published15. August 2022, 13:26
nutritionConsumer protection denounces rip-off in meat substitute products
Meat substitutes often cost about the same as meat in stores. They are significantly cheaper to produce – the industry would benefit, criticizes consumer protection.
- von
- Nicolas Meister
- daniel graf
According to consumer protection, the meat substitutes are significantly cheaper to produce.
20min/Celia Nogler
Nevertheless, vegan products at the checkout sometimes cost the same as meat or dairy products.
20min/Marco Zangger
-
Meat substitute products are trendy. Large meat producers also rely on vegetarian alternatives and see a lot of potential in them.
-
Now consumer protection and Greens National Councilor Kilian Baumann are criticizing rip-offs.
-
These products are much cheaper to produce, but at the checkout they sometimes cost the same as meat.
-
The manufacturers are covered: They do not want to reveal their margins.
Meat substitute products have been booming for a number of years. But despite the high demand, consumers have to dig deep into their pockets. A vegetarian schnitzel often costs the same or even more than a conventional pork schnitzel. That makes consumer protection suspicious. Are we being ripped off with meat substitutes?
“Partly safe,” says Josianne Walpen, food expert at consumer protection. “It is incomprehensible why a substitute product costs more than conventional meat.” It is true that these are new products with still relatively low sales figures, but more profit can also be skimmed off through increased margins. That’s doubly annoying, says Walpen. “Consumers pay too much and this prevents us from reducing our meat consumption. For the sake of the environment, however, we should eat significantly less meat.” That is why it is “urgently necessary” to offer meat substitutes at an affordable price, according to consumer protection.
Manufacturers and retailers are silent about margins
However, it is difficult to say to what extent consumers would be ripped off by manufacturers. “As with meat, the manufacturers do not disclose their margins here either.” This is confirmed by inquiries from major manufacturers of meat substitutes. Migros and Coop do not comment on the margins. The largest Swiss meat manufacturer, Bell, only says: “Sales of vegan meat alternatives have shown pleasing growth rates in recent years and we continue to be convinced of the future potential. We only have limited influence on political issues and pricing and can therefore not comment on them.»
Green National Councilor and organic farmer Kilian Baumann also sees several problems: “On the one hand, Switzerland’s subsidy and customs policy comes from a time when the primary goal of agriculture was to produce as much meat as possible. For example, animal feed is subject to significantly lower tariffs than grain for humans or the raw materials for the production of vegetarian substitute products.”
“Meat lobby in the Federal Palace prevents funding”
On the other hand, Baumann also criticizes the manufacturers’ high margins: “The substitute products cost a fraction of what meat products produce.” He calls for political pressure to be put on the industry to cut margins and shift subsidies away from meat and towards substitutes. “Of course the meat lobby in the Federal Palace has something against it. But the facts are on the table: Meat substitutes make a significant contribution to reducing the ecological footprint.”
According to Baumann, prices can also be reduced through competition. “By promoting start-ups that produce in Switzerland with local raw materials, the range could be broadened.”
SVP Egger criticizes BAG
The SVP National Councilor Mike Egger, as a member of the St. Gallen Meat Association and a member of the Board of Directors of a butcher’s shop, sees things very differently: “There is a strong political trend, the BAG and the FOEN are trying to take the lead in terms of nutrition and meat and animals in general badmouthing produced food products. The administration is making a mood against meat, which is scientifically incorrect. »