century, people in mountain regions also cultivated grains, vegetables, and fruits for household consumption. The difficulty lies in producing crops profitably in hilly and mountainous areas. That’s why so many animals are kept in Switzerland’s Alpine areas.
______________________________________________________________________________
“Everything that’s produced in large monocultures poses problems”
______________________________________________________________________________
At the same time, it’s important to note that animal husbandry isn’t only practised in the mountainous areas of Switzerland, but also in the Central Plateau – on land where one could easily grow arable crops or vegetables. But the farmers are under pressure due to low commodity prices, so they focus on the product with the highest added value: meat. This is a key reason why we have more animals here than can be fed off Swiss soils.
Doesn’t the fact that animals keep alpine pastures free of bushes and forest also speak in favour of animal husbandry in mountain regions?
Yes, because we know what happens when alpine pastures are no longer grazed: The land becomes overgrown and the pastures – some of which harbour a high level of biodiversity – are lost. Many of these areas are home to species that have no other refuge. So, from a biodiversity standpoint, it’s not beneficial for these areas to disappear. That’s why we need a certain number of grazing animals in those areas. However, we also have alpine pastures that are overgrazed and would benefit from fewer animals.
Supermarket shelves are lined with countless substitutes for milk and meat. In terms of dairy alternatives, a study by Agroscope and the University of Bern showed that these are usually more climate and environmentally friendly, but not always. For instance, the bottom line for the most popular dairy alternative, oat milk, is mixed – because its production requires even more water than cow’s milk. Do we need rankings of what is “more sustainable”?
I find the discussion of individual metrics problematic. Here, too, the question arises as to how something is produced. Everything that’s produced in large monocultures poses problems. Overall, however, intensive animal agriculture is indeed more ecologically harmful than an oat plantation. But converting everything to oat monocultures to replace cow’s milk is not the answer. Instead, we should promote diverse production systems.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
“Food systems should not be primarily oriented towards growth and profit”
_______________________________________________________________________________________
What does that mean?
By diverse food system, I mean a system that produces different plant and animal products in a way that sustains the system itself. With reference to agriculture, this means preserving natural resources like biodiversity and clean water while producing food in a way that avoids residual wastes and pollution – and promotes human health. If we consider health in a holistic way – including the health of the environment – we can come very close to sustainable production.
Are the booming plant-based meat alternatives consistent with a sustainable food system?
I’m sceptical. Meat alternatives are usually highly processed and sometimes contain substances that aren’t beneficial to our health. While improvements are being made in this area, they all build on the same business model – namely growth. I’m concerned about this emphasis on identifying where more growth can be generated in the food system. Food systems should not be oriented primarily towards growth and profit, but rather towards providing a sustainable, healthy diet for people.
___________________________________________________________________
“It’s not healthy to eat a lot of highly processed products”
___________________________________________________________________
But the products appear to be popular.
Yes, it also depends on the consumers. People often can’t or don’t want to cook for themselves, and reach for meat substitutes among other products. But we should take the time to prepare more legumes, for example. The latest studies clearly show that it’s not healthy to eat a lot of highly processed products. Not only because of additives, but also because the structure of the food is altered such that it contains almost none of the micronutrients our bodies need.
And what about cellular agriculture, which aims to manufacture in vitro meat among other things?
Production of cultivated meat requires lots of energy. At the moment, this technology is still in the laboratory stage. It remains unclear whether the food industry will be able produce in vitro meat in a more environmentally friendly way in the future. And we know even less about its possible health effects. Plus the question arises: Do we really want laboratory meat? Wouldn’t it make more sense to invest in improving our existing agricultural systems? After all, lab-grown meat is, again, mainly a business opportunity and not about promoting healthy, sustainable nutrition.
_________________________________________________________________________________
“A sustainable food system is based on diversity, resilience, health, and justice”
_________________________________________________________________________________
What characterizes a sustainable food system?
The key elements of such a food system are diversity, resilience, health, and justice. A diverse diet is the basis for healthy nutrition. This is only possible if we have diverse agricultural production. Diversity is also closely related to resilience. Here, resilience means being able to respond to unforeseen events, learn lessons from them, and then improve the system.
For example?
On a small scale, storms or hail can cause significant yield losses. At the global scale, the pandemic was an event that caused international supply chains to malfunction or break down. Then there’s the war in Ukraine, which has led to major food insecurity in some parts of the world. A resilient food system is capable of ensuring food security despite such events, and capable of recovering from them.
Returning to the four key elements: It seems obvious that a sustainable food system includes health. But what do you mean by justice in food systems – are you referring to trade between producing and consuming countries?
It’s very important to structure trade relations so that they don’t negatively impact producing countries. But that’s only one of the dimensions we need to consider when it comes to justice. Then there’s distributive justice, which raises questions such as: How are benefits and costs distributed – who wins, who loses? Another dimension of a just food system concerns the environment and animals: A food system based on exploitation of natural resources can’t be just with respect to nature and animals. And last but not least, justice is about participation.
__________________________________________________________________________________
“Decision-making processes must be transparent, open, and democratic”
__________________________________________________________________________________
Meaning?
Decision-making processes in a food system must be transparent, open, and democratic – especially for the affected population. Closely related to this is the question of who is actually heard in such processes: Is it mainly company lobbyists or the population, too, including marginalized groups such as poor people, minorities, or otherwise disadvantaged groups?
In Switzerland, we can vote on such issues. And yet, there’s hardly been any progress on the quality of soils and water, let alone biodiversity. Based on your definition, does this mean we’re still a long way from having a just and sustainable food system?
Yes, I think so. Of course, we might ask what we’re comparing Switzerland with, but we do have obvious problems in our food system. In terms of participation, we need to engage more in bottom-up, participatory processes to reflect on what kind of food production we want to have, how we define sustainability, and how we can implement it.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
“We don’t have a ‘free market’ in which supply and demand decide what gets produced”
_______________________________________________________________________________________
You’ve been researching for years how to make the transition to a sustainable food system. What’s needed?
First, we have to consider what the goal of a food system should be. Currently, economic goals are the main emphasis; and things are usually presented as if the market determines what gets produced. This often obscures the fact that we spend a lot of taxpayer money on subsidies in the form of direct payments to farmers, market support measures, border protections, and so on. It’s not a “free market” in which supply and demand decide what gets produced, but rather a very state-controlled and regulated production system. Let me be clear, I’m not in favour of ending direct payments. But I think they should be much more closely aligned with goals that promote health and sustainability.
_________________________________________________________________________________
“No single actor can steer things in the right direction; it takes all of us”
_________________________________________________________________________________
And who should do this?
No single actor can steer things in the right direction; it takes all of us. The state has to establish the right framework conditions and set the course that will enable farmers to produce in a truly sustainable way. At the same time, restrictions could be placed on those operating outside the realm of sustainable, healthy food production. Other actors include all the sectors upstream and downstream of agricultural production – trade, and, of course, us as consumers.
To date, it’s mainly been agricultural policy that determines the direction our food system is headed. Should this be expanded to include other policy areas?
I think cross-sectoral development of agricultural policy would make sense. And I’d see even more sense in an actual food policy which, in addition to agriculture, would also address health, the environment, trade, and so on. This kind of policy could be a powerful lever for transforming our food system. Because we can’t seriously expect to solve all the problems in our food system through agricultural policy alone.
