Has Switzerland tricked the vegan community? The truth about the new Swiss animal product labelling laws.

Switzerland has just introduced new animal welfare labelling laws that will force companies to write on packaging if certain farming practices have been inflicted on animals. However, while this has been met with huge amounts of praise online, including from vegans, is there more to this story that we might be missing?

In today's episode, I discuss my thoughts around the new labelling laws, highlighting what is positive about them, while also explaining why I think we should be more cautious about how we are viewing them.

For more exclusive content and personal writing from me, check out my Substack here.

On my Substack, I share not only my own reflections and personal thoughts on veganism, but also my journey and struggles. You’ll get a deeper insight into the issues that matter most to me and, in doing so, I hope it helps you feel more connected to your own veganism as well. It’s a space where we can connect and explore the intersection of compassion, reason and rationality together. By joining my Substack you also support the work that I do!

Through my Substack you can also receive regular free 'Good News Roundups' - a collection of positive and inspiring stories from the world of veganism.

If you’d like to support my work separately to Substack, you can also make a one-off or monthly donation here or through my PayPal.

If you’re interested in reading my books, you can find them here:

📚 My latest book How to Argue With a Meat Eater (And Win Every Time) + if you’ve read the book, you can leave a review here!

📚 My first book This is Vegan Propaganda (& Other Lies the Meat Industry Tells You).

Additionally, if you enjoyed this episode, I’d be so grateful if you could leave a review or rating. Your feedback helps the podcast reach more people, and it truly means a lot to me. If you think this episode would resonate with someone you know, please share it with them too.

Thank you so much for listening to this episode and for all of your support. I look forward to speaking to you again in the next episode!

Transcript

SPEAKER_00: 0:00

So a new law has just come into effect in Switzerland, which changes how certain animal products must be labeled. And importantly, it states that certain animal products that come from animals that have gone through certain procedures, those procedures must be listed on the animal products in question. The point of this new law is to increase transparency for consumers and to highlight which animal products contain some of the worst forms of animal cruelty found in animal farming. A lot of vegan organizations and vegans This is the Disclosure Podcast. Welcome to the Disclosure Podcast. If you enjoy this episode and the work that I'm doing here, then please consider checking out my sub stack where I post regular articles. You can also support my work by becoming a paid member of my sub stack through which you will also gain access to weekly articles or by making a donation through my website. Links for everything can be found in this episode's show notes. For those of you who do support my work, thank you so much. I am incredibly grateful and appreciate it very much. Leaving a review for this podcast is also really helpful and encourages more people to listen to it. I hope you find this episode interesting and informative and thank you for listening. So let's talk about these new labeling laws that have been introduced in Switzerland. They were introduced in July this year, but there's a two-year transitional period. So as far as I understand it, these labels haven't been updated yet. I tried to find an example of these labels in a supermarket in Switzerland or in a business in Switzerland, but they don't seem to be there yet because there's this transitional period, which is there to give these companies and these retailers enough chance to update their supply chains or to find out If these practices that are now needing to come with a written label are being carried out in their supply chain so that they can update their packaging. And I suppose deal with the practical aspects of what this change will mean for businesses in Switzerland. So as far as I understand it, we don't yet have any photographs or any images which show exactly how this will look like. on packaging, but we do have a good idea of what it needs to involve on packaging. So essentially, these new laws have been introduced, which are there to try and increase transparency for consumers in Switzerland. That's the idea anyway. And for example, I'll read out exactly what this law states. Essentially, if any animal products come from systems that use the practice I'm just about to describe, it needs to say so on the packaging for those animal products. So When I read that for the first time, I was shocked. I mean... If you'd asked me before I came across this if an aesthetic would need to be involved, I would have presumed no, because surely the frogs have been killed. I mean, if you're taking the legs off them, they're not going to survive. So surely they'd be killed before the legs are removed from them. But apparently that's not necessarily the case, and it's actually widespread for frogs to have their legs removed while they're alive, and then are just discarded to die. Sometimes being a vegan means you... come across things which just really reaffirm to you how terrible the situation is. I mean, what are we doing as a species? What are we doing as a species where we even need to try and stop people from pulling the legs off live frogs without anesthetic? I mean, it shouldn't be happening at all. And at the very, very, very least, you'd think the frogs would have been killed beforehand. And actually, there's something quite disturbing about this, which is they're not even saying, oh, the law is that you have to kill the frogs before you remove their legs. This new piece of legislation is just saying that consumers should know if anesthetic was used on these live frogs as their legs were removed. I mean, when you think about it that way, the idea that this law is helpful for frogs, at least, becomes a little bit... suspect to me because surely at a bare minimum it should be stop stop the the live dismemberment of frogs that would at least be the most basic minimum you would imagine because painkillers and pain relief i don't know how long they're alive for but they might not feel pain but does that take away emotional suffering does that take away fear and anxiety and terror I'm not so sure if it does, right? I mean, you could give someone anesthetic, but if they're still conscious, if their legs have been removed and they're dying, bleeding to death, that's still not a humane experience. It's still not a kind of compassionate experience. So I do think it's quite interesting with the frog example, because to me, that clearly shows that the idea that this labeling is all encompassing of animal cruelty and suffering, Well, that's just clearly not the case, is it? Because even with this progressive or so-called progressive labeling, people in Switzerland can buy frog's legs and they only have to be informed if those frog legs came from frogs who were dismembered without anesthetic. What are we doing? How repugnant, how repulsive, how clearly wrong is that? I just, I find myself so disappointed. And I've been vegan now for a decade, but... You still come across things that shock you, which is mind-blowing because you'd presume that after 10 years of being in this community, of living with an awareness around all of the terrible things that are happening to animals, you'd think that you'd have a good grasp of all of these things. And yet, you still find things that just completely... shock you in the worst way. Just fill your stomach with this pit of disappointment. And so when I read that, I was like, why is this even something that needs to be on a label? Surely this is just redundant. And then I looked into it and I was like, actually, this isn't redundant necessarily because frogs are dismembered while alive. I mean, how awful. And the final thing that needs to be noted on labels is for foie gras, which is if the foie gras comes from force-fed ducks or geese. Now what's interesting is force-feeding geese is banned in Switzerland, but of course imports from places like France still mean that people in Switzerland can buy foie gras that comes from animals who are force-fed. Much like in the UK, we have banned foie gras farming and we have banned fur farming in the UK. They've been banned for a long, long time. And yet we can still import them, which is kind of completely nonsensical. It's the same with gestation crates for pigs. They're outlawed in the UK. And While I don't often find myself siding with animal farmers, I do actually find myself siding with them in this example, because animal farmers in Britain will often say, well, why is it fair that we have these laws imposed on us? But then retailers or businesses can just import these products from abroad where these laws are allowed. And in essence, what we're saying is these things are so terrible that they need to be outlawed. but they're not so terrible that we can't import them and consume them that way instead. And it just doesn't make any sense at all. And that's one of those examples where I kind of go, these farmers here in the UK have got a pretty good point. I mean, why do they have these laws applied to them? But apparently for the wider society, this isn't enough of a problem that we should stop buying them or that we shouldn't be allowed to buy them, that retailers shouldn't be legally allowed to stock them. It doesn't make any sense at all. I suppose what's interesting about the examples that I've just listed, the ones that this Swiss law pertains to and involves, these things aren't allowed in Switzerland. So actually, these processes are not ones that occur in Switzerland, or at least shouldn't be occurring in Switzerland. And I think that opens up a really interesting question, which is what's the motivation behind these laws then? Now, before I get into that, I do want to stress something, which is, It is important that we as a community look at things and find positivity in things. And we look at new laws and we say, wow, okay, that's good for this reason and that reason. And we should find positive things where they are. But I do also think that we have to be cautious and mindful that we don't overstate the positivity of something or that we don't misrepresent something. Now, the reason I say misrepresent something is because there has been a lot of conversation online from vegan outlets, vegans in general, sort of talking about these laws. And I think... that some of the ways that we've approached this conversation has overstated what these laws are. For example, I'm going to read you just a quote from one such outlet. It doesn't really matter who it is because it's not their fault necessarily. This is just kind of a general overview of how this law has been covered, let's say. But I just thought it kind of summarized quite nicely. When I say nicely, I think it summarizes well, maybe the point I'm trying to make here, which is that we've got to be careful with how we word this and how we sort of say that the law is and what it means. So for example, this particular outlet said, the Swiss government has approved new labeling laws that mandate businesses to declare if the meat and dairy products they're selling are linked to animal suffering. So all animal products then. Every single one of them, right? Because all meat and dairy products are linked to animal suffering. So therefore, every single one must contain a written statement saying that this product contains animal suffering. But that's not what's happening. We've gone through the examples, and these examples are the absolute worst things you could think of. Castrating pigs without anesthetic. I mean, it's just... It's so deplorable. So it's not that this labeling means that all products now have to carry this label saying that they contain animal suffering. It's actually a select few. And it's about things that are just the absolute worst. I mean, factory farming and intensive farming is absolutely despicable and awful. But even within systems of factory farming, there are some things that take it that next level, that go that step beyond, like dismembering frogs or dehorning cattle without... any pain relief. So, This isn't the case. It's not that all meat and dairy products, or it's not that businesses are being mandated to declare animal suffering. It's the absolute worst of the worst of the worst of the worst have to declare six things, you know, have to go through sort of a list of six or seven requirements to make sure their animal products don't come from these systems or don't have these practices inflicted on animals within them. And I'm not criticizing the way that's been reported by these organizations in a way that is meant to reflect badly on these organizations and outlets who've reported on it in this way. But I just think that what happens often is maybe a statement gets shared around or one organization might lead with a headline, or there might be a press release that gets put out there that has a certain type of wording. And then that wording gets used over and over again, or that phrasing gets used over and over again. And sometimes the phrasing isn't investigated enough to make sure that it covers all the nuances and details of the particular law in question. So when we say, There's new rules that mandate businesses to declare if the meat and dairy products they're selling are linked to animal suffering. We're actually sort of implying to the reader that this is going to be this big, all-encompassing thing where these labels are going to be everywhere on animal products when that's not really the case. And what's interesting about Switzerland, which I just sort of mentioned, is that many of these things are already illegal in Switzerland. So these sort of written statements are not going to apply to Swiss farmed products. So there's an interesting incentive there for Switzerland and Swiss farmers when it comes to these labeling laws themselves. Now, does that mean that it's bad? No, I don't think it's necessarily bad because obviously if you are in Switzerland and you have the choice between buying pigs that were castrated with painkillers or without, obviously with painkillers is better, but just because we can buy products that came from pigs that were castrated with painkillers doesn't mean doing so is the ethically right thing to do however undeniably it is better and obviously undeniably a system of farming that didn't have these things that i've listed included in it would be preferable to one that does so from that perspective from a suffering perspective yes there are lots of positives about this. And I'm not saying that this is a wholly negative law. I think there are lots of reasons why we should feel positive about this law because it might reduce the demand in Switzerland for these products. And maybe, just maybe, it might incentivize certain companies and businesses outside of Switzerland to try and stop these practices as a consequence of their sales maybe being impacted in Switzerland. Maybe the foie gras one's a good example because there are lots of French-speaking people in Switzerland who have a lot of French culture within their own Swiss French culture. And obviously foie gras is a part of that as well. And so maybe if sales of foie gras start dipping in some of these French speaking areas, that might encourage French producers of foie gras to change their standards. But that will only work if there's a financial incentive. So then the question becomes, will foie gras farmers in France see the financial benefit of switching to a non-force feeding system, which will have tighter margins and make them less money, but in doing so, maybe open up a little bit more of that market in Switzerland? It really depends how consumers respond. And that's kind of the interesting thing about this. It depends how consumers respond. These things aren't being banned. They're just being labeled to consumers. And I think if we really wanted a progressive law, then that law should be that foie gras imports are banned, that the imports of these products are banned. Why are they available to consumers? Just ban them. I mean, are people in Switzerland really in favor of castration without pain relief and dehorning without pain relief? I doubt it. I don't think it would cause a huge problem. But then of course there's trade issues and there's issues with allies in France or in Belgium or in Italy or wherever it might be where some of these practices might be occurring, unlike in Switzerland. So there are reasons to feel positive and there is a good way of looking at this, which means that we shouldn't view it as being a negative thing. There are positives ultimately to be found in it. But I guess what I'm interested in is not necessarily that side of things, but more how we as a community should approach them. And do we have a sort of contradictory mindset between this legislation and maybe just welfare laws in general, because this is labeling, but it's animal welfare labeling. So it's a welfare law at its heart, isn't it? And what's interesting about this particular law is what we're used to when it comes to labeling is we're used to animal products saying what they are. In other words, saying we're high welfare, we're free range, we're organic. And we're used to these terms being used as a marketing ploy. And the thing that's quite unique about this is It's one of the only times where animal products have to state when they're doing things which they don't want the consumers to know. Because normally it's the other way around. They want consumers to know, oh, this is free range. This is organic. So they tell consumers. And if it's not, they just don't say anything. So it's quite interesting in this case because it is a little bit of a different way of approaching labeling laws. But it's not the only time. There is another example, which is eggs. In the UK, for example, if you buy a carton of eggs, it should contain a number. 0, 1, 2, or 3. 0 is organic, 1 is free-range, 2 is barn, 3 is caged. And so essentially that number should tell the consumer what system of farming these eggs came from. Now, of course, a number is not very clear, and you have to know that. If you don't know it, these numbers don't mean anything. You probably just think they're there for... sort of a supply chain or sort of batch numbers or whatever it might be, you probably don't think, oh, this is about the system of farming where these eggs came from. So numbers are not particularly clear, but of course the written description of it is far clearer. So there is a difference. So it's not the first time that there has to be something on packaging which tells the consumer about the system of farming, but it is the first time, as far as I understand it, where there's something sort of written in black and white terms, this product contains or comes from a farm where this happened to the animals, if that's exactly how it will be phrased, something along those lines. So it is quite good in that way, and it will be really interesting to see how this changes consumer behavior. But what's my worry then? Why do I feel... Why do I feel a little bit hesitant about how the vegan community has sometimes been approaching this? I think because it's not necessarily as transformative as we want it to be. I think a lot of people have probably perceived it as being something that is along the lines of, oh, businesses have been mandated to show that animal suffering was involved in the supply chain. This is big, this is huge, this will do something really massive. But that's not really necessarily what it is. It's these select examples. And if you're in Switzerland, for example, and you're a Swiss animal product consumer, what does this incentivize you to do? Does it incentivize you to go vegan? No, it doesn't incentivize you to go vegan. It incentivizes you to buy animal products that don't have these problems found in the supply chain, which would be Swiss animal products. This is a nationalistic piece of legislation, which at its core is there to incentivize consumers to buy Swiss animal products. It's kind of like the red tractor label in the UK. Now as a vegan community, we think the retroactive label is terrible and it is, but why is it terrible? Well, it's terrible because it's welfare washing, because it's trying to convince consumers that these products are ethical, when they're not, and because it doesn't really mean anything. I mean, the red tractor laws by and large are just the legal requirements. So essentially when you see a red tractor logo and a piece of meat in the UK, it's essentially telling you two things, that that animal product came from an animal raised and slaughtered in the UK, and that that animal was raised to legal standards. That's more or less what it's telling you. There might be some small discrepancies and nuances, but fundamentally the core of red tractor legislation is just government legislation anyway so it doesn't really mean anything but then if these labels that will be on swiss animal products are about alerting consumers to products that were imported from abroad and as a consequence are incentivizing people to buy swiss produced products because those swiss produced products by law can't contain the things that will be listed on the label is it not essentially doing something similar to Red Tractor, which is trying to get consumers to buy the animal products produced in that country? And if we think that Red Tractor's terrible, why don't we think this is something we should view a bit more skeptically? We might say, well, the reason is because it's good that it's written down as a statement. And yes, that does separate it, and it does make it better to a Red Tractor label. But the Red Tractor label... if you look at it in this way, will tell you something similar. The red tractor label also tells you that that animal product came from an animal who, wasn't castrated without pain relief. Because actually castration in pigs in the UK is not common practice. We slaughter them a little bit earlier. The reason that pigs are castrated is because of something called boar taint, which taints the meat and makes it not very appetizing for a consumer. So in many countries, they castrate the pigs to stop this boar taint from happening. But in the UK, we slaughter them a little earlier so as to avoid the castration and the boar taint. So if you're buying red tractor British pork products, then you're also buying products that came from pigs who didn't have to go through castration without pain relief or anesthetic. And I think the issue with kind of welfare labels in general, the idea of this is it creates transparency in the mind of a consumer, but it's not really about that. The idea is that it creates the connotation that animal products that don't carry this written warning are ethical as a consequence of not carrying this written warning. Now, again, Is it good that people are buying that over something worse? Yes. And is it good, therefore, that people are buying red tractor meat in the UK over meat that might have been imported from an animal who did go through these things in the country where they were raised? Well, by that logic, yes. So I do think we have to be somewhat cautious about how we're approaching this, because I don't want us as a community to fall into the trap of reaffirming perhaps the more dangerous consequence of this labeling law. It's a movement in the right direction, but it's a movement in the right direction that's not necessarily coming because of a view of trying to protect animals, but a view of trying to push Swiss animal farming. Now you might say, well, Ed, why are they doing this? And I think there is a really interesting reason why they might be doing this. There was a referendum that took place in Switzerland back in 2022, I believe. In Switzerland, they have something called direct democracy. And essentially what that means is that if you get enough people in Switzerland to sign a proposed referendum, you can actually have the country vote on that referendum. It's not necessarily something that has to go through the same parliamentary routes that we have in other countries, like in the UK, for example. It creates a little bit more powerful for the public in Switzerland. And so back in 2022, there was a referendum in Switzerland because of this direct democracy they have, which was about banning factory farming in Switzerland. In the end, the referendum was rejected by about 63% of people. So there was a 63% majority of people who voted against it. So factory farming has not been banned in Switzerland. But what I think is quite interesting is 63% is not necessarily a small majority for a referendum. 13% is a smallish number, relatively speaking, but it's also quite a large number often in political terms. So it's not that it was on a knife's edge when the vote actually happened and the results came through. But I do think it's quite notable that 37% of people in Switzerland voted against this. I mean, 37% of Switzerland is not vegan, not even vegan vegetarian. So clearly there was a number of people, a not so insignificant number of people who voted for this referendum who consume animal products and probably buy animal products that do come from factory farms. but they're probably ideologically opposed to it. But when they're in the supermarket, they're not necessarily making decisions based on that ideological position, let's say. So I think it's quite interesting because you would think that a referendum like that would maybe be 90% of people vote against it because 90% of people are buying animal products regularly and want to consume them. And it would be a much smaller percentage of people who would vote in favor of banning factory farming. So why do you think For this example, 37% is not such a small minority. And if direct democracy means that you can have a referendum again in the future, what's to say if in 15 years time or 20 years time, that 13% of people have sort of changed their position? I mean, by that point, there'll be more younger people who have passed the voting age, who are potentially more progressive, more open-minded, more in keeping with the sort of principles of veganism. You know, maybe there are more open-minded to animal rights or even just the environment. There is a lot that can happen in 10, 15, 20 years which might take that 13% majority and flip it. And if you're a Swiss animal farmer or you're the Swiss agricultural industry or the Swiss government and animal products are a big part of the economy and there are lots of lobbying efforts and there's lots of ties related to governments and agriculture like there are in countries all over the world, perhaps this referendum was a bit of a warning. Not because it's changed anything right now, but because maybe in 10, 15, 20 years, it could change. And if you're an animal rights organization in Switzerland, this is a really great incentive for you to say, there's actually something here that we can go for. And if we push this and we keep pushing factory farming and we keep doing exposés and we keep releasing footage and we keep showing people and we keep the pressure up, maybe we can change that 13% of people over the course of a decade or two. So if this referendum, has happened like it has. And there's a potential warning here. What do you want to do if you're Swiss agriculture or the Swiss government, let's say, what is it that you might be interested in doing to try and stop this from happening again or to stop this shift from maybe occurring in the way that I just described? We want people to get behind Swiss animal farming. You want to increase the positive sentiment to Swiss animal farming. You want people to think more favorably of Swiss animal farming. What could be one way that you do that? Well, you create a very clear distinction in the minds of the consumer between Swiss animal farming and non-Swiss animal farming. How do you do that? You create a clear distinction which highlights all the terrible practices that don't necessarily happen in Swiss animal farming. So now if you're a Swiss consumer, you might be thinking, well, I'm not going to buy these products. These are terrible. But in Switzerland, we don't do that. In Switzerland, we don't do that. How often do we hear this? Oh, in the UK, we don't do that. In Switzerland, we don't do that. It's so interesting to me how this potential mechanism has played out. Now, I'm not saying that's definitely what has happened. I'm not saying that this referendum caused a conversation where they said, maybe we should do something about this. Could this be a problem in the future? I'm not saying that that is something that has happened. I don't know if it has, but I do think it's interesting that there was this referendum that a not so insignificant minority of people voted in favor of banning factory farming. And now we have labeling laws, which at their core are going to promote Swiss animal farming and make it seem more favorable than it really should be viewed as being. Switzerland does have some of the best animal welfare laws in the world. So does the UK. But what we know is those animal welfare laws don't actually really mean anything. Just because you're better than Russia or China or the US or the worst countries in the world when it comes to animal welfare does not in and of itself mean that what you're doing is good. Just because the UK is not as bad as Texas does not mean that what happens in the UK is ethical as a consequence. So I do think it's... I do think it's really important that we maintain that because for animals and Swiss farms, their suffering is not being alleviated just because consumers might feel more favorably towards their suffering and exploitation. There is another element to this as well, which is a law is only as good as its enforcement. And To find out about the enforcement of such a law, I think it's interesting to maybe compare it to another labeling requirement that has existed in Switzerland, I think since 2013. And those labeling laws are about the species of animal, the origin of those animals. So when you're buying a fur item, you should be told what the species is and where the animal came from. So this law was looked into. And what was interesting is the Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office did some inspections. And what they found is that there was a 79% rate of noncompliance. 79, so nearly 80%. They carried out 180 inspections and 142 of them showed noncompliance. So then the question becomes, well, what happened? You know, if these places were shown to be not compliant, what was the punishment? Well, this is where it gets interesting again. 110 of these cases were rectified within the time limit. So presumably what that means is that the inspections were carried out, noncompliance was found, and the inspectors said, you have X number of weeks, X number of months, whatever it might be, to sort this out, to get rid of this animal product from your supply chain, to make sure this fur is correctly labeled or no longer being stocked. And 110, so the majority of the businesses, did that. So what does that mean? It means there's no punishment. It means that these businesses were not compliant, either through neglect, incompetence, or deliberately. And all they had to do was just stop stocking that product or update the label to reflect the labeling laws. So there's no punishment for that. And then it becomes more interesting again. So then you have 32 cases where they say orders were issued. So in other words, the time limit expired. The correct procedures were not followed. So now the FSVO step in and they say, all right, we're gonna put an order on you. In other words, you need to do something about that. So 32 issues were ordered. And of those 32, there were four criminal proceedings that were instituted. So after the orders were issued, four of those places either decided, hey, We don't think this is fair. We want to maybe go to a criminal proceeding because we believe that what we're doing is acceptable. We don't believe it's our fault. We don't believe we need to change. So maybe these four places, rather than just be negligent or purposefully refusing to change, maybe decided that they had grounds to try and appeal and go through a slightly longer process with them. And what's interesting is we don't know the outcome of those four criminal proceedings. We don't know if there was any criminal misconduct found or if the cases were dropped. That wasn't published as far as I can see online. So we have a huge amount of noncompliance when it comes to fur labeling. The vast majority of those result in no punishment whatsoever. And four go to criminal proceedings of which we don't know what the outcomes were. And we also don't know if those outcomes just were fines. Because when these labeling laws have been breached, the first port of call is to try and get the business to update their labels, to reflect the law. And if they don't, it might be a fine. So then the question becomes, let's say they're a business, a restaurant in Switzerland. And let's say that you're selling foie gras that comes from force-fed duck and geese, and it's cheaper for you to buy because it comes from these terrible farms. And you're thinking to yourself, right, if I'm inspected, all I have to do is say, okay, I'll change. that might provide you with an incentive not to do it because it's self-regulated, this labeling law. It's up to the businesses themselves to do the due diligence and declare it. And then we hope that there's going to be audits and inspections to make sure that these laws and labels are actually being fulfilled in the way that they need to be. So what does this really mean? Well, if there's been noncompliance before, will there be noncompliance again? Quite possibly. And if noncompliance is found, what will happen? Well, probably not a great deal. A slap on the wrist and a don't do it again. But it doesn't necessarily provide a huge amount of drive, let's say, for businesses to maybe be as scrupulous as they need to be when it comes to these things. And there is an extra layer of this, which is these products have been imported from abroad. In the case of Frog's Legs, they might be being imported from Vietnam. So then there's an extra layer of complication in this, which is you might have a Swiss organization doing these inspections and it might say, yes, don't worry, these pigs are fine. We ticked this box or filled out this form. And yes, the frogs are from here and it's fine. We've been given assurances. But do these Swiss authorities have... the legal jurisdiction to go to Vietnam and make sure the farms are in compliance, or to go to Spain and make sure that the pigs are receiving pain relief when they're castrated. I don't think they do, right? That would be a potential legal battle with the other countries where these potential inspectors don't have the jurisdiction to go and do inspections on these farms. And so then the question becomes, well, how do we know? How can we be certain that with these labeling laws, there even is compliance? And how can we know for certain that the products being sold in Swiss businesses are actually compliant with these laws? Because they might just be ticking a box because the suppliers in Vietnam and they've emailed the supplier or contacted the supplier and say, hey, you don't do this, do you? And the supplier says, no, of course we don't do that. But no one's checking. No one knows that it's not in the interest of the supplier in a different country around the world, to be honest, necessarily, because they're not breaking the law where they live. So there's not a legal consequence for them for doing it. And there's not necessarily a legal consequence for the business in Switzerland if they just tick the box and then say, well, we were told it's fine. What then happens? How do you really get to the bottom of this compliance? becomes quite tricky, doesn't it? But these labels might then not be being applied to products where they should. And we're trusting that because we're trusting the industry to self-regulate. And this is an industry that has a long, long history of being very, very bad at self-regulating. Whether or not the restaurants in Switzerland want to be compliant, whether or not the retail stores in Switzerland want to be compliant, that doesn't necessarily mean that suppliers in other countries will be compliant for them. Because if you've got a big Swiss retailer reaching out to you and saying, hey, just so you know, we might stop stocking these products if you do these things. If you're a big farming organization in a place in Asia or even in a place somewhere else in Europe, you might just want to say, hey, yeah, it's fine, don't worry. We have made sure that these things don't happen. Or don't worry, we have these guidelines which say that they shouldn't happen. Because here's another thing, there might be guidelines in certain countries, but those guidelines might not be being adhered to. In the UK, for example, tail docking isn't supposed to be done as a routine procedure on piglets, but it is. Because the guidelines state that it should only be carried out in special circumstances or in certain circumstances. It just means it's being carried out all the time because it's not being made illegal. I know that might all sound a little bit negative, and I don't mean it to be. I do think these laws are good, and I do think this labeling is important, and I am really interested to see if it pushes the dial, if it maybe changes consumer habits, because if it does, that's great, and it's important to know. My apprehension is more about how we are representing them, generally speaking, and if we might be overstating them. And from the perspective of veganism, what I think is interesting is the high court in Switzerland has just ruled, or recently ruled, that vegan products can't be labeled as being chickens. You can't say vegan chicken or vegan beef or vegan pork, which is a really regressive way of viewing food labeling. So on the one hand, we want to increase transparency for consumers, but then on the other hand, we don't want consumers to be able to buy a product that says vegan chicken or vegan beef. And what's interesting about that is studies have shown that when products aren't allowed to use words like chicken and beef when they're plant-based, it actually confuses consumers more. I mean, the point of these words is to create an idea in the mind of the consumer about what the product is. The reason we say vegan chicken is so that a consumer thinks, ah, this is a plant-based version of chicken, so I can cook with it like I would animal chicken. Or if this is vegan beef, I can think of this in the same way that I might do beef and marinate it and cook it and use it in the same recipes that I would beef. That's the point of those labels is to allow the consumer to know what they're buying. And studies show that when you deny that to consumers, it actually increases consumer confusion. And so that's not increasing transparency for consumers. So you have this sort of contradiction where it's like, this labeling law for these animal products is to help consumers make more ethical choices and to increase transparency because we care about consumers. But at the same time, we also have a law that bans plant-based companies from using words like chicken and beef. That's a contradiction. So why is there a contradiction there? Is it to try and stifle vegan products? Well, why would you want to do that? Why would Switzerland want to stop vegan products from being as competitive in the marketplace? Especially for a company like Planted, which is a Swiss plant-based food company. If you're trying to stop a Swiss plant-based food company from saying chicken and beef, who does that protect in Switzerland? animal farmers. And so what's interesting about both of these pieces of legislation is that they're contradictory, but they do one thing, which is they protect Swiss animal farmers. So I do think that this legislation is ultimately a positive thing in many, many regards. And I don't think that it's bad that it's been introduced. That's not what I'm trying to say. But I guess what I'm trying to say is i think that the way that we as vegans approach it should be perhaps with more caution than i've seen from different places and from different people that's not to say that we shouldn't view the positive things as being positive when they arise absolutely but i don't think that we should jump on something and view it as being more positive than it is because we might then overstate it and i think that for a non-vegan if they come across some of the way that ways that this has been reported on, their impression might be that in Switzerland, there's going to be these really vast or encompassing labeling laws, which are going to tell everyone which products have animal cruelty and which don't. But we as vegans know that all animal products have animal cruelty. That's why we're vegan, because all animal products come from animal exploitation and are cruel to animals. That's why we're vegan and not welfarists who buy high welfare meats. So I think that the way that we approach this should be a little bit more cautious because at the end of the day, I don't think that these labeling laws are being introduced really to help animals. I think they're being introduced to protect Swiss farming and to incentivize consumers to opt for Swiss animal products over imported ones. And I think at its core, that's what it is. I hope I've not created an overly negative view. I've just tried to, in my mind at least, create a more balanced view and a more nuanced view that reflects the way that I've been feeling about it. But now I would really love to know what you think in the comments. So let me know down below if you think that what I've said is is potentially true. If you share some of these concerns and worries that I have, or maybe you disagree with me and you think that I've maybe overthought about it, I've ruminated too much on it and I'm approaching it in a way that's potentially unfair. Maybe I've missed something, a crucial detail, which changes something. Please do let me know down below in the comments because this is one of those conversations where I think it's really interesting for us as a community to get a broader view of what we all think about it because it is interesting and it's also quite complex, I think. So I would love to know what you all think as well so I can change my view or update my view or solidify my view depending on what you all say. So yeah, let me know, please. I would love to find out. I'm very eager to find out. Anyway, thank you so much for listening. I really do appreciate it. And I look forward to speaking to all of you in the next podcast episode. Thank you so much for listening. If you've enjoyed this episode, make sure to subscribe to the Disclosure Podcast on whichever platform you listen to it, as doing so means that you can always stay up to date with new episodes. Leaving a review and sharing the podcast is also really helpful. And if you'd like to support the podcast and my work more generally, you can either make a donation through the link in the show notes or sign up to my sub stack where I post weekly and share my thoughts and feelings about the experience of living vegan. In the show notes, you can also find links to purchase my books. Thank you again for listening.