07.10.2023
More macro, less micro
Dear readers,
The final session of the Swiss parliament was held at the end of September. There was an emotional farewell, according to news reports. Members sang Mani Matter’s classic song “Hemmige” (“Hesitation”) at a drinks reception for the President of the National Council, which was held at Galerie des Alpes, the restaurant inside the Swiss Parliament Building. The choice of the song was a bit ironic. After all, parliament had shown little hesitation over the last four years when it comes to drafting excessive regulations.
Admittedly, the legislative session that just concluded was not all quiet. The Aargauer Zeitung newspaper writes of a “historic legislative session” with its headline reading “Covid, War, and CS Crash: Parliament in Overdrive”. The legislative session did see several modifications, or at least the initiation of several modifications. These changes loosened weapons export laws, which had been tightened two years ago—before the war in Ukraine. There was also the introduction of a requirement that all agricultural operations set aside 3.5 percent of their cropland for biodiversity measures, which was postponed until 2025 because it is not clear how existing biodiversity areas and measures are to be calculated. With respect to energy strategy, the Federal Assembly essentially hit the reset button by requesting a Federal Council report on the regulatory and financial conditions necessary for the safe long-term operation of existing nuclear power plants.
This gives the impression that politics is returning to more realistic goals and the critical needs of the people. The discussion centered around the security of the supply of essential goods and affordable prices. This was a bright spot. While visionary projects have their appeal, in the end facts and feasibility are what count. And above all, the specific requirements and benefits of political measures. Energy policy must therefore ensure adequate supply and take account of resource efficiency. Otherwise, it would be incorrect to call it a “strategy.”
It’s as if US psychologist Abraham Maslow (1908–1970) were peering over our shoulders. Basic needs like supply security are once again becoming more important. If there is no supply, then the concept of self-actualization becomes less important. The political cards will be shuffled following the federal elections on October 22. The new legislature will show whether the pendulum has actually swung back. It would be difficult to decommission a functioning Mühleberg nuclear power plant today. And the discussion around rising health insurance premiums shows there is increasing price sensitivity.
It is important to have greater consistency. Companies and farms need to have legal certainty and they must be given the ability to plan ahead. Long-term outlooks create favorable conditions for investments. Machines are replaced and new forms of cultivation implemented. This dynamic enables research and progress. Sustainability continues to be the goal, but in all three aspects: environmental, economic, and social. And we will need regenerative approaches in those areas where we have already overstepped boundaries, for example, to restore soil fertility.
Policymakers are responsible for creating a reliable framework. Above all, they must enable progress. Encourage learning. Micromanagement, on the other hand, restricts progress. This has been demonstrated in recent years in connection with energy, health, and agricultural policy. Micro has failed. We need more macro. Policymakers should have the courage to hit the reset button and make “reduce as much as possible” their guiding principle when writing legislation.
They also need to take a clear-eyed view of warnings. For many non-governmental organizations, warnings are part of their business model. And for many members of the media as well. Alarmism without the requisite consideration of risks and without an assessment of the consequences is irresponsible and would result in stagnation. This is happening in Europe with green genetic engineering – with negative consequences for solutions involving foods rich in micronutrients or integrated pest protection.
It must be acknowledged that there are no simple black-and-white solutions in most policy areas. Anyone truly interested in sustainable solutions must carefully weigh all considerations. Conflicts of interest need to be discussed. And everyone involved in the discussion must assume responsibility. Alarmism that does not include a constructive contribution is destructive. Simple dogmas are not helpful. Calls for sacrifice and “environmental protection” no longer achieve a majority during the implementation stage; instead, positive incentives and an openness to technology must guide the process. The Zukunftsinstitut (Institute for the Future) established by German futurist Matthias Horx talks of a “blue ecology”: “The blue ecology is a constructive ecology that does not deny or reject the human impact on the environment; rather, it moderates this impact in an intelligent way. It combines technology, intelligent systems, and changing the way people think. It does away with the old, ideological, and polarized debate surrounding the environment, and results in a true transformation that people will embrace. This could truly be the greatest transformation of our era.” Here, too, we need less of a micro(phone), and more of a macro view.
Furthermore, agricultural producers need less micromanagement and more long-term regenerative solutions. This is true around the world, but it’s also true for high-tech Switzerland. Also because of the rising population the level of self-sufficiency and amount of arable land is declining. Greater yield increases are needed because of the shrinking amount of land available to agriculture. The solution is to grow more from less, which will also help the climate. As studies by several German research institutions show, the carbon footprint of modern varieties of wheat and rye is 13 to 23 percent smaller than those from 1980. This is because of increased yields per hectare.
A more holistic view is also needed when it comes to climate-friendly agriculture. Cultivating crops in a manner that preserves the soil will occasionally require the use of herbicides. This is why glyphosate is about to be extended for another ten years in the EU. Andreas Hensel, the top German risk researcher, doesn’t mince words on this topic. He heads the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment in Berlin. When asked about the alleged risk of glyphosate, he says, “It’s really quite simple. If a plant protection product had a carcinogenic effect, it would no longer be a plant protection product, and it would be removed from the market immediately. The assessment of all relevant regulatory authorities around the world is very clear. Glyphosate is not carcinogenic. Furthermore, there are now more than 2,400 regulatory studies involving over 50,000 animals. Of course, the herbicide is toxic for target organisms—it was developed for this purpose.” And that’s the only reason why farmers are willing to pay for it. According to Hensel, the greatest risk of poisoning lurks in the kitchen. Deficient hygiene can actually be fatal.
In its last session, the Swiss parliament did see the pendulum swing back into a balance on some issues. We hope that this return to balance will continue into the new legislative period. And that scientific findings will be taken into consideration more often when devising regulations. For example, to mitigate the excessive counterproposal for the two pesticide initiatives, which contain arbitrarily low limits for non-relevant degradation products of plant protection products. These limits have resulted in costly “repairs” to drinking water systems, depleting state funds. A fact-based analysis of the problem
can help us to move forward toward a consistent and comprehensively sustainable policy.
The swiss-food editorial team
