Can the environmental goals of Switzerland be fullfilled within the dietary recommendations
The new Swiss dietary recommendations, if implemented with environmental awareness, could contribute to reducing environmental impacts. However, they leave a lot of decision-making power to consumers. Therefore, the recommendations alone will not be sufficient to achieve the already decided environmental goals, such as significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental impacts must also be reduced at the level of food production. The process for environmentally conscious production and consumption must therefore be more clearly promoted politically.
Background
ESU-services has been investigating the environmental impacts of food consumption for 25 years. In 2021, we were involved in a project to present the recommendations.
In the context of the project, the Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO) stated in November 2021 that the focus of the updated Swiss dietary recommendations would be on balanced nutrition to promote health and prevent non-communicable diseases. Sustainability (ecological) is an aspect of this and will be considered as long as it does not conflict with health goals.
In various contributions and channels, ESU-services has tried to convince the FSVO that environment and health should no longer be played off against each other. Environmental protection is also health protection, as many diseases and premature deaths can be attributed to general environmental pollution.
Due to the statement, expectations regarding this aspect for the new recommendations were rather low. However, more recent statements that indicate a certain rethinking have piqued our curiosity.
The FSVO, which formulates the recommendations, wrote according to NZZ on August 22, 2025: "Nutrition has an impact on both health and the environment. Since about one-third of greenhouse gases are caused by the food sector, it was necessary to include this aspect in the new dietary recommendations."
When publishing the new recommendations, the FSVO wrote: "The Swiss dietary recommendations encompass a holistic approach: the consumption of fresh and healthy foods, health promotion, and sustainability."
And "We need to start viewing nutrition as an ecosystem where humans, animals, and the environment are equally considered and respected." Yasmin Matthys, Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office, September 12, 2025.
This raises whether the new dietary recommendations adequately consider environmental aspects. ESU-services, with the support of WWF Switzerland and Greenpeace, has developed a life cycle assessment and evaluation of the new Swiss dietary recommendations.
What's new in the Swiss Dietary recommendations?
On September 11, 2025, the new Swiss dietary recommendations were published. It makes sense to look at them in the original long version and not judge them based on media releases or newspaper reviews. Much seems similar to before, but in detail, there are changes that open the door to more environmentally conscious nutrition. It was already known that strict adherence to all recommendations can significantly reduce environmental impacts compared to current consumption. This remains the case, and the recommendations are therefore important to take the right direction.
The new recommendations are formulated more openly than before. The most important adjustments from an environmental perspective are:
- Meat consumption in Switzerland is significantly too high and therefore unhealthy. This is emphasized with the formulation of a maximum of 2-3 servings per week (previously it was said 2-3 servings are enough). There is no longer any reason to politically promote meat consumption in Switzerland, as it is known to be associated with high environmental impacts.
- For fish, the conflicts between environmental and health aspects are pointed out, and alternatives are shown. The amount recommended for health in the long version does not seem justifiable from an environmental perspective for the landlocked country of Switzerland.
- For dairy products, there is new criticism of the high consumption of animal fats (butter and cream). It is also better shown that there are alternatives such as soy milk that can meet the requirements for a healthy diet. The recommendations for 2-3 servings of dairy products are quantitatively in line with current consumption. Here, too, a reduction with plant-based alternatives would be necessary from an environmental perspective. Soy milk is explicitly mentioned as an alternative to cow's milk in the recommendations.
- The general statement that nuts "generally do not have a good environmental balance" is unconvincing. This is technically incorrect and must be relativized based on this LCA study. Especially regarding omega-3 fatty acids, nuts are an environmentally friendly alternative that causes only about half the environmental impacts of animal products per amount. It also seems appropriate for the FSVO to consider foods such as nuts in relation to their consumed quantities and nutrient contents, as in our scientific basis study, and not simply per kilogram as in the dietary recommendations.
- Processed milk and meat substitutes cannot be condemned per se from an environmental and health perspective. A differentiated view of ingredients (health) or food waste, energy consumption and packaging (environment) is necessary.
- The importance of exercise for health is also emphasized. It is not enough to just eat healthily. The reference to integrating exercise such as walking and cycling as alternatives to means of transport like cars is a step in the right direction from an environmental perspective. From an environmental perspective, this exercise should be integrated into everyday life as much as possible and not cause additional environmental impacts, such as visiting a gym.
What greenhouse gas emissions are caused by nutrition according to the recommendations?
The core of the present study by ESU-services is a life cycle assessment for various dietary styles and recommendations. The environmental impact of Swiss nutrition can be examined from different perspectives with different system boundaries. The present greenhouse gas emissions are calculated according to these accounting approaches to about 1.8 to 2.2 tons of CO2-eq per capita and year (t/p/a).
Dietary recommendations start from a different point in the accounting and only show what is ultimately consumed. For example, food waste, processing, and preparation are not fully captured. This makes the impacts appear lower than in reality.
The following figure shows an estimate based on the food quantities consumed according to the FSVO in 2020, with climate impacts calculated at about 1.7 t/p/a. For the estimation of environmental impacts, two dietary scenarios based on the current Swiss recommendations with minimal and maximal environmental impacts were estimated in the LCA.
In the maximal scenario from an environmental perspective, the implementation of the dietary recommendations focuses mainly on animal foods. It is also assumed that 1 litre of mineral water, 3 cups of coffee per day, and 3 servings of dairy products are consumed. For this, 1.4 t/p/a are estimated. The main problems in the maximal scenario are meat and dairy consumption, as well as the consumption of mineral water and coffee.
The minimal scenario corresponds to a varied vegetarian diet without meat and fish. It is also assumed that some nutrient supplements are added for the missing fish and cow's milk products. For dairy products, 2 servings per day are assumed, and drinking milk is replaced with soy milk. Furthermore, some product groups were slightly increased to replace missing calories from sweets and alcohol. This makes a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 0.7 t/p/a possible. This is in the range of other estimates for environmentally friendly nutrition and close to the politically defined target value of 0.6 t/p/a.
Conclusion
The new Swiss dietary recommendations leave a lot of decision-making power to consumers. At least, it is shown how they can make environmentally conscious decisions within the framework of these recommendations. This could make a significant contribution to reducing environmental impacts. This process must now be further strengthened at all levels to promote a diet that also reduces health risks from climate change and environmental pollution as much as possible.
However, this alone will still not be enough to achieve the already decided environmental goals, such as significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For this, the phase-out of fossil fuels must also be further advanced at all levels of production.
Further information
Niels Jungbluth, Angelo Steffanel (2025) Ökobilanz der neuen Schweizer Ernährungsempfehlungen. ESU-services GmbH im Auftrag von greenpeace und WWF Schweiz, Schaffhausen, Schweiz
Greenpeace und WWF (2025) Ernährung mit Zukunft? Das Potenzial der Schweizer Ernährungsempfehlung für eine zukunftsfähige Ernährung. Autorinnen: Mariella Meyer, WWF Schweiz und Barbara Wegmann, Greenpeace Schweiz
Medienmitteilung: «Ernährung mit Zukunft? Die Lebensmittelpyramide im Umweltcheck» 13.1.2025
