In Switzerland, it is easy to oppose science. The country is wealthy, with a minimum wage 3X that of most US states, because other countries pay the bills.  Even anti-science activists like Swiss Public Eye are funded by the government rather than consumers.

When you are rich, food is no longer on the hierarchy of needs, it becomes part of the hierarchy of 'values' and values are easy when you have money. You can advocate for expensive food for poor people in other countries because you will never see them. You don't know their struggle to feed their families when UN members walk down the street daily.

That is why Switzerland felt comfortable lobbying for a vote on bans of "synthetic" pesticides, by which they mean pesticides that are not certified organic. They are obviously still synthetic, but when you have activist NGOs writing policy, science illiteracy is the norm.

They also want to reduce their livestock to 'protect' water and the climate, and to do that they want to ban imported animal feed.  Basically, they want to live in a fantasy world the way Bhutan does. Except China just moved the border of Bhutan again and there is nothing Bhutan can do about it. China, the least 'green' country on earth, does not let eco-tourism stop tanks.

Swiss farmers are understandably opposed to a science mentality clearly divorced from reality. “A lot of people in cities think if they have two tomatoes growing on the balcony of their apartment they understand farming,” said Martin Haab, president of the Zurich Farmers Association and whose son runs a dairy farm near Zurich.

What is strange is even people inclined to be anti-corporation and opposed to science are having a hard time being convinced. Only 49 percent of Swiss believe that banning science would be a good idea while only 48 percent think forcing less domestic food to be grown is wise.

It looks like Swiss Public Eye has a lot more work to do undermining progress.