The National Council approved the proposal of its member Matthias Aebischer for a general ban on the import of products that have been manufactured in a cruel manner. In a letter to the Council of States dated November 22, 2017, Animal Trust (Swiss animal welfare organization), Wildtierschutz Schweiz (Swiss organization for wildlife protection), and TIR (all three organizations constitute the Alliance Animale Suisse) called on the Council of States to accept Aebischer's proposal. Today, the Swiss parliament could have responded to the concerns of a large part of the population and taken a resolute step towards a more effective animal welfare policy; for what is regarded as cruelty to animals in Switzerland should not be supported in foreign countries through domestic demand.

Nonetheless, the Council of States rejected the proposal by 37 to 4 votes for fear of economic consequences which it deems too serious for the affected industries. According to the Council, it is also unclear whether such a regulation would significantly improve the welfare of animals. Furthermore, it believes that monitoring production methods abroad and the imports into Switzerland would be neither feasible nor effective. However, the Council of States has apparently recognized that there is indeed need for action and while rejecting Aebischer's proposal it introduced an obligation to declare food products.

Unfortunately, this declaration requirement relates exclusively to edibles, while, for instance, reptile skins, down obtained from live plucking, or growth promoting substances for pig fattening are excluded from it. Moreover, this once again shifts responsibility to the consumers who as a result are subject to excessive demands and are expected to choose what products to buy in the midst of a "label jungle" consisting of an increasing number of positive and negative declarations which are largely euphemistic in nature. The declaration requirement clearly fails to adequately address the problem because it does not prevent products obtained from animal cruelty from being sold and traded in Switzerland. An import ban, on the other hand, would have benefited animals directly

As far as fur products are concerned, the declaration requirement that has been in place since 2014 has not led to the desired reduction in imports. Due to the design of its terms, it hardly contributes to more transparency but is rather misleading and sometimes even encourages customers to buy a product because it implies that the seller cares about their products' origin.
A legal analysis by TIR showed that a ban on the import of fur obtained by cruelty to animals complies both with the rules of the WTO and with Switzerland's obligations towards its trading partners. TIR considers that the exemption provided for in the WTO is applicable to various other products obtained by animal cruelty.

Switzerland could have sent a strong international signal had it imposed an import ban. In its letter of November 22, 2017, Alliance Animale Suisse called on the Council of States to face the facts and take into account our responsibility for the future, the animals, and one's own conscience when considering the economic aspects.