Switzerland is promoting a holistic approach to food systems and is well-equipped to advance this policy transformation. The vision guiding the new agricultural policy AP30+ calls for consideration of all value chain actors. There is a strong evidence base for food systems policy design, with rigorous monitoring, analysis and policy evaluations. Ambitious strategies, policy targets, and regulatory frameworks are supported by robust stakeholder consultation mechanisms.
Yet food systems policymaking is complex, and agricultural and food policies remain influenced by earlier decisions. Agriculture must meet multiple policy goals, and numerous actors ‒ not always in agreement ‒ participate in decision-making. Popular initiatives often reflect conflicting demands, for example calls for increasing self-sufficiency while reducing agri-environmental impacts. This requires carefully negotiated compromises, which can slow reforms or produce tensions or contradictions as new measures are layered onto existing ones.
Agricultural policy remains characterised by high levels of government support and market protection, contributing to high food prices. Policies aim to support farmer income and incentivise environmentally-friendly practices, but also shield farmers from foreign competition, elevating consumer prices. Switzerland has one of the highest relative levels of producer support in the OECD, even after shifting toward less production-coupled measures and more environmentally oriented payments. Despite targeted liberalisation and an extensive free trade agreement network, border protection ‒ reflected in the OECD’s Market Price Support estimate ‒ remains very high in terms of international comparison, contributing to high food prices for consumers.
Agricultural policy performance has been uneven, and some measures conflict with stated broader food systems goals. Evaluations reveal that supply security, animal welfare, and capital renewal goals are largely being met, but income growth remains unequal. Agri-environmental gaps persist in nutrient surpluses, ammonia emissions and biodiversity quality, suggesting that production incentives from agricultural support are reducing the effectiveness of environmental instruments. Several measures contradict stated health and environmental goals, including support for sugar production, public funds for meat marketing, subsidies for tobacco and import barriers on fruits and vegetables. Policies heavily support animal production despite studies recommending fewer livestock and more land devoted to crops for human consumption.
Structural challenges limit the development of a future-ready agricultural sector. A wave of farm transfers is expected as many current farmers approach retirement age. Although interest in agricultural apprenticeships remains high, farming is attracting fewer new entrants. Those without existing family ties to the sector particularly face barriers, as current incentives favour intra-family succession. Scope exists for facilitating transitions and reducing barriers for newcomers, which will be essential for long-term sectoral sustainability. At the same time, women remain underrepresented in farm management despite their contribution to farm work and agricultural research. Recent efforts to improve social protection for farm partners and modernise vocational education are positive steps; Switzerland could go further to incentivise female farm leadership.
More transparency on agro‑food prices and margins could help bridge disagreements and support effective policy design. Market concentration in the agro-food chain is high, and border protection contributes to prices not fully reflecting market forces. Cross‑border shopping is common and complicates consumption statistics. The transparency and fairness of food prices and profit margins are sources of disagreement amongst actors. Enhanced monitoring could help develop a shared understanding of value distribution along the agro-food chain.
Unhealthy diets impose costs on the health system, impacting consumers and the economy. Switzerland’s population is healthier than the OECD average, but much of the population still does not have a sufficiently balanced diet. Dietary risks drive non‑communicable diseases and health system costs. Sound evidence is available to guide policy, but some data is outdated. Swiss consumers are well-informed and environmentally conscious, yet ‒ as in many countries ‒ their purchasing habits do not always match their stated preferences. Pervasive cross‑border shopping underscores that prices remain important factors in purchasing decisions. Switzerland recently updated its nutrition guidelines, and multiple demand‑side measures exist at the cantonal and local levels. Greater focus could be given to ensuring their effectiveness and considering complementary, possibly stricter, demand-side interventions.
The innovation system has solid foundations to support food systems transformation, even if some gaps persist. There is solid scientific capacity, an active private sector, advanced digital infrastructure, and substantial public investment in the agricultural knowledge and innovation system. Innovation efforts focus heavily on technology, while social, organisational and institutional innovation receive less attention. Digital uptake by farmers remains uneven, influenced by limited skills and uncertainties over data rights. Fragmentation hinders the scaling of promising initiatives. A clearer orientation toward societal goals and stronger farmer involvement could help translate existing strengths into practical food system transformation solutions. A comprehensive framework for agricultural data governance could build trust and broaden digital adoption.
Improved co-ordination and more inclusive decision-making can help steer a coherent food system evolution. Switzerland’s consensus-building tradition offers many dialogue opportunities, but some actors still feel insufficiently heard, and consumer interests are less consistently represented than those of the food industry and farmers’ organisations. Greater transparency around lobbying could enable public awareness and encourage a more balanced representation of actors. Strengthening co-ordination across federal departments and creating synergies across government levels ‒ such as scaling up successful regional projects ‒ could reinforce coherence and improve governance.
