On 27 September 2026, Swiss citizens will head to the polls for two federal popular initiatives that deal with very different questions: how Switzerland defines and applies its neutrality, and how much food the country should produce domestically and how that food should be produced.

The vote comes at a time when questions around Switzerland’s international role, security cooperation, food security, agriculture, sustainability and dependence on imports are receiving considerable attention.

The two proposals are the Neutrality Initiative, officially titled “Safeguard Swiss neutrality”, and the Food Initiative, officially titled “For food security – through increased sustainable domestic production, more plant-based food and clean drinking water”.

For anyone living in Switzerland, following Swiss politics or simply trying to understand what is happening in the country, here is a complete guide to the 27 September vote, what the two initiatives propose, what could change, and the main arguments being presented by supporters and opponents.

What exactly is happening on 27 September?

Switzerland has a system of direct democracy in which citizens can vote directly on certain constitutional proposals through federal popular votes. On Sunday, 27 September 2026, two federal popular initiatives will be put to voters.

The official Swiss government overview lists the two questions as:

1. The Neutrality Initiative, which seeks a stricter constitutional definition and application of Swiss neutrality.
2. The Food Initiative, which seeks to increase sustainable domestic food production, promote more plant-based food and strengthen protections for drinking water, soil and biodiversity.

Both proposals would involve changes to the Federal Constitution if accepted. The Federal Council has published official explanations of the proposals in Switzerland’s four national languages.

It is important to note that these are two separate votes. A voter can consider the proposals independently because they concern different areas of policy.

The Neutrality Initiative: What is Switzerland being asked?

The first proposal concerns one of the most recognisable features of Switzerland’s international identity: neutrality.

The Neutrality Initiative seeks to introduce a new constitutional provision requiring a stricter approach to neutrality.

However, there is an important distinction to understand before looking at the proposal.

Switzerland is already a neutral country

The 27 September vote is not a vote on whether Switzerland should be neutral at all.

According to the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA), Swiss neutrality has been enshrined in the Federal Constitution since 1848, is internationally recognised and is safeguarded under international law.

The FDFA describes neutrality as an instrument that Switzerland uses to protect its security, independence and prosperity. It also contributes to Switzerland’s ability to provide its good offices, including mediation and other peace-related activities.

So, the question on 27 September is essentially how Switzerland should apply neutrality in the future, rather than whether neutrality should exist. The Federal Council has described the initiative as a proposal for a more restrictive interpretation and practice of neutrality.

What would the Neutrality Initiative change?

The initiative seeks to add a new article to the Federal Constitution. According to the official text and explanation of the initiative, the proposed constitutional rules would state that Swiss neutrality is perpetual and armed. It would also introduce several specific restrictions.

Military and defence alliances

Switzerland would not join a military or defence alliance.

More importantly, the initiative would also restrict cooperation with such alliances, except where Switzerland itself is under military attack or such an attack is being prepared. This distinction between membership and cooperation is significant.

Switzerland is currently not a member of NATO or another military alliance. The proposed change would go further by placing constitutional restrictions on cooperation with military or defence alliances outside the specified circumstances.

The Federal Council argues that international security cooperation often has to take place before a crisis occurs, because countries cannot necessarily wait until an attack begins before establishing cooperation, exchanging information or preparing joint responses.

Participation in military conflicts

The initiative would state that Switzerland should not take part in armed conflicts between third countries. This largely corresponds to an existing aspect of Swiss neutrality. Under the law of neutrality, a neutral state does not participate in armed conflicts between other states or provide military support to the parties involved. The Swiss government explains that the law of neutrality also restricts the use of Swiss territory and airspace by parties to a conflict.

The debate therefore centres less on whether Switzerland should directly participate in wars and more on whether these principles should be given a more restrictive constitutional framework that also limits areas where Switzerland currently has greater policy flexibility.

Sanctions: one of the biggest points of debate

One of the most important parts of the Neutrality Initiative concerns economic sanctions.

Under the proposed constitutional provision, Switzerland would not impose sanctions against warring parties, except for:

• sanctions decided by the United Nations, and
• measures intended to prevent the circumvention of sanctions.

This matters because Switzerland currently has the ability to adopt sanctions outside the United Nations framework.

The FDFA explains that the Embargo Act provides the legal basis for Switzerland to adopt sanctions, with the Federal Council deciding on a case-by-case basis whether adopting particular sanctions is in Switzerland’s interests. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Switzerland adopted most of the European Union’s sanctions against Russia. The Swiss government maintains that doing so is compatible with Swiss neutrality. The proposed initiative would significantly change that situation.

The FDFA’s current explanation says that, if the initiative were accepted, Switzerland would no longer be able to adopt sanctions directed against a belligerent state. It specifically notes that existing EU sanctions against Russia could therefore no longer be maintained in their current form against a belligerent state under the initiative’s wording.

This is one of the areas where the proposed constitutional rule would go beyond current Swiss practice.

What does “perpetual and armed neutrality” mean?

The wording can sound complicated, but the Swiss government’s explanation makes an important distinction.

Permanent or perpetual neutrality means that Switzerland commits to remaining neutral in international armed conflicts.

Armed neutrality means that Switzerland maintains the ability to defend its own territory and prevent its territory from being used for military purposes by parties to a conflict.

The FDFA’s explanation of Swiss neutrality states that armed neutrality means Switzerland is able and prepared to defend its territory, while permanent neutrality means that it does not participate in wars between states.

The initiative would therefore place these principles explicitly into the proposed new constitutional provision.

What does the Federal Council say about the Neutrality Initiative?

The Federal Council and Parliament oppose the initiative and have not proposed a counter-proposal.

Their position is that several elements of the initiative already correspond to Switzerland’s existing obligations and practices.

For example, the government states that:

• Switzerland is already permanently neutral.
• Switzerland does not join military or defence alliances.
• Switzerland does not participate in armed conflicts between third countries.
• Switzerland is already required to adopt UN sanctions because it is a UN member.
• Switzerland already uses its neutrality in its mediation and peace-related activities.

The government’s disagreement is therefore particularly focused on the additional restrictions the initiative would introduce, especially regarding security cooperation and sanctions.

The Federal Council argues that a more rigid constitutional framework could reduce Switzerland’s ability to respond to changing international circumstances and could restrict security cooperation with other countries.

Supporters of the initiative, meanwhile, are seeking a stricter constitutional definition of neutrality. Their position is that Switzerland’s neutrality should be more clearly protected and that the country’s participation in sanctions and security cooperation should be more tightly limited.

Why is neutrality such a big issue in Switzerland?

Neutrality is not simply a foreign-policy concept in Switzerland.

The FDFA notes that neutrality also has domestic political significance, with many people viewing it as an important part of Swiss identity. At the same time, Switzerland’s neutrality has always operated within an international legal and political environment.

The current debate has become particularly relevant following Switzerland’s decision to adopt EU sanctions against Russia after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Supporters of the initiative point to this development as evidence that Switzerland’s approach to neutrality needs to be tightened. The Federal Council and Parliament, by contrast, argue that the existing system allows Switzerland to remain neutral while retaining flexibility in foreign and security policy.

The Food Initiative: What is Switzerland voting on?

The second proposal on 27 September moves from international relations to something much closer to everyday life: food and agriculture.

The official name is the Federal Popular Initiative “For food security – through increased sustainable domestic production, more plant-based food and clean drinking water”.

The central idea is to increase Switzerland’s domestic food production while also changing some agricultural practices and improving environmental protection.

How much of Switzerland’s food is produced domestically?

According to the Swiss Federal Chancellery, Swiss agriculture currently meets just under half of the country’s food requirements, with the remainder being imported. The initiative seeks to increase domestic production substantially. Its headline target is that at least 70% of the food consumed in Switzerland should be produced domestically.

This target would be pursued over ten years after adoption. The initiative therefore combines two ideas: increasing the amount of food produced inside Switzerland and changing what types of food agriculture produces.

Why does the initiative focus on plant-based food?

The initiative calls for more plant-based food and less animal-based food production.

The reasoning presented by the initiative’s supporters is connected to the amount of agricultural land used for animal feed and livestock production.

According to SWI swissinfo.ch’s explainer, supporters argue that a significant share of Swiss agricultural land is used to produce animal feed. They say that shifting some of this land towards crops for direct human consumption could increase the amount of food produced for people.

Supporters also link the proposal to environmental concerns, including greenhouse-gas emissions, soil quality, water resources and biodiversity.

The official government description similarly states that producing more plant-based food would allow more people to be fed using the same amount of land.

What would happen to farming practices?

The Food Initiative does not only set a food-production target. It also proposes stronger environmental requirements.

These include:

• fewer plant-protection products
• fewer fertilisers
• stronger protection of drinking water
• protection of soil fertility
• protection of biodiversity
• greater emphasis on sustainable agricultural production

The initiative proposes achieving these objectives within ten years of its adoption. So the proposal is simultaneously about food security, agriculture and environmental protection.

Why do supporters say the 70% target matters?

Supporters argue that Switzerland’s reliance on imported food leaves it exposed to disruptions outside the country’s control.

According to SWI swissinfo.ch, supporters point to possible disruptions caused by events such as wars, trade disputes and extreme weather. Their argument is that increasing domestic production could give Switzerland greater resilience if international supply chains are disrupted. Supporters also connect the proposal to environmental concerns, arguing that reducing dependence on animal-based production and increasing plant-based production could improve resource use and reduce environmental pressures. What are opponents saying about the Food Initiative?

The Federal Council opposes the initiative, and the initiative was also rejected by Parliament. According to SWI swissinfo.ch, opponents include major agricultural and economic organisations. One of their main concerns is the 70% domestic food-production target.

Opponents argue that reaching this level within ten years may not be realistic given Switzerland’s geography, available agricultural land and existing production patterns.

Switzerland’s mountainous terrain is also part of the discussion. Opponents argue that in some areas, particularly mountainous regions, livestock farming is one of the few practical ways to use available agricultural land. The opposition campaign has also raised concerns about potential effects on food prices, consumer choice and cross-border shopping.

These are campaign arguments rather than established outcomes, and the actual effects would depend on how the constitutional requirements were subsequently implemented.

What does current polling show?

Because the vote is now only days away, polling has become part of the discussion.

A 16 September 2026 report by SWI swissinfo.ch, based on the second Swiss Broadcasting Corporation poll conducted by gfs.bern, reported that 63% of respondents said they intended to reject the Neutrality Initiative, 34% intended to support it and 3% were undecided.

For the Food Initiative, the same poll reported 64% intending to reject it, 33% intending to support it and 3% undecided. A separate Reuters report published on 16 September cited two polls showing majority opposition to the Neutrality Initiative, with the reported figures differing between pollsters.

These figures are polling measurements, not results. They represent stated voting intentions at particular points in time and should not be treated as a prediction of the final result.

What happens after the vote?

The outcome of each popular initiative will determine whether the proposed constitutional changes are accepted.

For the Neutrality Initiative, an acceptance would mean the proposed stricter neutrality provisions would become part of the constitutional framework, with the relevant rules then requiring implementation.

For the Food Initiative, an acceptance would establish the constitutional objectives concerning domestic food production, plant-based food, environmental protection, drinking water, soil and biodiversity, with the targets to be pursued over the following ten years.

The precise implementation of constitutional provisions would subsequently involve legislation and government action.

If either initiative is rejected, the proposed constitutional amendment would not enter into force.

The Federal Chancellery’s official vote page will provide the official information and, once available, the official result.

Two Votes, Two Very Different Questions

The 27 September vote brings together two subjects that might initially appear unrelated.

The Neutrality Initiative asks voters to consider whether Switzerland should place a stricter definition of neutrality into its Constitution, including restrictions on military and defence cooperation and sanctions against belligerent states.

The Food Initiative asks voters to consider a constitutional framework aimed at increasing domestic food production to at least 70% of consumption, encouraging more plant-based production and strengthening protections for drinking water, soil and biodiversity.

Both proposals therefore involve questions that extend beyond a single policy decision. One concerns Switzerland’s place in the international security and political system, while the other concerns how the country produces food and manages agricultural resources.

---

Would you like to join our growing community? Join us here.

To read some of our recent posts, click here

Are you interested in meeting, connecting, and collaborating with Women across Switzerland, check out “With Purpose“.

Would you like to be featured on My Swiss Story? Read this and Apply today!

Get in touch with us: About | Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow us on Social Media: Instagram | LinkedIn

---