By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation and analyse site usage. View our Privacy Policy for more information.
Anyone who has ever taken a serious look at the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), climate change or human rights knows that we need to change our food systems. So why not at the same time support the access to the right to food and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP)?
As illustrated by the Via Campesina,“the core of the Declaration centres on the right to land, seeds and biodiversity, as well as several ‘collective rights’ anchored in Food Sovereignty. Food Sovereignty is the peoples’ right to determine their food and agricultural systems and the right to produce and consume healthy and culturally appropriate food. Aside from having a unique article devoted to their obligations, the UN Declaration also establishes in each article, a series of obligations and recommendations for member states. These articles in the Declaration explain not only the rights of peasants but also the mechanisms and instruments for states to ensure them.”
I live in and write about Switzerland where the status quo on food systems is precarious. And in the journey on finding viable solutions I learnt that Swiss challenges are similar to others beyond the border, and solutions exist to bring about deep change.
Anyone who has ever taken a serious look at the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), climate change or human rights knows that we need to change our food systems. So why not at the same time support the access to the right to food and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP)?
As illustrated by the Via Campesina,“the core of the Declaration centres on the right to land, seeds and biodiversity, as well as several ‘collective rights’ anchored in Food Sovereignty. Food Sovereignty is the peoples’ right to determine their food and agricultural systems and the right to produce and consume healthy and culturally appropriate food. Aside from having a unique article devoted to their obligations, the UN Declaration also establishes in each article, a series of obligations and recommendations for member states. These articles in the Declaration explain not only the rights of peasants but also the mechanisms and instruments for states to ensure them.”
I live in and write about Switzerland where the status quo on food systems is precarious. And in the journey on finding viable solutions I learnt that Swiss challenges are similar to others beyond the border, and solutions exist to bring about deep change.
Anyone who has ever taken a serious look at the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), climate change or human rights knows that we need to change our food systems. So why not at the same time support the access to the right to food and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP)?
As illustrated by the Via Campesina,“the core of the Declaration centres on the right to land, seeds and biodiversity, as well as several ‘collective rights’ anchored in Food Sovereignty. Food Sovereignty is the peoples’ right to determine their food and agricultural systems and the right to produce and consume healthy and culturally appropriate food. Aside from having a unique article devoted to their obligations, the UN Declaration also establishes in each article, a series of obligations and recommendations for member states. These articles in the Declaration explain not only the rights of peasants but also the mechanisms and instruments for states to ensure them.”
I live in and write about Switzerland where the status quo on food systems is precarious. And in the journey on finding viable solutions I learnt that Swiss challenges are similar to others beyond the border, and solutions exist to bring about deep change.
Anyone who has ever taken a serious look at the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), climate change or human rights knows that we need to change our food systems. So why not at the same time support the access to the right to food and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP)?
As illustrated by the Via Campesina,“the core of the Declaration centres on the right to land, seeds and biodiversity, as well as several ‘collective rights’ anchored in Food Sovereignty. Food Sovereignty is the peoples’ right to determine their food and agricultural systems and the right to produce and consume healthy and culturally appropriate food. Aside from having a unique article devoted to their obligations, the UN Declaration also establishes in each article, a series of obligations and recommendations for member states. These articles in the Declaration explain not only the rights of peasants but also the mechanisms and instruments for states to ensure them.”
I live in and write about Switzerland where the status quo on food systems is precarious. And in the journey on finding viable solutions I learnt that Swiss challenges are similar to others beyond the border, and solutions exist to bring about deep change.
Anyone who has ever taken a serious look at the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), climate change or human rights knows that we need to change our food systems. So why not at the same time support the access to the right to food and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP)?
As illustrated by the Via Campesina,“the core of the Declaration centres on the right to land, seeds and biodiversity, as well as several ‘collective rights’ anchored in Food Sovereignty. Food Sovereignty is the peoples’ right to determine their food and agricultural systems and the right to produce and consume healthy and culturally appropriate food. Aside from having a unique article devoted to their obligations, the UN Declaration also establishes in each article, a series of obligations and recommendations for member states. These articles in the Declaration explain not only the rights of peasants but also the mechanisms and instruments for states to ensure them.”
I live in and write about Switzerland where the status quo on food systems is precarious. And in the journey on finding viable solutions I learnt that Swiss challenges are similar to others beyond the border, and solutions exist to bring about deep change.
Anyone who has ever taken a serious look at the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), climate change or human rights knows that we need to change our food systems. So why not at the same time support the access to the right to food and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP)?
As illustrated by the Via Campesina,“the core of the Declaration centres on the right to land, seeds and biodiversity, as well as several ‘collective rights’ anchored in Food Sovereignty. Food Sovereignty is the peoples’ right to determine their food and agricultural systems and the right to produce and consume healthy and culturally appropriate food. Aside from having a unique article devoted to their obligations, the UN Declaration also establishes in each article, a series of obligations and recommendations for member states. These articles in the Declaration explain not only the rights of peasants but also the mechanisms and instruments for states to ensure them.”
I live in and write about Switzerland where the status quo on food systems is precarious. And in the journey on finding viable solutions I learnt that Swiss challenges are similar to others beyond the border, and solutions exist to bring about deep change.
Anyone who has ever taken a serious look at the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), climate change or human rights knows that we need to change our food systems. So why not at the same time support the access to the right to food and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP)?
As illustrated by the Via Campesina,“the core of the Declaration centres on the right to land, seeds and biodiversity, as well as several ‘collective rights’ anchored in Food Sovereignty. Food Sovereignty is the peoples’ right to determine their food and agricultural systems and the right to produce and consume healthy and culturally appropriate food. Aside from having a unique article devoted to their obligations, the UN Declaration also establishes in each article, a series of obligations and recommendations for member states. These articles in the Declaration explain not only the rights of peasants but also the mechanisms and instruments for states to ensure them.”
I live in and write about Switzerland where the status quo on food systems is precarious. And in the journey on finding viable solutions I learnt that Swiss challenges are similar to others beyond the border, and solutions exist to bring about deep change.
Anyone who has ever taken a serious look at the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), climate change or human rights knows that we need to change our food systems. So why not at the same time support the access to the right to food and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP)?
As illustrated by the Via Campesina,“the core of the Declaration centres on the right to land, seeds and biodiversity, as well as several ‘collective rights’ anchored in Food Sovereignty. Food Sovereignty is the peoples’ right to determine their food and agricultural systems and the right to produce and consume healthy and culturally appropriate food. Aside from having a unique article devoted to their obligations, the UN Declaration also establishes in each article, a series of obligations and recommendations for member states. These articles in the Declaration explain not only the rights of peasants but also the mechanisms and instruments for states to ensure them.”
I live in and write about Switzerland where the status quo on food systems is precarious. And in the journey on finding viable solutions I learnt that Swiss challenges are similar to others beyond the border, and solutions exist to bring about deep change.
Anyone who has ever taken a serious look at the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), climate change or human rights knows that we need to change our food systems. So why not at the same time support the access to the right to food and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP)?
As illustrated by the Via Campesina,“the core of the Declaration centres on the right to land, seeds and biodiversity, as well as several ‘collective rights’ anchored in Food Sovereignty. Food Sovereignty is the peoples’ right to determine their food and agricultural systems and the right to produce and consume healthy and culturally appropriate food. Aside from having a unique article devoted to their obligations, the UN Declaration also establishes in each article, a series of obligations and recommendations for member states. These articles in the Declaration explain not only the rights of peasants but also the mechanisms and instruments for states to ensure them.”
I live in and write about Switzerland where the status quo on food systems is precarious. And in the journey on finding viable solutions I learnt that Swiss challenges are similar to others beyond the border, and solutions exist to bring about deep change.
Anyone who has ever taken a serious look at the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), climate change or human rights knows that we need to change our food systems. So why not at the same time support the access to the right to food and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP)?
As illustrated by the Via Campesina,“the core of the Declaration centres on the right to land, seeds and biodiversity, as well as several ‘collective rights’ anchored in Food Sovereignty. Food Sovereignty is the peoples’ right to determine their food and agricultural systems and the right to produce and consume healthy and culturally appropriate food. Aside from having a unique article devoted to their obligations, the UN Declaration also establishes in each article, a series of obligations and recommendations for member states. These articles in the Declaration explain not only the rights of peasants but also the mechanisms and instruments for states to ensure them.”
I live in and write about Switzerland where the status quo on food systems is precarious. And in the journey on finding viable solutions I learnt that Swiss challenges are similar to others beyond the border, and solutions exist to bring about deep change.
Anyone who has ever taken a serious look at the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), climate change or human rights knows that we need to change our food systems. So why not at the same time support the access to the right to food and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP)?
As illustrated by the Via Campesina,“the core of the Declaration centres on the right to land, seeds and biodiversity, as well as several ‘collective rights’ anchored in Food Sovereignty. Food Sovereignty is the peoples’ right to determine their food and agricultural systems and the right to produce and consume healthy and culturally appropriate food. Aside from having a unique article devoted to their obligations, the UN Declaration also establishes in each article, a series of obligations and recommendations for member states. These articles in the Declaration explain not only the rights of peasants but also the mechanisms and instruments for states to ensure them.”
I live in and write about Switzerland where the status quo on food systems is precarious. And in the journey on finding viable solutions I learnt that Swiss challenges are similar to others beyond the border, and solutions exist to bring about deep change.
Anyone who has ever taken a serious look at the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), climate change or human rights knows that we need to change our food systems. So why not at the same time support the access to the right to food and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP)?
As illustrated by the Via Campesina,“the core of the Declaration centres on the right to land, seeds and biodiversity, as well as several ‘collective rights’ anchored in Food Sovereignty. Food Sovereignty is the peoples’ right to determine their food and agricultural systems and the right to produce and consume healthy and culturally appropriate food. Aside from having a unique article devoted to their obligations, the UN Declaration also establishes in each article, a series of obligations and recommendations for member states. These articles in the Declaration explain not only the rights of peasants but also the mechanisms and instruments for states to ensure them.”
I live in and write about Switzerland where the status quo on food systems is precarious. And in the journey on finding viable solutions I learnt that Swiss challenges are similar to others beyond the border, and solutions exist to bring about deep change.
Anyone who has ever taken a serious look at the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), climate change or human rights knows that we need to change our food systems. So why not at the same time support the access to the right to food and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP)?
As illustrated by the Via Campesina,“the core of the Declaration centres on the right to land, seeds and biodiversity, as well as several ‘collective rights’ anchored in Food Sovereignty. Food Sovereignty is the peoples’ right to determine their food and agricultural systems and the right to produce and consume healthy and culturally appropriate food. Aside from having a unique article devoted to their obligations, the UN Declaration also establishes in each article, a series of obligations and recommendations for member states. These articles in the Declaration explain not only the rights of peasants but also the mechanisms and instruments for states to ensure them.”
I live in and write about Switzerland where the status quo on food systems is precarious. And in the journey on finding viable solutions I learnt that Swiss challenges are similar to others beyond the border, and solutions exist to bring about deep change.
Anyone who has ever taken a serious look at the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), climate change or human rights knows that we need to change our food systems. So why not at the same time support the access to the right to food and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP)?
As illustrated by the Via Campesina,“the core of the Declaration centres on the right to land, seeds and biodiversity, as well as several ‘collective rights’ anchored in Food Sovereignty. Food Sovereignty is the peoples’ right to determine their food and agricultural systems and the right to produce and consume healthy and culturally appropriate food. Aside from having a unique article devoted to their obligations, the UN Declaration also establishes in each article, a series of obligations and recommendations for member states. These articles in the Declaration explain not only the rights of peasants but also the mechanisms and instruments for states to ensure them.”
I live in and write about Switzerland where the status quo on food systems is precarious. And in the journey on finding viable solutions I learnt that Swiss challenges are similar to others beyond the border, and solutions exist to bring about deep change.
Anyone who has ever taken a serious look at the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), climate change or human rights knows that we need to change our food systems. So why not at the same time support the access to the right to food and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP)?
As illustrated by the Via Campesina,“the core of the Declaration centres on the right to land, seeds and biodiversity, as well as several ‘collective rights’ anchored in Food Sovereignty. Food Sovereignty is the peoples’ right to determine their food and agricultural systems and the right to produce and consume healthy and culturally appropriate food. Aside from having a unique article devoted to their obligations, the UN Declaration also establishes in each article, a series of obligations and recommendations for member states. These articles in the Declaration explain not only the rights of peasants but also the mechanisms and instruments for states to ensure them.”
I live in and write about Switzerland where the status quo on food systems is precarious. And in the journey on finding viable solutions I learnt that Swiss challenges are similar to others beyond the border, and solutions exist to bring about deep change.
The status-quo in Switzerland depicts the picture of a weakening and fragile system where the right to healthy, justly produced, accessible and affordable food is undermined:
- 70% of the population lives in urban areas. Most have lost their link with land and food production.
- Since 1990, prices for farmers have fallen by 27%, while their production costs have risen by 11%. Over the same period, consumer prices have risen by 17%.
- The added value of food goes to industrial processing and trade. Margins are particularly high for high-quality products (e.g. "organic").
- 80% of the Swiss retail market is controlled by 2 large supermarkets.
- 8.7% of the population in Switzerland lives below the poverty line and a further 7.4% areat risk of poverty. However, half of food aid is not consumed (at least in Geneva).
- Highly processed foods rarely consist of complete foods. Ready-made and instant products, snacks, soft drinks and the like minimize the amount of preparation required. And, a number of "lifestyle diseases" (tooth decay, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes,high blood pressure, some allergies, gout, etc...) are also attributed to them.
Everyone is suffering from the current situation: producers are not getting fair prices, consumers in vulnerable situations have limited access to healthy food, and the non-industrial value-chains are barely cost-effective. And the issue is so polarizing that politicians prefer not to get too involved.
In fact, the food system in Switzerland presents major challenges that are similar to the ones faced by other countries across the border, namely:
1. We have a de facto duopoly with 80% of the food being sold by two distributors. They have driven most of their competitors out of business, and there are hardly any alternative retailers. Whichever distribution system is chosen, it will probably have to be built from scratch.
2. Participatory food systems always convince "the same 10%, i.e. people over 40 and 50 with an above-average level of education and income, who are already aware of the subject and make use of what's on offer". It will be crucial to reach and educate people who have not yet thought about our food system.
3. If we want to realize the right to adequate food, produced under good conditions, it will inevitably cost more money than the current food system. Is the community willing to bear the cost? If so, they should first define their food system (which nutrition, which agriculture, which processing and which distribution/distributors they want). Only then can quantify its costs and determine how the financing will be done (membership fees, deviation of part of the health-, agriculture- or social budget, social security payroll deductions, …) and in what form the disbursements will be made. At the moment, different initiatives in France are experimenting with different means such as vouchers, local currencies, and insurance cards.
Food democracy is about the common good,not profit. Social insurance for sustainable nutrition clearly promotes short, regional,and non-industrial economic cycles. Nevertheless, there is still a good deal left for the established large-scale structures, if only because the amounts paid out do not cover the entire expense. Also, the experience in France shows that - as is their habit - large distributors copy any interesting initiative as soon as it gains momentum. In the case of SSA, Carrefour already imitates parts of the attractive model and markets "its" insurance for nutrition lucratively (RTL Édito – Carrefour lance une assurance courses alimentaires:«Marre de cette société de l’abonnement», dénonce Martial You).
The status-quo in Switzerland depicts the picture of a weakening and fragile system where the right to healthy, justly produced, accessible and affordable food is undermined:
- 70% of the population lives in urban areas. Most have lost their link with land and food production.
- Since 1990, prices for farmers have fallen by 27%, while their production costs have risen by 11%. Over the same period, consumer prices have risen by 17%.
- The added value of food goes to industrial processing and trade. Margins are particularly high for high-quality products (e.g. "organic").
- 80% of the Swiss retail market is controlled by 2 large supermarkets.
- 8.7% of the population in Switzerland lives below the poverty line and a further 7.4% areat risk of poverty. However, half of food aid is not consumed (at least in Geneva).
- Highly processed foods rarely consist of complete foods. Ready-made and instant products, snacks, soft drinks and the like minimize the amount of preparation required. And, a number of "lifestyle diseases" (tooth decay, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes,high blood pressure, some allergies, gout, etc...) are also attributed to them.
Everyone is suffering from the current situation: producers are not getting fair prices, consumers in vulnerable situations have limited access to healthy food, and the non-industrial value-chains are barely cost-effective. And the issue is so polarizing that politicians prefer not to get too involved.
In fact, the food system in Switzerland presents major challenges that are similar to the ones faced by other countries across the border, namely:
1. We have a de facto duopoly with 80% of the food being sold by two distributors. They have driven most of their competitors out of business, and there are hardly any alternative retailers. Whichever distribution system is chosen, it will probably have to be built from scratch.
2. Participatory food systems always convince "the same 10%, i.e. people over 40 and 50 with an above-average level of education and income, who are already aware of the subject and make use of what's on offer". It will be crucial to reach and educate people who have not yet thought about our food system.
3. If we want to realize the right to adequate food, produced under good conditions, it will inevitably cost more money than the current food system. Is the community willing to bear the cost? If so, they should first define their food system (which nutrition, which agriculture, which processing and which distribution/distributors they want). Only then can quantify its costs and determine how the financing will be done (membership fees, deviation of part of the health-, agriculture- or social budget, social security payroll deductions, …) and in what form the disbursements will be made. At the moment, different initiatives in France are experimenting with different means such as vouchers, local currencies, and insurance cards.
Food democracy is about the common good,not profit. Social insurance for sustainable nutrition clearly promotes short, regional,and non-industrial economic cycles. Nevertheless, there is still a good deal left for the established large-scale structures, if only because the amounts paid out do not cover the entire expense. Also, the experience in France shows that - as is their habit - large distributors copy any interesting initiative as soon as it gains momentum. In the case of SSA, Carrefour already imitates parts of the attractive model and markets "its" insurance for nutrition lucratively (RTL Édito – Carrefour lance une assurance courses alimentaires:«Marre de cette société de l’abonnement», dénonce Martial You).
The status-quo in Switzerland depicts the picture of a weakening and fragile system where the right to healthy, justly produced, accessible and affordable food is undermined:
- 70% of the population lives in urban areas. Most have lost their link with land and food production.
- Since 1990, prices for farmers have fallen by 27%, while their production costs have risen by 11%. Over the same period, consumer prices have risen by 17%.
- The added value of food goes to industrial processing and trade. Margins are particularly high for high-quality products (e.g. "organic").
- 80% of the Swiss retail market is controlled by 2 large supermarkets.
- 8.7% of the population in Switzerland lives below the poverty line and a further 7.4% areat risk of poverty. However, half of food aid is not consumed (at least in Geneva).
- Highly processed foods rarely consist of complete foods. Ready-made and instant products, snacks, soft drinks and the like minimize the amount of preparation required. And, a number of "lifestyle diseases" (tooth decay, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes,high blood pressure, some allergies, gout, etc...) are also attributed to them.
Everyone is suffering from the current situation: producers are not getting fair prices, consumers in vulnerable situations have limited access to healthy food, and the non-industrial value-chains are barely cost-effective. And the issue is so polarizing that politicians prefer not to get too involved.
In fact, the food system in Switzerland presents major challenges that are similar to the ones faced by other countries across the border, namely:
1. We have a de facto duopoly with 80% of the food being sold by two distributors. They have driven most of their competitors out of business, and there are hardly any alternative retailers. Whichever distribution system is chosen, it will probably have to be built from scratch.
2. Participatory food systems always convince "the same 10%, i.e. people over 40 and 50 with an above-average level of education and income, who are already aware of the subject and make use of what's on offer". It will be crucial to reach and educate people who have not yet thought about our food system.
3. If we want to realize the right to adequate food, produced under good conditions, it will inevitably cost more money than the current food system. Is the community willing to bear the cost? If so, they should first define their food system (which nutrition, which agriculture, which processing and which distribution/distributors they want). Only then can quantify its costs and determine how the financing will be done (membership fees, deviation of part of the health-, agriculture- or social budget, social security payroll deductions, …) and in what form the disbursements will be made. At the moment, different initiatives in France are experimenting with different means such as vouchers, local currencies, and insurance cards.
Food democracy is about the common good,not profit. Social insurance for sustainable nutrition clearly promotes short, regional,and non-industrial economic cycles. Nevertheless, there is still a good deal left for the established large-scale structures, if only because the amounts paid out do not cover the entire expense. Also, the experience in France shows that - as is their habit - large distributors copy any interesting initiative as soon as it gains momentum. In the case of SSA, Carrefour already imitates parts of the attractive model and markets "its" insurance for nutrition lucratively (RTL Édito – Carrefour lance une assurance courses alimentaires:«Marre de cette société de l’abonnement», dénonce Martial You).
The status-quo in Switzerland depicts the picture of a weakening and fragile system where the right to healthy, justly produced, accessible and affordable food is undermined:
- 70% of the population lives in urban areas. Most have lost their link with land and food production.
- Since 1990, prices for farmers have fallen by 27%, while their production costs have risen by 11%. Over the same period, consumer prices have risen by 17%.
- The added value of food goes to industrial processing and trade. Margins are particularly high for high-quality products (e.g. "organic").
- 80% of the Swiss retail market is controlled by 2 large supermarkets.
- 8.7% of the population in Switzerland lives below the poverty line and a further 7.4% areat risk of poverty. However, half of food aid is not consumed (at least in Geneva).
- Highly processed foods rarely consist of complete foods. Ready-made and instant products, snacks, soft drinks and the like minimize the amount of preparation required. And, a number of "lifestyle diseases" (tooth decay, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes,high blood pressure, some allergies, gout, etc...) are also attributed to them.
Everyone is suffering from the current situation: producers are not getting fair prices, consumers in vulnerable situations have limited access to healthy food, and the non-industrial value-chains are barely cost-effective. And the issue is so polarizing that politicians prefer not to get too involved.
In fact, the food system in Switzerland presents major challenges that are similar to the ones faced by other countries across the border, namely:
1. We have a de facto duopoly with 80% of the food being sold by two distributors. They have driven most of their competitors out of business, and there are hardly any alternative retailers. Whichever distribution system is chosen, it will probably have to be built from scratch.
2. Participatory food systems always convince "the same 10%, i.e. people over 40 and 50 with an above-average level of education and income, who are already aware of the subject and make use of what's on offer". It will be crucial to reach and educate people who have not yet thought about our food system.
3. If we want to realize the right to adequate food, produced under good conditions, it will inevitably cost more money than the current food system. Is the community willing to bear the cost? If so, they should first define their food system (which nutrition, which agriculture, which processing and which distribution/distributors they want). Only then can quantify its costs and determine how the financing will be done (membership fees, deviation of part of the health-, agriculture- or social budget, social security payroll deductions, …) and in what form the disbursements will be made. At the moment, different initiatives in France are experimenting with different means such as vouchers, local currencies, and insurance cards.
Food democracy is about the common good,not profit. Social insurance for sustainable nutrition clearly promotes short, regional,and non-industrial economic cycles. Nevertheless, there is still a good deal left for the established large-scale structures, if only because the amounts paid out do not cover the entire expense. Also, the experience in France shows that - as is their habit - large distributors copy any interesting initiative as soon as it gains momentum. In the case of SSA, Carrefour already imitates parts of the attractive model and markets "its" insurance for nutrition lucratively (RTL Édito – Carrefour lance une assurance courses alimentaires:«Marre de cette société de l’abonnement», dénonce Martial You).
The status-quo in Switzerland depicts the picture of a weakening and fragile system where the right to healthy, justly produced, accessible and affordable food is undermined:
- 70% of the population lives in urban areas. Most have lost their link with land and food production.
- Since 1990, prices for farmers have fallen by 27%, while their production costs have risen by 11%. Over the same period, consumer prices have risen by 17%.
- The added value of food goes to industrial processing and trade. Margins are particularly high for high-quality products (e.g. "organic").
- 80% of the Swiss retail market is controlled by 2 large supermarkets.
- 8.7% of the population in Switzerland lives below the poverty line and a further 7.4% areat risk of poverty. However, half of food aid is not consumed (at least in Geneva).
- Highly processed foods rarely consist of complete foods. Ready-made and instant products, snacks, soft drinks and the like minimize the amount of preparation required. And, a number of "lifestyle diseases" (tooth decay, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes,high blood pressure, some allergies, gout, etc...) are also attributed to them.
Everyone is suffering from the current situation: producers are not getting fair prices, consumers in vulnerable situations have limited access to healthy food, and the non-industrial value-chains are barely cost-effective. And the issue is so polarizing that politicians prefer not to get too involved.
In fact, the food system in Switzerland presents major challenges that are similar to the ones faced by other countries across the border, namely:
1. We have a de facto duopoly with 80% of the food being sold by two distributors. They have driven most of their competitors out of business, and there are hardly any alternative retailers. Whichever distribution system is chosen, it will probably have to be built from scratch.
2. Participatory food systems always convince "the same 10%, i.e. people over 40 and 50 with an above-average level of education and income, who are already aware of the subject and make use of what's on offer". It will be crucial to reach and educate people who have not yet thought about our food system.
3. If we want to realize the right to adequate food, produced under good conditions, it will inevitably cost more money than the current food system. Is the community willing to bear the cost? If so, they should first define their food system (which nutrition, which agriculture, which processing and which distribution/distributors they want). Only then can quantify its costs and determine how the financing will be done (membership fees, deviation of part of the health-, agriculture- or social budget, social security payroll deductions, …) and in what form the disbursements will be made. At the moment, different initiatives in France are experimenting with different means such as vouchers, local currencies, and insurance cards.
Food democracy is about the common good,not profit. Social insurance for sustainable nutrition clearly promotes short, regional,and non-industrial economic cycles. Nevertheless, there is still a good deal left for the established large-scale structures, if only because the amounts paid out do not cover the entire expense. Also, the experience in France shows that - as is their habit - large distributors copy any interesting initiative as soon as it gains momentum. In the case of SSA, Carrefour already imitates parts of the attractive model and markets "its" insurance for nutrition lucratively (RTL Édito – Carrefour lance une assurance courses alimentaires:«Marre de cette société de l’abonnement», dénonce Martial You).
The status-quo in Switzerland depicts the picture of a weakening and fragile system where the right to healthy, justly produced, accessible and affordable food is undermined:
- 70% of the population lives in urban areas. Most have lost their link with land and food production.
- Since 1990, prices for farmers have fallen by 27%, while their production costs have risen by 11%. Over the same period, consumer prices have risen by 17%.
- The added value of food goes to industrial processing and trade. Margins are particularly high for high-quality products (e.g. "organic").
- 80% of the Swiss retail market is controlled by 2 large supermarkets.
- 8.7% of the population in Switzerland lives below the poverty line and a further 7.4% areat risk of poverty. However, half of food aid is not consumed (at least in Geneva).
- Highly processed foods rarely consist of complete foods. Ready-made and instant products, snacks, soft drinks and the like minimize the amount of preparation required. And, a number of "lifestyle diseases" (tooth decay, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes,high blood pressure, some allergies, gout, etc...) are also attributed to them.
Everyone is suffering from the current situation: producers are not getting fair prices, consumers in vulnerable situations have limited access to healthy food, and the non-industrial value-chains are barely cost-effective. And the issue is so polarizing that politicians prefer not to get too involved.
In fact, the food system in Switzerland presents major challenges that are similar to the ones faced by other countries across the border, namely:
1. We have a de facto duopoly with 80% of the food being sold by two distributors. They have driven most of their competitors out of business, and there are hardly any alternative retailers. Whichever distribution system is chosen, it will probably have to be built from scratch.
2. Participatory food systems always convince "the same 10%, i.e. people over 40 and 50 with an above-average level of education and income, who are already aware of the subject and make use of what's on offer". It will be crucial to reach and educate people who have not yet thought about our food system.
3. If we want to realize the right to adequate food, produced under good conditions, it will inevitably cost more money than the current food system. Is the community willing to bear the cost? If so, they should first define their food system (which nutrition, which agriculture, which processing and which distribution/distributors they want). Only then can quantify its costs and determine how the financing will be done (membership fees, deviation of part of the health-, agriculture- or social budget, social security payroll deductions, …) and in what form the disbursements will be made. At the moment, different initiatives in France are experimenting with different means such as vouchers, local currencies, and insurance cards.
Food democracy is about the common good,not profit. Social insurance for sustainable nutrition clearly promotes short, regional,and non-industrial economic cycles. Nevertheless, there is still a good deal left for the established large-scale structures, if only because the amounts paid out do not cover the entire expense. Also, the experience in France shows that - as is their habit - large distributors copy any interesting initiative as soon as it gains momentum. In the case of SSA, Carrefour already imitates parts of the attractive model and markets "its" insurance for nutrition lucratively (RTL Édito – Carrefour lance une assurance courses alimentaires:«Marre de cette société de l’abonnement», dénonce Martial You).
The status-quo in Switzerland depicts the picture of a weakening and fragile system where the right to healthy, justly produced, accessible and affordable food is undermined:
- 70% of the population lives in urban areas. Most have lost their link with land and food production.
- Since 1990, prices for farmers have fallen by 27%, while their production costs have risen by 11%. Over the same period, consumer prices have risen by 17%.
- The added value of food goes to industrial processing and trade. Margins are particularly high for high-quality products (e.g. "organic").
- 80% of the Swiss retail market is controlled by 2 large supermarkets.
- 8.7% of the population in Switzerland lives below the poverty line and a further 7.4% areat risk of poverty. However, half of food aid is not consumed (at least in Geneva).
- Highly processed foods rarely consist of complete foods. Ready-made and instant products, snacks, soft drinks and the like minimize the amount of preparation required. And, a number of "lifestyle diseases" (tooth decay, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes,high blood pressure, some allergies, gout, etc...) are also attributed to them.
Everyone is suffering from the current situation: producers are not getting fair prices, consumers in vulnerable situations have limited access to healthy food, and the non-industrial value-chains are barely cost-effective. And the issue is so polarizing that politicians prefer not to get too involved.
In fact, the food system in Switzerland presents major challenges that are similar to the ones faced by other countries across the border, namely:
1. We have a de facto duopoly with 80% of the food being sold by two distributors. They have driven most of their competitors out of business, and there are hardly any alternative retailers. Whichever distribution system is chosen, it will probably have to be built from scratch.
2. Participatory food systems always convince "the same 10%, i.e. people over 40 and 50 with an above-average level of education and income, who are already aware of the subject and make use of what's on offer". It will be crucial to reach and educate people who have not yet thought about our food system.
3. If we want to realize the right to adequate food, produced under good conditions, it will inevitably cost more money than the current food system. Is the community willing to bear the cost? If so, they should first define their food system (which nutrition, which agriculture, which processing and which distribution/distributors they want). Only then can quantify its costs and determine how the financing will be done (membership fees, deviation of part of the health-, agriculture- or social budget, social security payroll deductions, …) and in what form the disbursements will be made. At the moment, different initiatives in France are experimenting with different means such as vouchers, local currencies, and insurance cards.
Food democracy is about the common good,not profit. Social insurance for sustainable nutrition clearly promotes short, regional,and non-industrial economic cycles. Nevertheless, there is still a good deal left for the established large-scale structures, if only because the amounts paid out do not cover the entire expense. Also, the experience in France shows that - as is their habit - large distributors copy any interesting initiative as soon as it gains momentum. In the case of SSA, Carrefour already imitates parts of the attractive model and markets "its" insurance for nutrition lucratively (RTL Édito – Carrefour lance une assurance courses alimentaires:«Marre de cette société de l’abonnement», dénonce Martial You).
The status-quo in Switzerland depicts the picture of a weakening and fragile system where the right to healthy, justly produced, accessible and affordable food is undermined:
- 70% of the population lives in urban areas. Most have lost their link with land and food production.
- Since 1990, prices for farmers have fallen by 27%, while their production costs have risen by 11%. Over the same period, consumer prices have risen by 17%.
- The added value of food goes to industrial processing and trade. Margins are particularly high for high-quality products (e.g. "organic").
- 80% of the Swiss retail market is controlled by 2 large supermarkets.
- 8.7% of the population in Switzerland lives below the poverty line and a further 7.4% areat risk of poverty. However, half of food aid is not consumed (at least in Geneva).
- Highly processed foods rarely consist of complete foods. Ready-made and instant products, snacks, soft drinks and the like minimize the amount of preparation required. And, a number of "lifestyle diseases" (tooth decay, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes,high blood pressure, some allergies, gout, etc...) are also attributed to them.
Everyone is suffering from the current situation: producers are not getting fair prices, consumers in vulnerable situations have limited access to healthy food, and the non-industrial value-chains are barely cost-effective. And the issue is so polarizing that politicians prefer not to get too involved.
In fact, the food system in Switzerland presents major challenges that are similar to the ones faced by other countries across the border, namely:
1. We have a de facto duopoly with 80% of the food being sold by two distributors. They have driven most of their competitors out of business, and there are hardly any alternative retailers. Whichever distribution system is chosen, it will probably have to be built from scratch.
2. Participatory food systems always convince "the same 10%, i.e. people over 40 and 50 with an above-average level of education and income, who are already aware of the subject and make use of what's on offer". It will be crucial to reach and educate people who have not yet thought about our food system.
3. If we want to realize the right to adequate food, produced under good conditions, it will inevitably cost more money than the current food system. Is the community willing to bear the cost? If so, they should first define their food system (which nutrition, which agriculture, which processing and which distribution/distributors they want). Only then can quantify its costs and determine how the financing will be done (membership fees, deviation of part of the health-, agriculture- or social budget, social security payroll deductions, …) and in what form the disbursements will be made. At the moment, different initiatives in France are experimenting with different means such as vouchers, local currencies, and insurance cards.
Food democracy is about the common good,not profit. Social insurance for sustainable nutrition clearly promotes short, regional,and non-industrial economic cycles. Nevertheless, there is still a good deal left for the established large-scale structures, if only because the amounts paid out do not cover the entire expense. Also, the experience in France shows that - as is their habit - large distributors copy any interesting initiative as soon as it gains momentum. In the case of SSA, Carrefour already imitates parts of the attractive model and markets "its" insurance for nutrition lucratively (RTL Édito – Carrefour lance une assurance courses alimentaires:«Marre de cette société de l’abonnement», dénonce Martial You).
The status-quo in Switzerland depicts the picture of a weakening and fragile system where the right to healthy, justly produced, accessible and affordable food is undermined:
- 70% of the population lives in urban areas. Most have lost their link with land and food production.
- Since 1990, prices for farmers have fallen by 27%, while their production costs have risen by 11%. Over the same period, consumer prices have risen by 17%.
- The added value of food goes to industrial processing and trade. Margins are particularly high for high-quality products (e.g. "organic").
- 80% of the Swiss retail market is controlled by 2 large supermarkets.
- 8.7% of the population in Switzerland lives below the poverty line and a further 7.4% areat risk of poverty. However, half of food aid is not consumed (at least in Geneva).
- Highly processed foods rarely consist of complete foods. Ready-made and instant products, snacks, soft drinks and the like minimize the amount of preparation required. And, a number of "lifestyle diseases" (tooth decay, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes,high blood pressure, some allergies, gout, etc...) are also attributed to them.
Everyone is suffering from the current situation: producers are not getting fair prices, consumers in vulnerable situations have limited access to healthy food, and the non-industrial value-chains are barely cost-effective. And the issue is so polarizing that politicians prefer not to get too involved.
In fact, the food system in Switzerland presents major challenges that are similar to the ones faced by other countries across the border, namely:
1. We have a de facto duopoly with 80% of the food being sold by two distributors. They have driven most of their competitors out of business, and there are hardly any alternative retailers. Whichever distribution system is chosen, it will probably have to be built from scratch.
2. Participatory food systems always convince "the same 10%, i.e. people over 40 and 50 with an above-average level of education and income, who are already aware of the subject and make use of what's on offer". It will be crucial to reach and educate people who have not yet thought about our food system.
3. If we want to realize the right to adequate food, produced under good conditions, it will inevitably cost more money than the current food system. Is the community willing to bear the cost? If so, they should first define their food system (which nutrition, which agriculture, which processing and which distribution/distributors they want). Only then can quantify its costs and determine how the financing will be done (membership fees, deviation of part of the health-, agriculture- or social budget, social security payroll deductions, …) and in what form the disbursements will be made. At the moment, different initiatives in France are experimenting with different means such as vouchers, local currencies, and insurance cards.
Food democracy is about the common good,not profit. Social insurance for sustainable nutrition clearly promotes short, regional,and non-industrial economic cycles. Nevertheless, there is still a good deal left for the established large-scale structures, if only because the amounts paid out do not cover the entire expense. Also, the experience in France shows that - as is their habit - large distributors copy any interesting initiative as soon as it gains momentum. In the case of SSA, Carrefour already imitates parts of the attractive model and markets "its" insurance for nutrition lucratively (RTL Édito – Carrefour lance une assurance courses alimentaires:«Marre de cette société de l’abonnement», dénonce Martial You).
The status-quo in Switzerland depicts the picture of a weakening and fragile system where the right to healthy, justly produced, accessible and affordable food is undermined:
- 70% of the population lives in urban areas. Most have lost their link with land and food production.
- Since 1990, prices for farmers have fallen by 27%, while their production costs have risen by 11%. Over the same period, consumer prices have risen by 17%.
- The added value of food goes to industrial processing and trade. Margins are particularly high for high-quality products (e.g. "organic").
- 80% of the Swiss retail market is controlled by 2 large supermarkets.
- 8.7% of the population in Switzerland lives below the poverty line and a further 7.4% areat risk of poverty. However, half of food aid is not consumed (at least in Geneva).
- Highly processed foods rarely consist of complete foods. Ready-made and instant products, snacks, soft drinks and the like minimize the amount of preparation required. And, a number of "lifestyle diseases" (tooth decay, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes,high blood pressure, some allergies, gout, etc...) are also attributed to them.
Everyone is suffering from the current situation: producers are not getting fair prices, consumers in vulnerable situations have limited access to healthy food, and the non-industrial value-chains are barely cost-effective. And the issue is so polarizing that politicians prefer not to get too involved.
In fact, the food system in Switzerland presents major challenges that are similar to the ones faced by other countries across the border, namely:
1. We have a de facto duopoly with 80% of the food being sold by two distributors. They have driven most of their competitors out of business, and there are hardly any alternative retailers. Whichever distribution system is chosen, it will probably have to be built from scratch.
2. Participatory food systems always convince "the same 10%, i.e. people over 40 and 50 with an above-average level of education and income, who are already aware of the subject and make use of what's on offer". It will be crucial to reach and educate people who have not yet thought about our food system.
3. If we want to realize the right to adequate food, produced under good conditions, it will inevitably cost more money than the current food system. Is the community willing to bear the cost? If so, they should first define their food system (which nutrition, which agriculture, which processing and which distribution/distributors they want). Only then can quantify its costs and determine how the financing will be done (membership fees, deviation of part of the health-, agriculture- or social budget, social security payroll deductions, …) and in what form the disbursements will be made. At the moment, different initiatives in France are experimenting with different means such as vouchers, local currencies, and insurance cards.
Food democracy is about the common good,not profit. Social insurance for sustainable nutrition clearly promotes short, regional,and non-industrial economic cycles. Nevertheless, there is still a good deal left for the established large-scale structures, if only because the amounts paid out do not cover the entire expense. Also, the experience in France shows that - as is their habit - large distributors copy any interesting initiative as soon as it gains momentum. In the case of SSA, Carrefour already imitates parts of the attractive model and markets "its" insurance for nutrition lucratively (RTL Édito – Carrefour lance une assurance courses alimentaires:«Marre de cette société de l’abonnement», dénonce Martial You).
The status-quo in Switzerland depicts the picture of a weakening and fragile system where the right to healthy, justly produced, accessible and affordable food is undermined:
- 70% of the population lives in urban areas. Most have lost their link with land and food production.
- Since 1990, prices for farmers have fallen by 27%, while their production costs have risen by 11%. Over the same period, consumer prices have risen by 17%.
- The added value of food goes to industrial processing and trade. Margins are particularly high for high-quality products (e.g. "organic").
- 80% of the Swiss retail market is controlled by 2 large supermarkets.
- 8.7% of the population in Switzerland lives below the poverty line and a further 7.4% areat risk of poverty. However, half of food aid is not consumed (at least in Geneva).
- Highly processed foods rarely consist of complete foods. Ready-made and instant products, snacks, soft drinks and the like minimize the amount of preparation required. And, a number of "lifestyle diseases" (tooth decay, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes,high blood pressure, some allergies, gout, etc...) are also attributed to them.
Everyone is suffering from the current situation: producers are not getting fair prices, consumers in vulnerable situations have limited access to healthy food, and the non-industrial value-chains are barely cost-effective. And the issue is so polarizing that politicians prefer not to get too involved.
In fact, the food system in Switzerland presents major challenges that are similar to the ones faced by other countries across the border, namely:
1. We have a de facto duopoly with 80% of the food being sold by two distributors. They have driven most of their competitors out of business, and there are hardly any alternative retailers. Whichever distribution system is chosen, it will probably have to be built from scratch.
2. Participatory food systems always convince "the same 10%, i.e. people over 40 and 50 with an above-average level of education and income, who are already aware of the subject and make use of what's on offer". It will be crucial to reach and educate people who have not yet thought about our food system.
3. If we want to realize the right to adequate food, produced under good conditions, it will inevitably cost more money than the current food system. Is the community willing to bear the cost? If so, they should first define their food system (which nutrition, which agriculture, which processing and which distribution/distributors they want). Only then can quantify its costs and determine how the financing will be done (membership fees, deviation of part of the health-, agriculture- or social budget, social security payroll deductions, …) and in what form the disbursements will be made. At the moment, different initiatives in France are experimenting with different means such as vouchers, local currencies, and insurance cards.
Food democracy is about the common good,not profit. Social insurance for sustainable nutrition clearly promotes short, regional,and non-industrial economic cycles. Nevertheless, there is still a good deal left for the established large-scale structures, if only because the amounts paid out do not cover the entire expense. Also, the experience in France shows that - as is their habit - large distributors copy any interesting initiative as soon as it gains momentum. In the case of SSA, Carrefour already imitates parts of the attractive model and markets "its" insurance for nutrition lucratively (RTL Édito – Carrefour lance une assurance courses alimentaires:«Marre de cette société de l’abonnement», dénonce Martial You).
The status-quo in Switzerland depicts the picture of a weakening and fragile system where the right to healthy, justly produced, accessible and affordable food is undermined:
- 70% of the population lives in urban areas. Most have lost their link with land and food production.
- Since 1990, prices for farmers have fallen by 27%, while their production costs have risen by 11%. Over the same period, consumer prices have risen by 17%.
- The added value of food goes to industrial processing and trade. Margins are particularly high for high-quality products (e.g. "organic").
- 80% of the Swiss retail market is controlled by 2 large supermarkets.
- 8.7% of the population in Switzerland lives below the poverty line and a further 7.4% areat risk of poverty. However, half of food aid is not consumed (at least in Geneva).
- Highly processed foods rarely consist of complete foods. Ready-made and instant products, snacks, soft drinks and the like minimize the amount of preparation required. And, a number of "lifestyle diseases" (tooth decay, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes,high blood pressure, some allergies, gout, etc...) are also attributed to them.
Everyone is suffering from the current situation: producers are not getting fair prices, consumers in vulnerable situations have limited access to healthy food, and the non-industrial value-chains are barely cost-effective. And the issue is so polarizing that politicians prefer not to get too involved.
In fact, the food system in Switzerland presents major challenges that are similar to the ones faced by other countries across the border, namely:
1. We have a de facto duopoly with 80% of the food being sold by two distributors. They have driven most of their competitors out of business, and there are hardly any alternative retailers. Whichever distribution system is chosen, it will probably have to be built from scratch.
2. Participatory food systems always convince "the same 10%, i.e. people over 40 and 50 with an above-average level of education and income, who are already aware of the subject and make use of what's on offer". It will be crucial to reach and educate people who have not yet thought about our food system.
3. If we want to realize the right to adequate food, produced under good conditions, it will inevitably cost more money than the current food system. Is the community willing to bear the cost? If so, they should first define their food system (which nutrition, which agriculture, which processing and which distribution/distributors they want). Only then can quantify its costs and determine how the financing will be done (membership fees, deviation of part of the health-, agriculture- or social budget, social security payroll deductions, …) and in what form the disbursements will be made. At the moment, different initiatives in France are experimenting with different means such as vouchers, local currencies, and insurance cards.
Food democracy is about the common good,not profit. Social insurance for sustainable nutrition clearly promotes short, regional,and non-industrial economic cycles. Nevertheless, there is still a good deal left for the established large-scale structures, if only because the amounts paid out do not cover the entire expense. Also, the experience in France shows that - as is their habit - large distributors copy any interesting initiative as soon as it gains momentum. In the case of SSA, Carrefour already imitates parts of the attractive model and markets "its" insurance for nutrition lucratively (RTL Édito – Carrefour lance une assurance courses alimentaires:«Marre de cette société de l’abonnement», dénonce Martial You).
The status-quo in Switzerland depicts the picture of a weakening and fragile system where the right to healthy, justly produced, accessible and affordable food is undermined:
- 70% of the population lives in urban areas. Most have lost their link with land and food production.
- Since 1990, prices for farmers have fallen by 27%, while their production costs have risen by 11%. Over the same period, consumer prices have risen by 17%.
- The added value of food goes to industrial processing and trade. Margins are particularly high for high-quality products (e.g. "organic").
- 80% of the Swiss retail market is controlled by 2 large supermarkets.
- 8.7% of the population in Switzerland lives below the poverty line and a further 7.4% areat risk of poverty. However, half of food aid is not consumed (at least in Geneva).
- Highly processed foods rarely consist of complete foods. Ready-made and instant products, snacks, soft drinks and the like minimize the amount of preparation required. And, a number of "lifestyle diseases" (tooth decay, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes,high blood pressure, some allergies, gout, etc...) are also attributed to them.
Everyone is suffering from the current situation: producers are not getting fair prices, consumers in vulnerable situations have limited access to healthy food, and the non-industrial value-chains are barely cost-effective. And the issue is so polarizing that politicians prefer not to get too involved.
In fact, the food system in Switzerland presents major challenges that are similar to the ones faced by other countries across the border, namely:
1. We have a de facto duopoly with 80% of the food being sold by two distributors. They have driven most of their competitors out of business, and there are hardly any alternative retailers. Whichever distribution system is chosen, it will probably have to be built from scratch.
2. Participatory food systems always convince "the same 10%, i.e. people over 40 and 50 with an above-average level of education and income, who are already aware of the subject and make use of what's on offer". It will be crucial to reach and educate people who have not yet thought about our food system.
3. If we want to realize the right to adequate food, produced under good conditions, it will inevitably cost more money than the current food system. Is the community willing to bear the cost? If so, they should first define their food system (which nutrition, which agriculture, which processing and which distribution/distributors they want). Only then can quantify its costs and determine how the financing will be done (membership fees, deviation of part of the health-, agriculture- or social budget, social security payroll deductions, …) and in what form the disbursements will be made. At the moment, different initiatives in France are experimenting with different means such as vouchers, local currencies, and insurance cards.
Food democracy is about the common good,not profit. Social insurance for sustainable nutrition clearly promotes short, regional,and non-industrial economic cycles. Nevertheless, there is still a good deal left for the established large-scale structures, if only because the amounts paid out do not cover the entire expense. Also, the experience in France shows that - as is their habit - large distributors copy any interesting initiative as soon as it gains momentum. In the case of SSA, Carrefour already imitates parts of the attractive model and markets "its" insurance for nutrition lucratively (RTL Édito – Carrefour lance une assurance courses alimentaires:«Marre de cette société de l’abonnement», dénonce Martial You).
The status-quo in Switzerland depicts the picture of a weakening and fragile system where the right to healthy, justly produced, accessible and affordable food is undermined:
- 70% of the population lives in urban areas. Most have lost their link with land and food production.
- Since 1990, prices for farmers have fallen by 27%, while their production costs have risen by 11%. Over the same period, consumer prices have risen by 17%.
- The added value of food goes to industrial processing and trade. Margins are particularly high for high-quality products (e.g. "organic").
- 80% of the Swiss retail market is controlled by 2 large supermarkets.
- 8.7% of the population in Switzerland lives below the poverty line and a further 7.4% areat risk of poverty. However, half of food aid is not consumed (at least in Geneva).
- Highly processed foods rarely consist of complete foods. Ready-made and instant products, snacks, soft drinks and the like minimize the amount of preparation required. And, a number of "lifestyle diseases" (tooth decay, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes,high blood pressure, some allergies, gout, etc...) are also attributed to them.
Everyone is suffering from the current situation: producers are not getting fair prices, consumers in vulnerable situations have limited access to healthy food, and the non-industrial value-chains are barely cost-effective. And the issue is so polarizing that politicians prefer not to get too involved.
In fact, the food system in Switzerland presents major challenges that are similar to the ones faced by other countries across the border, namely:
1. We have a de facto duopoly with 80% of the food being sold by two distributors. They have driven most of their competitors out of business, and there are hardly any alternative retailers. Whichever distribution system is chosen, it will probably have to be built from scratch.
2. Participatory food systems always convince "the same 10%, i.e. people over 40 and 50 with an above-average level of education and income, who are already aware of the subject and make use of what's on offer". It will be crucial to reach and educate people who have not yet thought about our food system.
3. If we want to realize the right to adequate food, produced under good conditions, it will inevitably cost more money than the current food system. Is the community willing to bear the cost? If so, they should first define their food system (which nutrition, which agriculture, which processing and which distribution/distributors they want). Only then can quantify its costs and determine how the financing will be done (membership fees, deviation of part of the health-, agriculture- or social budget, social security payroll deductions, …) and in what form the disbursements will be made. At the moment, different initiatives in France are experimenting with different means such as vouchers, local currencies, and insurance cards.
Food democracy is about the common good,not profit. Social insurance for sustainable nutrition clearly promotes short, regional,and non-industrial economic cycles. Nevertheless, there is still a good deal left for the established large-scale structures, if only because the amounts paid out do not cover the entire expense. Also, the experience in France shows that - as is their habit - large distributors copy any interesting initiative as soon as it gains momentum. In the case of SSA, Carrefour already imitates parts of the attractive model and markets "its" insurance for nutrition lucratively (RTL Édito – Carrefour lance une assurance courses alimentaires:«Marre de cette société de l’abonnement», dénonce Martial You).
The status-quo in Switzerland depicts the picture of a weakening and fragile system where the right to healthy, justly produced, accessible and affordable food is undermined:
- 70% of the population lives in urban areas. Most have lost their link with land and food production.
- Since 1990, prices for farmers have fallen by 27%, while their production costs have risen by 11%. Over the same period, consumer prices have risen by 17%.
- The added value of food goes to industrial processing and trade. Margins are particularly high for high-quality products (e.g. "organic").
- 80% of the Swiss retail market is controlled by 2 large supermarkets.
- 8.7% of the population in Switzerland lives below the poverty line and a further 7.4% areat risk of poverty. However, half of food aid is not consumed (at least in Geneva).
- Highly processed foods rarely consist of complete foods. Ready-made and instant products, snacks, soft drinks and the like minimize the amount of preparation required. And, a number of "lifestyle diseases" (tooth decay, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes,high blood pressure, some allergies, gout, etc...) are also attributed to them.
Everyone is suffering from the current situation: producers are not getting fair prices, consumers in vulnerable situations have limited access to healthy food, and the non-industrial value-chains are barely cost-effective. And the issue is so polarizing that politicians prefer not to get too involved.
In fact, the food system in Switzerland presents major challenges that are similar to the ones faced by other countries across the border, namely:
1. We have a de facto duopoly with 80% of the food being sold by two distributors. They have driven most of their competitors out of business, and there are hardly any alternative retailers. Whichever distribution system is chosen, it will probably have to be built from scratch.
2. Participatory food systems always convince "the same 10%, i.e. people over 40 and 50 with an above-average level of education and income, who are already aware of the subject and make use of what's on offer". It will be crucial to reach and educate people who have not yet thought about our food system.
3. If we want to realize the right to adequate food, produced under good conditions, it will inevitably cost more money than the current food system. Is the community willing to bear the cost? If so, they should first define their food system (which nutrition, which agriculture, which processing and which distribution/distributors they want). Only then can quantify its costs and determine how the financing will be done (membership fees, deviation of part of the health-, agriculture- or social budget, social security payroll deductions, …) and in what form the disbursements will be made. At the moment, different initiatives in France are experimenting with different means such as vouchers, local currencies, and insurance cards.
Food democracy is about the common good,not profit. Social insurance for sustainable nutrition clearly promotes short, regional,and non-industrial economic cycles. Nevertheless, there is still a good deal left for the established large-scale structures, if only because the amounts paid out do not cover the entire expense. Also, the experience in France shows that - as is their habit - large distributors copy any interesting initiative as soon as it gains momentum. In the case of SSA, Carrefour already imitates parts of the attractive model and markets "its" insurance for nutrition lucratively (RTL Édito – Carrefour lance une assurance courses alimentaires:«Marre de cette société de l’abonnement», dénonce Martial You).
The vision is one where food is no longer a variable in household expenditure. Everyone has sufficient access to healthy food, regardless of their income. People in precarious situations are no longer dependent on food aid, as it is stigmatizing. Producers can lead a dignified life based on their work. Local agricultural producers receive fair prices, and the entire value chain is sustainable.
Our objective is to democratize the food system. This means moving away from a system based solely on market needs and towards a system based on the needs of the population. Linear value chains are transformed into food communities.
In many places, people are looking for new ways to improve their food system, launch initiatives and are open to sharing their experiences. For example, we are learning a lot from the French SSA-network, in which all the grassroot projects are organized.
The pillars of the Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation (SSA) are:
- Universality, i.e. all people have the right to and access to adequate nutrition.
- Financing through members’ contributions.
- Democratic management. They are not state-run.
All 27 SSA initiatives are based on these three pillars, pursue the same goal and are interconnected. They adopt what works from each other and discard what obviously promises little success. Step by step, the regional experiments will develop into a national model.
In order for the new system (SSA) to be broadly supported, all affected groups must be integrated, especially consumers and producers. Four steps are required:
1. The first major step for the SSA is the establishment of a food council. The entire population which will later form the food community is invited to participate and attention will be given to ensure that the diversity of the population is reflected in the council.
2. The food councilors will have to get to know and understand the challenges of the food systems. They will be sensitized to the topic of food democracy through company visits, lectures, discussions, etc. and also receive training on nutritional issues. The primary goal of the food council is to develop a common vision for their food community. The interests of everyone, i.e. farmers, retailers and consumers, must be taken into account.
3. Definition of the operating principles: Mission statement, operating guidelines, financing, currency system, supplier accreditation criteria, etc.
4. Operational launch of the SSA
The vision is one where food is no longer a variable in household expenditure. Everyone has sufficient access to healthy food, regardless of their income. People in precarious situations are no longer dependent on food aid, as it is stigmatizing. Producers can lead a dignified life based on their work. Local agricultural producers receive fair prices, and the entire value chain is sustainable.
Our objective is to democratize the food system. This means moving away from a system based solely on market needs and towards a system based on the needs of the population. Linear value chains are transformed into food communities.
In many places, people are looking for new ways to improve their food system, launch initiatives and are open to sharing their experiences. For example, we are learning a lot from the French SSA-network, in which all the grassroot projects are organized.
The pillars of the Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation (SSA) are:
- Universality, i.e. all people have the right to and access to adequate nutrition.
- Financing through members’ contributions.
- Democratic management. They are not state-run.
All 27 SSA initiatives are based on these three pillars, pursue the same goal and are interconnected. They adopt what works from each other and discard what obviously promises little success. Step by step, the regional experiments will develop into a national model.
In order for the new system (SSA) to be broadly supported, all affected groups must be integrated, especially consumers and producers. Four steps are required:
1. The first major step for the SSA is the establishment of a food council. The entire population which will later form the food community is invited to participate and attention will be given to ensure that the diversity of the population is reflected in the council.
2. The food councilors will have to get to know and understand the challenges of the food systems. They will be sensitized to the topic of food democracy through company visits, lectures, discussions, etc. and also receive training on nutritional issues. The primary goal of the food council is to develop a common vision for their food community. The interests of everyone, i.e. farmers, retailers and consumers, must be taken into account.
3. Definition of the operating principles: Mission statement, operating guidelines, financing, currency system, supplier accreditation criteria, etc.
4. Operational launch of the SSA
The vision is one where food is no longer a variable in household expenditure. Everyone has sufficient access to healthy food, regardless of their income. People in precarious situations are no longer dependent on food aid, as it is stigmatizing. Producers can lead a dignified life based on their work. Local agricultural producers receive fair prices, and the entire value chain is sustainable.
Our objective is to democratize the food system. This means moving away from a system based solely on market needs and towards a system based on the needs of the population. Linear value chains are transformed into food communities.
In many places, people are looking for new ways to improve their food system, launch initiatives and are open to sharing their experiences. For example, we are learning a lot from the French SSA-network, in which all the grassroot projects are organized.
The pillars of the Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation (SSA) are:
- Universality, i.e. all people have the right to and access to adequate nutrition.
- Financing through members’ contributions.
- Democratic management. They are not state-run.
All 27 SSA initiatives are based on these three pillars, pursue the same goal and are interconnected. They adopt what works from each other and discard what obviously promises little success. Step by step, the regional experiments will develop into a national model.
In order for the new system (SSA) to be broadly supported, all affected groups must be integrated, especially consumers and producers. Four steps are required:
1. The first major step for the SSA is the establishment of a food council. The entire population which will later form the food community is invited to participate and attention will be given to ensure that the diversity of the population is reflected in the council.
2. The food councilors will have to get to know and understand the challenges of the food systems. They will be sensitized to the topic of food democracy through company visits, lectures, discussions, etc. and also receive training on nutritional issues. The primary goal of the food council is to develop a common vision for their food community. The interests of everyone, i.e. farmers, retailers and consumers, must be taken into account.
3. Definition of the operating principles: Mission statement, operating guidelines, financing, currency system, supplier accreditation criteria, etc.
4. Operational launch of the SSA
The vision is one where food is no longer a variable in household expenditure. Everyone has sufficient access to healthy food, regardless of their income. People in precarious situations are no longer dependent on food aid, as it is stigmatizing. Producers can lead a dignified life based on their work. Local agricultural producers receive fair prices, and the entire value chain is sustainable.
Our objective is to democratize the food system. This means moving away from a system based solely on market needs and towards a system based on the needs of the population. Linear value chains are transformed into food communities.
In many places, people are looking for new ways to improve their food system, launch initiatives and are open to sharing their experiences. For example, we are learning a lot from the French SSA-network, in which all the grassroot projects are organized.
The pillars of the Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation (SSA) are:
- Universality, i.e. all people have the right to and access to adequate nutrition.
- Financing through members’ contributions.
- Democratic management. They are not state-run.
All 27 SSA initiatives are based on these three pillars, pursue the same goal and are interconnected. They adopt what works from each other and discard what obviously promises little success. Step by step, the regional experiments will develop into a national model.
In order for the new system (SSA) to be broadly supported, all affected groups must be integrated, especially consumers and producers. Four steps are required:
1. The first major step for the SSA is the establishment of a food council. The entire population which will later form the food community is invited to participate and attention will be given to ensure that the diversity of the population is reflected in the council.
2. The food councilors will have to get to know and understand the challenges of the food systems. They will be sensitized to the topic of food democracy through company visits, lectures, discussions, etc. and also receive training on nutritional issues. The primary goal of the food council is to develop a common vision for their food community. The interests of everyone, i.e. farmers, retailers and consumers, must be taken into account.
3. Definition of the operating principles: Mission statement, operating guidelines, financing, currency system, supplier accreditation criteria, etc.
4. Operational launch of the SSA
The vision is one where food is no longer a variable in household expenditure. Everyone has sufficient access to healthy food, regardless of their income. People in precarious situations are no longer dependent on food aid, as it is stigmatizing. Producers can lead a dignified life based on their work. Local agricultural producers receive fair prices, and the entire value chain is sustainable.
Our objective is to democratize the food system. This means moving away from a system based solely on market needs and towards a system based on the needs of the population. Linear value chains are transformed into food communities.
In many places, people are looking for new ways to improve their food system, launch initiatives and are open to sharing their experiences. For example, we are learning a lot from the French SSA-network, in which all the grassroot projects are organized.
The pillars of the Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation (SSA) are:
- Universality, i.e. all people have the right to and access to adequate nutrition.
- Financing through members’ contributions.
- Democratic management. They are not state-run.
All 27 SSA initiatives are based on these three pillars, pursue the same goal and are interconnected. They adopt what works from each other and discard what obviously promises little success. Step by step, the regional experiments will develop into a national model.
In order for the new system (SSA) to be broadly supported, all affected groups must be integrated, especially consumers and producers. Four steps are required:
1. The first major step for the SSA is the establishment of a food council. The entire population which will later form the food community is invited to participate and attention will be given to ensure that the diversity of the population is reflected in the council.
2. The food councilors will have to get to know and understand the challenges of the food systems. They will be sensitized to the topic of food democracy through company visits, lectures, discussions, etc. and also receive training on nutritional issues. The primary goal of the food council is to develop a common vision for their food community. The interests of everyone, i.e. farmers, retailers and consumers, must be taken into account.
3. Definition of the operating principles: Mission statement, operating guidelines, financing, currency system, supplier accreditation criteria, etc.
4. Operational launch of the SSA
The vision is one where food is no longer a variable in household expenditure. Everyone has sufficient access to healthy food, regardless of their income. People in precarious situations are no longer dependent on food aid, as it is stigmatizing. Producers can lead a dignified life based on their work. Local agricultural producers receive fair prices, and the entire value chain is sustainable.
Our objective is to democratize the food system. This means moving away from a system based solely on market needs and towards a system based on the needs of the population. Linear value chains are transformed into food communities.
In many places, people are looking for new ways to improve their food system, launch initiatives and are open to sharing their experiences. For example, we are learning a lot from the French SSA-network, in which all the grassroot projects are organized.
The pillars of the Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation (SSA) are:
- Universality, i.e. all people have the right to and access to adequate nutrition.
- Financing through members’ contributions.
- Democratic management. They are not state-run.
All 27 SSA initiatives are based on these three pillars, pursue the same goal and are interconnected. They adopt what works from each other and discard what obviously promises little success. Step by step, the regional experiments will develop into a national model.
In order for the new system (SSA) to be broadly supported, all affected groups must be integrated, especially consumers and producers. Four steps are required:
1. The first major step for the SSA is the establishment of a food council. The entire population which will later form the food community is invited to participate and attention will be given to ensure that the diversity of the population is reflected in the council.
2. The food councilors will have to get to know and understand the challenges of the food systems. They will be sensitized to the topic of food democracy through company visits, lectures, discussions, etc. and also receive training on nutritional issues. The primary goal of the food council is to develop a common vision for their food community. The interests of everyone, i.e. farmers, retailers and consumers, must be taken into account.
3. Definition of the operating principles: Mission statement, operating guidelines, financing, currency system, supplier accreditation criteria, etc.
4. Operational launch of the SSA
The vision is one where food is no longer a variable in household expenditure. Everyone has sufficient access to healthy food, regardless of their income. People in precarious situations are no longer dependent on food aid, as it is stigmatizing. Producers can lead a dignified life based on their work. Local agricultural producers receive fair prices, and the entire value chain is sustainable.
Our objective is to democratize the food system. This means moving away from a system based solely on market needs and towards a system based on the needs of the population. Linear value chains are transformed into food communities.
In many places, people are looking for new ways to improve their food system, launch initiatives and are open to sharing their experiences. For example, we are learning a lot from the French SSA-network, in which all the grassroot projects are organized.
The pillars of the Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation (SSA) are:
- Universality, i.e. all people have the right to and access to adequate nutrition.
- Financing through members’ contributions.
- Democratic management. They are not state-run.
All 27 SSA initiatives are based on these three pillars, pursue the same goal and are interconnected. They adopt what works from each other and discard what obviously promises little success. Step by step, the regional experiments will develop into a national model.
In order for the new system (SSA) to be broadly supported, all affected groups must be integrated, especially consumers and producers. Four steps are required:
1. The first major step for the SSA is the establishment of a food council. The entire population which will later form the food community is invited to participate and attention will be given to ensure that the diversity of the population is reflected in the council.
2. The food councilors will have to get to know and understand the challenges of the food systems. They will be sensitized to the topic of food democracy through company visits, lectures, discussions, etc. and also receive training on nutritional issues. The primary goal of the food council is to develop a common vision for their food community. The interests of everyone, i.e. farmers, retailers and consumers, must be taken into account.
3. Definition of the operating principles: Mission statement, operating guidelines, financing, currency system, supplier accreditation criteria, etc.
4. Operational launch of the SSA
The vision is one where food is no longer a variable in household expenditure. Everyone has sufficient access to healthy food, regardless of their income. People in precarious situations are no longer dependent on food aid, as it is stigmatizing. Producers can lead a dignified life based on their work. Local agricultural producers receive fair prices, and the entire value chain is sustainable.
Our objective is to democratize the food system. This means moving away from a system based solely on market needs and towards a system based on the needs of the population. Linear value chains are transformed into food communities.
In many places, people are looking for new ways to improve their food system, launch initiatives and are open to sharing their experiences. For example, we are learning a lot from the French SSA-network, in which all the grassroot projects are organized.
The pillars of the Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation (SSA) are:
- Universality, i.e. all people have the right to and access to adequate nutrition.
- Financing through members’ contributions.
- Democratic management. They are not state-run.
All 27 SSA initiatives are based on these three pillars, pursue the same goal and are interconnected. They adopt what works from each other and discard what obviously promises little success. Step by step, the regional experiments will develop into a national model.
In order for the new system (SSA) to be broadly supported, all affected groups must be integrated, especially consumers and producers. Four steps are required:
1. The first major step for the SSA is the establishment of a food council. The entire population which will later form the food community is invited to participate and attention will be given to ensure that the diversity of the population is reflected in the council.
2. The food councilors will have to get to know and understand the challenges of the food systems. They will be sensitized to the topic of food democracy through company visits, lectures, discussions, etc. and also receive training on nutritional issues. The primary goal of the food council is to develop a common vision for their food community. The interests of everyone, i.e. farmers, retailers and consumers, must be taken into account.
3. Definition of the operating principles: Mission statement, operating guidelines, financing, currency system, supplier accreditation criteria, etc.
4. Operational launch of the SSA
The vision is one where food is no longer a variable in household expenditure. Everyone has sufficient access to healthy food, regardless of their income. People in precarious situations are no longer dependent on food aid, as it is stigmatizing. Producers can lead a dignified life based on their work. Local agricultural producers receive fair prices, and the entire value chain is sustainable.
Our objective is to democratize the food system. This means moving away from a system based solely on market needs and towards a system based on the needs of the population. Linear value chains are transformed into food communities.
In many places, people are looking for new ways to improve their food system, launch initiatives and are open to sharing their experiences. For example, we are learning a lot from the French SSA-network, in which all the grassroot projects are organized.
The pillars of the Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation (SSA) are:
- Universality, i.e. all people have the right to and access to adequate nutrition.
- Financing through members’ contributions.
- Democratic management. They are not state-run.
All 27 SSA initiatives are based on these three pillars, pursue the same goal and are interconnected. They adopt what works from each other and discard what obviously promises little success. Step by step, the regional experiments will develop into a national model.
In order for the new system (SSA) to be broadly supported, all affected groups must be integrated, especially consumers and producers. Four steps are required:
1. The first major step for the SSA is the establishment of a food council. The entire population which will later form the food community is invited to participate and attention will be given to ensure that the diversity of the population is reflected in the council.
2. The food councilors will have to get to know and understand the challenges of the food systems. They will be sensitized to the topic of food democracy through company visits, lectures, discussions, etc. and also receive training on nutritional issues. The primary goal of the food council is to develop a common vision for their food community. The interests of everyone, i.e. farmers, retailers and consumers, must be taken into account.
3. Definition of the operating principles: Mission statement, operating guidelines, financing, currency system, supplier accreditation criteria, etc.
4. Operational launch of the SSA
The vision is one where food is no longer a variable in household expenditure. Everyone has sufficient access to healthy food, regardless of their income. People in precarious situations are no longer dependent on food aid, as it is stigmatizing. Producers can lead a dignified life based on their work. Local agricultural producers receive fair prices, and the entire value chain is sustainable.
Our objective is to democratize the food system. This means moving away from a system based solely on market needs and towards a system based on the needs of the population. Linear value chains are transformed into food communities.
In many places, people are looking for new ways to improve their food system, launch initiatives and are open to sharing their experiences. For example, we are learning a lot from the French SSA-network, in which all the grassroot projects are organized.
The pillars of the Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation (SSA) are:
- Universality, i.e. all people have the right to and access to adequate nutrition.
- Financing through members’ contributions.
- Democratic management. They are not state-run.
All 27 SSA initiatives are based on these three pillars, pursue the same goal and are interconnected. They adopt what works from each other and discard what obviously promises little success. Step by step, the regional experiments will develop into a national model.
In order for the new system (SSA) to be broadly supported, all affected groups must be integrated, especially consumers and producers. Four steps are required:
1. The first major step for the SSA is the establishment of a food council. The entire population which will later form the food community is invited to participate and attention will be given to ensure that the diversity of the population is reflected in the council.
2. The food councilors will have to get to know and understand the challenges of the food systems. They will be sensitized to the topic of food democracy through company visits, lectures, discussions, etc. and also receive training on nutritional issues. The primary goal of the food council is to develop a common vision for their food community. The interests of everyone, i.e. farmers, retailers and consumers, must be taken into account.
3. Definition of the operating principles: Mission statement, operating guidelines, financing, currency system, supplier accreditation criteria, etc.
4. Operational launch of the SSA
The vision is one where food is no longer a variable in household expenditure. Everyone has sufficient access to healthy food, regardless of their income. People in precarious situations are no longer dependent on food aid, as it is stigmatizing. Producers can lead a dignified life based on their work. Local agricultural producers receive fair prices, and the entire value chain is sustainable.
Our objective is to democratize the food system. This means moving away from a system based solely on market needs and towards a system based on the needs of the population. Linear value chains are transformed into food communities.
In many places, people are looking for new ways to improve their food system, launch initiatives and are open to sharing their experiences. For example, we are learning a lot from the French SSA-network, in which all the grassroot projects are organized.
The pillars of the Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation (SSA) are:
- Universality, i.e. all people have the right to and access to adequate nutrition.
- Financing through members’ contributions.
- Democratic management. They are not state-run.
All 27 SSA initiatives are based on these three pillars, pursue the same goal and are interconnected. They adopt what works from each other and discard what obviously promises little success. Step by step, the regional experiments will develop into a national model.
In order for the new system (SSA) to be broadly supported, all affected groups must be integrated, especially consumers and producers. Four steps are required:
1. The first major step for the SSA is the establishment of a food council. The entire population which will later form the food community is invited to participate and attention will be given to ensure that the diversity of the population is reflected in the council.
2. The food councilors will have to get to know and understand the challenges of the food systems. They will be sensitized to the topic of food democracy through company visits, lectures, discussions, etc. and also receive training on nutritional issues. The primary goal of the food council is to develop a common vision for their food community. The interests of everyone, i.e. farmers, retailers and consumers, must be taken into account.
3. Definition of the operating principles: Mission statement, operating guidelines, financing, currency system, supplier accreditation criteria, etc.
4. Operational launch of the SSA
The vision is one where food is no longer a variable in household expenditure. Everyone has sufficient access to healthy food, regardless of their income. People in precarious situations are no longer dependent on food aid, as it is stigmatizing. Producers can lead a dignified life based on their work. Local agricultural producers receive fair prices, and the entire value chain is sustainable.
Our objective is to democratize the food system. This means moving away from a system based solely on market needs and towards a system based on the needs of the population. Linear value chains are transformed into food communities.
In many places, people are looking for new ways to improve their food system, launch initiatives and are open to sharing their experiences. For example, we are learning a lot from the French SSA-network, in which all the grassroot projects are organized.
The pillars of the Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation (SSA) are:
- Universality, i.e. all people have the right to and access to adequate nutrition.
- Financing through members’ contributions.
- Democratic management. They are not state-run.
All 27 SSA initiatives are based on these three pillars, pursue the same goal and are interconnected. They adopt what works from each other and discard what obviously promises little success. Step by step, the regional experiments will develop into a national model.
In order for the new system (SSA) to be broadly supported, all affected groups must be integrated, especially consumers and producers. Four steps are required:
1. The first major step for the SSA is the establishment of a food council. The entire population which will later form the food community is invited to participate and attention will be given to ensure that the diversity of the population is reflected in the council.
2. The food councilors will have to get to know and understand the challenges of the food systems. They will be sensitized to the topic of food democracy through company visits, lectures, discussions, etc. and also receive training on nutritional issues. The primary goal of the food council is to develop a common vision for their food community. The interests of everyone, i.e. farmers, retailers and consumers, must be taken into account.
3. Definition of the operating principles: Mission statement, operating guidelines, financing, currency system, supplier accreditation criteria, etc.
4. Operational launch of the SSA
The vision is one where food is no longer a variable in household expenditure. Everyone has sufficient access to healthy food, regardless of their income. People in precarious situations are no longer dependent on food aid, as it is stigmatizing. Producers can lead a dignified life based on their work. Local agricultural producers receive fair prices, and the entire value chain is sustainable.
Our objective is to democratize the food system. This means moving away from a system based solely on market needs and towards a system based on the needs of the population. Linear value chains are transformed into food communities.
In many places, people are looking for new ways to improve their food system, launch initiatives and are open to sharing their experiences. For example, we are learning a lot from the French SSA-network, in which all the grassroot projects are organized.
The pillars of the Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation (SSA) are:
- Universality, i.e. all people have the right to and access to adequate nutrition.
- Financing through members’ contributions.
- Democratic management. They are not state-run.
All 27 SSA initiatives are based on these three pillars, pursue the same goal and are interconnected. They adopt what works from each other and discard what obviously promises little success. Step by step, the regional experiments will develop into a national model.
In order for the new system (SSA) to be broadly supported, all affected groups must be integrated, especially consumers and producers. Four steps are required:
1. The first major step for the SSA is the establishment of a food council. The entire population which will later form the food community is invited to participate and attention will be given to ensure that the diversity of the population is reflected in the council.
2. The food councilors will have to get to know and understand the challenges of the food systems. They will be sensitized to the topic of food democracy through company visits, lectures, discussions, etc. and also receive training on nutritional issues. The primary goal of the food council is to develop a common vision for their food community. The interests of everyone, i.e. farmers, retailers and consumers, must be taken into account.
3. Definition of the operating principles: Mission statement, operating guidelines, financing, currency system, supplier accreditation criteria, etc.
4. Operational launch of the SSA
The vision is one where food is no longer a variable in household expenditure. Everyone has sufficient access to healthy food, regardless of their income. People in precarious situations are no longer dependent on food aid, as it is stigmatizing. Producers can lead a dignified life based on their work. Local agricultural producers receive fair prices, and the entire value chain is sustainable.
Our objective is to democratize the food system. This means moving away from a system based solely on market needs and towards a system based on the needs of the population. Linear value chains are transformed into food communities.
In many places, people are looking for new ways to improve their food system, launch initiatives and are open to sharing their experiences. For example, we are learning a lot from the French SSA-network, in which all the grassroot projects are organized.
The pillars of the Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation (SSA) are:
- Universality, i.e. all people have the right to and access to adequate nutrition.
- Financing through members’ contributions.
- Democratic management. They are not state-run.
All 27 SSA initiatives are based on these three pillars, pursue the same goal and are interconnected. They adopt what works from each other and discard what obviously promises little success. Step by step, the regional experiments will develop into a national model.
In order for the new system (SSA) to be broadly supported, all affected groups must be integrated, especially consumers and producers. Four steps are required:
1. The first major step for the SSA is the establishment of a food council. The entire population which will later form the food community is invited to participate and attention will be given to ensure that the diversity of the population is reflected in the council.
2. The food councilors will have to get to know and understand the challenges of the food systems. They will be sensitized to the topic of food democracy through company visits, lectures, discussions, etc. and also receive training on nutritional issues. The primary goal of the food council is to develop a common vision for their food community. The interests of everyone, i.e. farmers, retailers and consumers, must be taken into account.
3. Definition of the operating principles: Mission statement, operating guidelines, financing, currency system, supplier accreditation criteria, etc.
4. Operational launch of the SSA
The vision is one where food is no longer a variable in household expenditure. Everyone has sufficient access to healthy food, regardless of their income. People in precarious situations are no longer dependent on food aid, as it is stigmatizing. Producers can lead a dignified life based on their work. Local agricultural producers receive fair prices, and the entire value chain is sustainable.
Our objective is to democratize the food system. This means moving away from a system based solely on market needs and towards a system based on the needs of the population. Linear value chains are transformed into food communities.
In many places, people are looking for new ways to improve their food system, launch initiatives and are open to sharing their experiences. For example, we are learning a lot from the French SSA-network, in which all the grassroot projects are organized.
The pillars of the Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation (SSA) are:
- Universality, i.e. all people have the right to and access to adequate nutrition.
- Financing through members’ contributions.
- Democratic management. They are not state-run.
All 27 SSA initiatives are based on these three pillars, pursue the same goal and are interconnected. They adopt what works from each other and discard what obviously promises little success. Step by step, the regional experiments will develop into a national model.
In order for the new system (SSA) to be broadly supported, all affected groups must be integrated, especially consumers and producers. Four steps are required:
1. The first major step for the SSA is the establishment of a food council. The entire population which will later form the food community is invited to participate and attention will be given to ensure that the diversity of the population is reflected in the council.
2. The food councilors will have to get to know and understand the challenges of the food systems. They will be sensitized to the topic of food democracy through company visits, lectures, discussions, etc. and also receive training on nutritional issues. The primary goal of the food council is to develop a common vision for their food community. The interests of everyone, i.e. farmers, retailers and consumers, must be taken into account.
3. Definition of the operating principles: Mission statement, operating guidelines, financing, currency system, supplier accreditation criteria, etc.
4. Operational launch of the SSA
Food is one thing. Adequate nutrition is something else. Access to adequate food is a human right and this must be realized. Our producers have a fundamental right to be able to lead a dignified life from their work.
The SSA tackles the above and more challenges all at once:
- The linear value chains are being expanded into food communities.
- Food democracy is an inclusive, participatory system that promotes community
- Eating good food, taking time to eat, enjoying eating and sharing a meal in good company is good for mental and physical health.
If you are interested in finding out more, please do not hesitate to write to us at asa@agrarinfo.ch!
Food is one thing. Adequate nutrition is something else. Access to adequate food is a human right and this must be realized. Our producers have a fundamental right to be able to lead a dignified life from their work.
The SSA tackles the above and more challenges all at once:
- The linear value chains are being expanded into food communities.
- Food democracy is an inclusive, participatory system that promotes community
- Eating good food, taking time to eat, enjoying eating and sharing a meal in good company is good for mental and physical health.
If you are interested in finding out more, please do not hesitate to write to us at asa@agrarinfo.ch!
Food is one thing. Adequate nutrition is something else. Access to adequate food is a human right and this must be realized. Our producers have a fundamental right to be able to lead a dignified life from their work.
The SSA tackles the above and more challenges all at once:
- The linear value chains are being expanded into food communities.
- Food democracy is an inclusive, participatory system that promotes community
- Eating good food, taking time to eat, enjoying eating and sharing a meal in good company is good for mental and physical health.
If you are interested in finding out more, please do not hesitate to write to us at asa@agrarinfo.ch!
Food is one thing. Adequate nutrition is something else. Access to adequate food is a human right and this must be realized. Our producers have a fundamental right to be able to lead a dignified life from their work.
The SSA tackles the above and more challenges all at once:
- The linear value chains are being expanded into food communities.
- Food democracy is an inclusive, participatory system that promotes community
- Eating good food, taking time to eat, enjoying eating and sharing a meal in good company is good for mental and physical health.
If you are interested in finding out more, please do not hesitate to write to us at asa@agrarinfo.ch!
Food is one thing. Adequate nutrition is something else. Access to adequate food is a human right and this must be realized. Our producers have a fundamental right to be able to lead a dignified life from their work.
The SSA tackles the above and more challenges all at once:
- The linear value chains are being expanded into food communities.
- Food democracy is an inclusive, participatory system that promotes community
- Eating good food, taking time to eat, enjoying eating and sharing a meal in good company is good for mental and physical health.
If you are interested in finding out more, please do not hesitate to write to us at asa@agrarinfo.ch!
Food is one thing. Adequate nutrition is something else. Access to adequate food is a human right and this must be realized. Our producers have a fundamental right to be able to lead a dignified life from their work.
The SSA tackles the above and more challenges all at once:
- The linear value chains are being expanded into food communities.
- Food democracy is an inclusive, participatory system that promotes community
- Eating good food, taking time to eat, enjoying eating and sharing a meal in good company is good for mental and physical health.
If you are interested in finding out more, please do not hesitate to write to us at asa@agrarinfo.ch!
Food is one thing. Adequate nutrition is something else. Access to adequate food is a human right and this must be realized. Our producers have a fundamental right to be able to lead a dignified life from their work.
The SSA tackles the above and more challenges all at once:
- The linear value chains are being expanded into food communities.
- Food democracy is an inclusive, participatory system that promotes community
- Eating good food, taking time to eat, enjoying eating and sharing a meal in good company is good for mental and physical health.
If you are interested in finding out more, please do not hesitate to write to us at asa@agrarinfo.ch!
Food is one thing. Adequate nutrition is something else. Access to adequate food is a human right and this must be realized. Our producers have a fundamental right to be able to lead a dignified life from their work.
The SSA tackles the above and more challenges all at once:
- The linear value chains are being expanded into food communities.
- Food democracy is an inclusive, participatory system that promotes community
- Eating good food, taking time to eat, enjoying eating and sharing a meal in good company is good for mental and physical health.
If you are interested in finding out more, please do not hesitate to write to us at asa@agrarinfo.ch!
Food is one thing. Adequate nutrition is something else. Access to adequate food is a human right and this must be realized. Our producers have a fundamental right to be able to lead a dignified life from their work.
The SSA tackles the above and more challenges all at once:
- The linear value chains are being expanded into food communities.
- Food democracy is an inclusive, participatory system that promotes community
- Eating good food, taking time to eat, enjoying eating and sharing a meal in good company is good for mental and physical health.
If you are interested in finding out more, please do not hesitate to write to us at asa@agrarinfo.ch!
Food is one thing. Adequate nutrition is something else. Access to adequate food is a human right and this must be realized. Our producers have a fundamental right to be able to lead a dignified life from their work.
The SSA tackles the above and more challenges all at once:
- The linear value chains are being expanded into food communities.
- Food democracy is an inclusive, participatory system that promotes community
- Eating good food, taking time to eat, enjoying eating and sharing a meal in good company is good for mental and physical health.
If you are interested in finding out more, please do not hesitate to write to us at asa@agrarinfo.ch!
Food is one thing. Adequate nutrition is something else. Access to adequate food is a human right and this must be realized. Our producers have a fundamental right to be able to lead a dignified life from their work.
The SSA tackles the above and more challenges all at once:
- The linear value chains are being expanded into food communities.
- Food democracy is an inclusive, participatory system that promotes community
- Eating good food, taking time to eat, enjoying eating and sharing a meal in good company is good for mental and physical health.
If you are interested in finding out more, please do not hesitate to write to us at asa@agrarinfo.ch!
Food is one thing. Adequate nutrition is something else. Access to adequate food is a human right and this must be realized. Our producers have a fundamental right to be able to lead a dignified life from their work.
The SSA tackles the above and more challenges all at once:
- The linear value chains are being expanded into food communities.
- Food democracy is an inclusive, participatory system that promotes community
- Eating good food, taking time to eat, enjoying eating and sharing a meal in good company is good for mental and physical health.
If you are interested in finding out more, please do not hesitate to write to us at asa@agrarinfo.ch!
Food is one thing. Adequate nutrition is something else. Access to adequate food is a human right and this must be realized. Our producers have a fundamental right to be able to lead a dignified life from their work.
The SSA tackles the above and more challenges all at once:
- The linear value chains are being expanded into food communities.
- Food democracy is an inclusive, participatory system that promotes community
- Eating good food, taking time to eat, enjoying eating and sharing a meal in good company is good for mental and physical health.
If you are interested in finding out more, please do not hesitate to write to us at asa@agrarinfo.ch!
Food is one thing. Adequate nutrition is something else. Access to adequate food is a human right and this must be realized. Our producers have a fundamental right to be able to lead a dignified life from their work.
The SSA tackles the above and more challenges all at once:
- The linear value chains are being expanded into food communities.
- Food democracy is an inclusive, participatory system that promotes community
- Eating good food, taking time to eat, enjoying eating and sharing a meal in good company is good for mental and physical health.
If you are interested in finding out more, please do not hesitate to write to us at asa@agrarinfo.ch!
Food is one thing. Adequate nutrition is something else. Access to adequate food is a human right and this must be realized. Our producers have a fundamental right to be able to lead a dignified life from their work.
The SSA tackles the above and more challenges all at once:
- The linear value chains are being expanded into food communities.
- Food democracy is an inclusive, participatory system that promotes community
- Eating good food, taking time to eat, enjoying eating and sharing a meal in good company is good for mental and physical health.
If you are interested in finding out more, please do not hesitate to write to us at asa@agrarinfo.ch!
A Pan-European movement uniting civil society organisations and funders so that healthy, just and sustainable food environments become the norm and harmful agriculture ends.
Creative Commons Licence 4.0 2022, Healthy Food Heathy Planet
Privacy Policy
