The food initiative on September 27—which, among other things, calls on Switzerland to produce at least 70% of its own food and to shift agriculture toward more plant-based foods—has reignited the long-standing debate between omnivores and vegetarians/vegans.
Others have discussed—and will continue to discuss—agricultural policy, subsidies, and food sovereignty far better than I can, since my profession lies elsewhere. Instead, I’d like to talk about aspects related to eating habits and processes of disease prevention and health promotion.

A note: I’m writing this on September 9, so I have no idea how the vote will turn out, and in any case, I have no way of influencing anyone, since *La Rivista* will presumably be published after the polls have already closed.

Every time a news story about plant-based diets appears in the papers, the shift toward polarization is evident, and I can’t help but notice it here in the studio as well. I won’t deny that some have asked me if “we’ll all have to become vegan,” or brought me alarmist articles about the disappearance of steak, and even those who, when telling me about their Sunday plate of pasta with meat sauce, lower their eyes as if they had a sin to confess.My dear friends, let’s take a deep breath. No public vote, no matter how important, will transform our eating habits overnight. But it’s still an excellent opportunity to shed some light on what the official guidelines say and perhaps reflect a bit, beyond any slogans.

Enough with the Factions

I’ve written about this here and elsewhere, and I often repeat it in my practice as well: you can’t improve your health by following ideologies and factions. Similarly, it’s not enough to read what’s written on the front of food packages to understand whether something is “good for you” or “bad for you.” We must necessarily take a step toward a greater degree of complexity. In fact, it is dietary patterns as a whole—and maintained over time—that can make a difference; furthermore, we must also be able to adapt what we know from large-scale data to the individual needs and characteristics of each person.
CREA, Italy’s leading agricultural and food research agency, as well as the World Health Organization and, closer to home, the Federal Office for Food Safety and Veterinary Affairs (USAV/BLV), all agree on one point: the dietary patterns that best prevent noncommunicable diseases—from type 2 diabetes to cardiovascular diseases and certain forms of cancer—are those that are balanced, varied, and based primarily, though not exclusively, on plant-based foods.

We also find these guiding principles behind the new Swiss Food Pyramid, updated in 2024 by the FSVO in collaboration with the Swiss Society for Nutrition, and behind the Swiss Nutrition Strategy 2025–2032, published just last year. The Swiss Society for Nutrition’s new guidelines have significantly reduced (though not eliminated) meat consumption in their recommendations, while placing greater emphasis on legumes, nuts, and seeds as sources of protein.
Moreover, for the first time in such explicit terms, the federal strategy integrates the dimension of sustainability alongside that of health, encouraging greater consumption of plant-based foods as a tool for primary prevention and health promotion, as well as to reduce environmental impact.
Furthermore, the CREA guidelines fundamentally support the Mediterranean diet, which is “plant-based” but omnivorous. In other words, to put it simply, they promote daily consumption of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and extra-virgin olive oil, as well as dairy products (milk/yogurt); several times a week, legumes, seeds, and nuts, as well as eggs, fish, and preferably low-fat cheeses; while meat consumption is recommended 2–3 times a week, with no more than one serving of red meat (and less than one serving of processed meat).

Even the guidelines introduced with the new U.S. Dietary Guidelines need to be put into perspective a bit, compared to what’s been hyped in the newspapers: while it’s true that there’s no limit on red meat (but this takes us more into the realm of political debate than scientific one, so I’ll refrain from saying more), the real focus is on reducing ultra-processed foods, which translates into increased consumption of many of the products already mentioned above.
In short, then, the talk everywhere is of rebalancing proportions: more legumes, whole grains, vegetables, and fruit; less meat (especially processed meat); and fewer ultra-processed foods—without, however, demonizing either a slice of cheese or Sunday’s lasagna with meat sauce. To put it even more bluntly, the message isn’t “stop eating meat,” but “more balance and consistency than radicalism.”
Given all this, I really can’t understand the push I often sense in the media toward a polarization of the discussion, where on one side there are those who portray meat and animal products as a scourge to be eliminated entirely, and on the other, those who dismiss and almost ridicule every recommendation in favor of plant-based foods, as if it were merely a matter of pure ideology. This polarization is confusing and alarming, and I always hope that, sooner or later, communication will take a different approach—one that supports each person’s free and informed choice.

What Does Agricultural Policy Have to Do with Your Plate?

This brings us to the point I find interesting regarding this vote: namely, whether measures related to agricultural policy alone are truly sufficient to improve the population’s health. In my opinion, the answer is “maybe,” and I say this by recalling a concept I learned during my Master’s program in Prevention and Health Promotion, which I completed in Switzerland. I’m referring to the need to combine “Verhalten” (behavior) and “Verhältnis” (conditions, infrastructure) to improve the likelihood of success for a prevention or health promotion project.
By “behavior,” of course, we don’t mean general manners—like whether you say “thank you” or “you’re welcome,” or whether you’re rude to the postal worker. We’re referring to individual choices, such as what we put in our shopping cart, how and how much we cook at home, and how sedentary we are or how much we move. To even hope to change behavior that’s harmful to health, we need to raise awareness, expand knowledge, and plant a healthy “seed of doubt” in people’s minds so that they’ll then, on their own initiative, decide to do things differently than they’ve always done. That’s easier said than done! It takes a lot of work, and this must always be accompanied by the individual’s freedom to choose their own lifestyle.

The second term, on the other hand, refers to structural interventions—that is, it concerns the context in which those choices are made: the availability and price of healthy foods; the selection offered in stores and cafeterias and how it is communicated—including food marketing and packaging; nutrition education in schools; and, indeed, agricultural policies.
A genuine health promotion effort must combine interventions that help change individual behaviors with a consistent adjustment of environmental and social conditions. If the focus is solely on education and awareness, the information provided risks falling on deaf ears—for example, when foods are too expensive or unavailable at the local grocery store. If we change the food supply without also fostering a shift in public consciousness, we risk generating discontent associated with a top-down decision and a reaction opposite to the one we intend to elicit.
Hence my “NEITHER” from earlier.

Initiatives Already Locally Underway

But what is happening today? In the Zurich area, behavioral and structural measures are already in place. The structural measures are primarily implemented through regulations governing public procurement, institutional food service, and land use. For example, binding guidelines have been introduced to regulate the caloric and nutritional content of standard meals served in cantonal cafeterias, including increasing the proportion of plant-based proteins at the expense of animal proteins, imposing a complete ban on hydrogenated fats, and drastically reducing added sugars and ultra-processed foods—especially in schools and daycare centers. Cantonal bidding specifications have also banned products transported by air and vegetables grown in greenhouses heated with fossil fuels; finally, strict animal welfare standards have been imposed.
As for behavioral interventions, the main focus is on the most vulnerable segments of the population—namely, growing children and adolescents and the elderly—though there are also initiatives aimed at the general public. For example, the canton offers various seminars and workshops on healthy eating and balanced cooking, improving gut health, and preventing food waste (open to everyone), while in schools and preschools, part of the curriculum is also dedicated to nutrition education, and there are introductory exercise days for people over 65. To learn about all these initiatives—including those in other cantons—you can consult the Cantonal Action Programs (PAC) available online. I’ve included links to those for Zurich, Fribourg, and Ticino at the bottom of the article.
In short, while there’s still a lot of work to be done, the tools are there, as is the commitment to continue down this path. On the other hand, I don’t see how mandates and coercion can truly be helpful.

Just think about what happens to someone who, for example, wants to improve their gut health or learn to manage their weight better. Whatever approach is chosen, it must be based, on the one hand, on appropriate information and, on the other, on the real possibility of putting those changes into practice. If, in order to follow a diet, I have to cook something different for myself than what the rest of the family is eating, I probably won’t stick with it for long; if I force myself to eat foods I don’t like because I’ve read that they’re good for me, I’ll probably give up even sooner; if I’m prescribed a diet whose ingredients are only available at a small store several kilometers from home, or with meal times that don’t fit with my real life, I’ll find myself off track again.
If this is true for a single person, imagine how much more complex and slow a change in the eating habits of an entire population can be!
Changes in eating behavior that last over time are almost always those that people choose, understand, and make their own—even by adapting recipes suggested by a nutritionist to suit their own preferences.

The Right to Make an Informed Choice

I think I’ve kept you reading long enough; it’s time to wrap up. I’d like to do so by emphasizing once again the importance of looking beyond what the outcome of the vote will be (or has been).
On the one hand, it’s important to remember that updating nutritional guidelines is always a very slow process—one that cannot be forced by a single decision and must, in any case, be backed by solid scientific evidence regarding benefits to the population.
On the other hand, changing a population’s behavior is often even slower, and in this process, the guidelines serve as a compass but will never be properly understood if communicated as a “mandatory path.”
Therefore, the task of those who provide health information and education—as well as those involved in health and agricultural policy—is to collaborate in order to build, as coherently as possible, the educational, cultural, and socio-economic conditions necessary for every person to make healthier choices—starting with what they put on their plate—freely and in good conscience.

Best regards from your nutrition consultant
Tatiana Gaudimonte
info@loveyourbody.ch

Cantonal Action Programs, Zurich
Cantonal Action Programs, Ticino
Cantonal Action Programs, Fribourg