The initiative proposed to "protect clean water" by toughening the conditions on farmers to receive federal subsidies. The first two conditions were not especially controversial, but the third was a totally unmanageable show stopper: that a farm could only feed their animals with feed grown in the farm itself. People either voted against because their party told them to (plenty of parties were against it) or because of the third condition.

Somehow the statistics of the rising cancer diagnostics in agrarian areas are not a concern for the regular folk (like the documented 43% more incidence of brain tumors)

That sounds like a poison pill to kill the bill.

Just a general note, as a Swiss citizen: people are generally not in favor of federal regulations when a change could instead be implemented directly by states (I.e: canton). Initiatives at the federal level aren’t that popular.

Why do you assume it was a good law? Just because of its title?

It was restricting antibiotic, without pesticides and not more animals than you can produce food for them, with than less nitrates/pesticides and antibiotics flows into the water.

Copy/Paste Translation:

Initial situation

Farmers receive direct payments from the federal government. However, they only receive the money if they comply with certain rules. These include, for example, the protection of biodiversity, rules on fertilizing and animal husbandry.

An initiative has been submitted to introduce additional rules for direct payments. That is why we are now voting on it.

What would change?

If the initiative is accepted, there will be additional rules for direct payments. Farmers will only receive direct payments if they:

set aside a certain amount of their land for the protection of biodiversity; produce pesticide-free. refrain from preventive or regular use of antibiotics on their animals. keep only as many animals as they can feed with the feed they grow themselves. This reduces the amount of fertilizer used.

Agricultural research, consulting, investment aid and training are also geared to these goals.

https://www.easyvote.ch/de/abstimmungen/13-juni/trinkwasseri...

> keep only as many animals as they can feed with the feed they grow themselves

woahhhh... that's a pretty huge requirement, no?

Yes, although note the proposed initiative wasn't to make it illegal to do that, just you wouldn't qualify for subsidies anymore.

Yeah, I feel th first two requirements are fairly uncontroversial while the last is a huge paradigm shift (maybe for the better, but still huge). I do not think I like that they were grouped together.

For example, they might think the water is clean enough already and they don't want to be taxed any more to make it any cleaner.

The opposite, we (well the government) pay/supports farmers who make "high-performance" farming, with that law they have to produce more in line with nature if they still want to be supported.

The clean water initiative would have denied public subsidies to farmers who didn’t drastically reduce pesticide use.

The farmers‘ lobby and the right wing parties representing a majority of the votes were against it. The outcome was not surprising.

Don't forget the usual Swiss mentalities: 1. we always did it this way and it worked and 2. we're already an extraordinary country nothing more is needed.