«Politicians must avoid pushing prices up even more»
Unfortunately, the current political discussion appears to be moving toward greater state intervention and consumer education. This pushes up prices, writes Babette Sigg Frank in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung.
Wednesday, March 1, 2023
Food prices have risen by four percent over the past year. This is the highest increase in a long time. The extent to which these price increases will be felt in everyday life depends, of course, on the financial situation of individual households: Households with fewer financial resources will feel the price increases much more.
Yet it seems that consumers who base their purchase decisions on criteria other than just price are now feeling the pinch as well. The sudden bankruptcy of the Swiss health food group Müller shows that even consumers of health foods see food prices as an important factor when making purchases. There is an economic aspect to sustainability too. Food must be affordable.
Disenfranchised consumers
Food prices are also the result of political decision-making. Increasing the regulation of producers and consumers, closing off the market and making foreign trade more difficult, and impeding the ability of domestic producers to innovate does little to halt prices from rising.
Unfortunately, it currently looks like the discussion is moving toward greater state intervention and consumer education, which pushes prices up even more. The food “traffic light” labeling system, for example, has already been implemented. Known as the “Nutri-Score,” its goal is to provide information on how healthy or, indeed, unhealthy the food product in question is. Although the participation of suppliers in the system is still voluntary, a federal government report from December 2022 shows that the Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office is taking an increasingly active role in this area.
The report says that far more than just state (i.e., taxpayer-financed) “communication measures” are planned for 2023. At the same time, it's still unclear whether these labels actually encourage healthier consumer behavior. This may be a trivial matter, but it shows that consumers are increasingly being guided in their purchasing decisions at their own expense and gradually disenfranchised.
The latest example is from the WHO which, if it gets its way, could see the tiger disappear from Frosted Flakes packaging, the smile disappear from chocolate Santas, and fast food chains disappear altogether. At least, that's the view of two WHO representatives who recently took part at an event organized by the federal government.
It's probably only a matter of time before such proposals find supporters among lawmakers in Switzerland. At the same time, there is a failure to make use of opportunities that arise – for example, the new breeding technologies that Switzerland has been slow to embrace. These new technologies could make plants more resistant to drought or pests, helping Swiss farmers in the medium term to save their crops from increasingly difficult climate conditions and preventing food waste in the fields.
Disempowered farmers
Many of these approaches are nothing more than an improvement on existing breeding methods. Various countries long ago granted their approval for cultivation. Here in Switzerland, the ball is now in the Federal Council's court after parliament's decision in 2022 to finally exempt these new breeding methods from the Gene Technology Act.
It will still take years, however, for a liberal regulation to come into effect. So, farmers still lack a key component in their struggle to save their crops. This, in turn, affects production costs, and we consumers then feel the effects in our wallets.
Disempowered farmers who are prohibited from innovating, and increasingly disenfranchised consumers who are indirectly asked to pay for their own education, create poor conditions for the sustainable supply of high-quality, affordable food products. Neither educational measures fueled by ideology and state interventionism, nor an obstructionist policy are likely to do much to combat the rise in prices.
Kindly note:
We, a non-native editorial team value clear and faultless communication. At times we have to prioritize speed over perfection, utilizing tools, that are still learning.
We are deepL sorry for any observed stylistic or spelling errors.
Babette Sigg Frank is President of the Swiss Consumer Forum (KF). This guest article was first published in Neue Zürcher Zeitung on February 6, 2023 .
Related articles
PFAS regulation in Switzerland: Not faster, but better
Some people also call PFAS ‘forever chemicals’. Their use must be regulated as wisely as possible. To do this, the federal government first needs to do precise groundwork, according to Stefan Brupbacher, Urs Furrer and Stephan Mumenthaler.
When surveys create fear
Surveys on technologies such as genetic engineering often focus on risks and spread panic instead of promoting a balanced discussion of the pros and cons. A striking example is the environmental indicator of the Federal Statistical Office. Social scientist Angela Bearth is highly critical of the survey. The public debate on new technologies such as genetic engineering or 5G mobile communications is often conducted emotionally. Current surveys encourage this by stirring up fears instead of enabling an objective consideration of risks and benefits. One example of this is the environmental indicator, a survey conducted by the Federal Statistical Office (FSO) on the subject of hazards. Using simplistic questions, it generates distorted perceptions. In an article on the progressive Agrarwende.ch platform of the Eco-Progressive Network association, social scientist Angela Bearth addresses the issue.
False study on crop protection poisoning influences political decisions
In recent years, the alarming news has been making the rounds that 385 million people suffer from crop protection poisoning every year. The claim comes from a study by critics of pesticides. It has been taken up and spread by numerous media and government institutions. The problem: the number is wrong. The study does not even allow for the conclusion, which is why the scientific publisher in question has since withdrawn the study. Nevertheless, it has influenced politics and continues to be cited frequently.
The ideological misuse of «scientific» studies
Science serves as a basis for political decisions, including in nature conservation. However, a key question is: how trustworthy are the underlying studies and data? An article in the «NZZ am Sonntag» and the explanations provided by Quarks offer revealing perspectives on the quality of scientific studies and the possible misuse of figures.