Pesticides public perception

Peterson RKD. 2000. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology and pesticides recent understandings and implications for risk communication. Am Entomol 46 8-16. 

The lesson for scientists involved in these issues is that we must present what we learn here in a clear enough way so that public perceptions of pesticide application, toxicity, and risk are congruent with reality. The public s social decisions regarding pesticide use will then be based on a careful appraisal of the risk or margin of safety, and not on fear and fear alone. 

Driver, J.H. and C.E. Wilkinson (1996). Pesticides and Human Health Science, Regulation and Public Perception, in Risk Assessment and Management Handbook for Environmental Health and Safety Professionals, R.V. Kalluro, S.M. Bartell, R.M. Pitblado and R.S. Stricoff (Eds), McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 7.1-7.35. 

Mass Media s Effect on Public Perceptions of Pesticide Risk Understanding Media and Improving Science Sources... 

Any time a public problem arises, special interests like to blame the media, sometimes with real justification. In this instance, they are only one of several factors contributing to the public perceptions held about pesticides in groundwater. The media do not tell us what to think, but they do influence what we think about. Generally, the data generators, including those in industry, government and academia, must share responsibility. 

Health and safety Issues connected to the widespread use of herbicides, and pesticides may alter public perceptions of the relative quality of farm goods versus industrially-produced substances. Volatile Issues, such as the effects of new organisms, the untoward consequences of a single accident, and the relative price structure all will enter into the consumer s equation. 

Practically unchanged from 2004, publics perceptions of chemical products are more positive than negative and focus on cleaners, detergents, toiletries, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, pesticides, paints. 

I shall present a perception of the public concerns and a little of how I evaluate and how I present the risks. I will present information on pesticide use, public concerns as they are expressed in the news, allegations of harm, toxicity of a forest pesticide—2., 4-D, human exposure to drift of this pesticide, and the margins of safety which exist when this exposure occurs. 

A brief summary of the toxicity of the forest herbicide 2,4-D can be presented as follows. Table IV shows the acute LD-50 values of most of the phenoxy herbicices. These range from 300 mg/kg for 2,4,5-T and 375 mg/kg for 2,4-D up to 6400 mg/kg for Bifenox. It is useful to set the acute oral toxicity for 2,4-D in the context of other phenoxy herbicides and in relation to other pesticides so the public can gain a perception of where 2,4-D fits on a scale of relative values with regard to... 

Burson-Marsteller and Hill Knowlton, leaders in the public relations (PR) industry, are impacting the public s perception of pesticide risk, and they are premier in knowing how to use media. Perhaps the American Chemical Society should use this public relations expertise just as Union Carbide and Dow have, but I do not think such reliance on these giants of PR is the only or even the best solution. Uncovered PR-generated articles are neither journalists nor the public s favorites such stories do little for long term creditility. 

---