Pesticides and Risk Communication PPP-52 - Purdue Pesticide ...

odds of someone reacting adversely are minuscule. So why hadn’t
these people listen to what you said? Why are they questioning your
information and expertise? Why are they looking for a guarantee when
nothing we do is risk free?
People smoke and think nothing of being overweight. They skip their
annual physicals and seek medical attention as infrequently as they
can. They fly. They drive—even drink and drive! They invest long,
stressful hours in their careers. They ingest tons of chemicals known as
prescription drugs. Many have multiple sex partners. Yet they worry
about trace levels of pesticides in their food? Why does science have so
little impact?
The simple answer is that people’s experiences, perceptions, beliefs,
and values contribute as significantly to their life choices as scientific
fact. This is not to say that their conviction is right or
wrong: we all see things from our own point of view. But people tend to
want total assurance against negative consequences of pesticide use,
and that is simply impossible.
A representative survey of Indiana residents shows the magnitude of
danger citizens associate with pesticides (and there is no reason to
believe that Hoosiers are any more or less fearful than citizens in other
parts of the country). Citizens were asked to rate on a scale of 1–7 how
fearful they are of various potential risks: 1 = I am not very afraid; 7 = I
am very afraid.
Pesticides used on farms ranked in the most-feared category along
with nuclear accidents, pollution, smoking, handguns, nerve gas, auto
accidents, and chain saw accidents. It can be derived from this response
that pesticides spell catastrophe in the minds of many; and it is
easy to understand why weak explanations and exclamations of pesticide
safety have minimal positive impact on the public mind-set.
24