Factory farming: counter-proposal excludes over 90% of animals

The association «Yes to the Initiative Against Factory Farming» welcomes the fact that the Federal Council is taking note of the Swiss population’s desire for greater consideration of animal welfare.

However, in its message on the direct counter-proposal, the Federal Council omits several key demands of the initiative and denies almost all affected animals the animal welfare standards specifically set out therein. The counter-proposal also makes no provision for restrictions on imports, thereby weakening the competitiveness of domestic farmers. It is unsuitable as an alternative to the popular initiative «No Factory Farming in Switzerland».

The initiators welcome the Federal Council’s willingness to enshrine «the protection and well-being of animals» in the constitution. This is a symbolic recognition of the importance that the Swiss population attaches to the welfare and dignity of animals. However, the claim that existing animal protection legislation already prohibits factory farming is incomprehensible. Contrary to the Federal Council’s statements, current legislation does indeed permit forms of intensive husbandry. It is therefore also essential to reduce group sizes in agricultural animal husbandry — as the initiative demands.

Of particular concern is the fact that the Federal Council wishes to exclude the vast majority of animals from the new regulations from the outset. In its own words: «Furthermore, the RAUS programme for fattening poultry can only be implemented if suitable pastures are available near the barn, as poultry cannot be driven to pasture like cattle. Different breeds would also need to be used for RAUS, as a longer lifespan of the animals is required. The RAUS programme should therefore not be mandatory for fattening poultry.»» This wording excludes more than 75 million animals per year from the stricter animal welfare guidelines.

The Federal Council's counter-proposal disqualifies itself at the latest with its exemption rules. Guidelines that are not binding for more than 90 percent of the animals concerned can hardly be regarded as a serious alternative to the initiative.

Philipp Ryf, Co-Campaign Director of the Initiative

As the Federal Council acknowledges in its message, the initiative would have a positive effect on the environment and would thus contribute to the Confederation's environmental objectives. In contrast, the Federal Council itself concludes that the counter-proposal would have negative effects on the environment. From the perspective of the initiators, this is due not least to the fact that the counter-proposal contains no import regulations whatsoever. If the counter-proposal were implemented, farmers would have to continue competing with foreign products while their own production costs would be unilaterally increased. The Federal Council's approach of relying on free market regulation is therefore not justifiable.