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

on the internet should be able to access only the positive or only the
negative. We must jump on the internet bandwagon and post our
message; and we must connect with every search engine available. We
must STAND OUT and earn our own recognition.
Conclusion
Unquestionably, the use of pesticides has been and always will be
controversial in our society. It involves very real and important trade-offs
that concern people. Can one reasonably expect to educate the public
amid so much background noise? And what about all the complications
surrounding pesticide risk? Well, sometimes it is the noise that creates
the interest . . . and people listen!
Is it possible to educate the public on pesticide risk when the issues
are couched as good news versus bad, or them versus us? Do people
have the patience—or the interest—to listen to more of the facts? Will
they tolerate descriptions of risk/benefit trade-offs instead of the either/
or scenarios of advocates? Do people have the ability to understand
science-based, reasoned explanation of the need for pesticides and the
consequences of use, both good and bad? Will they listen with an open
mind before making their own decisions? The answer is yes. The public
will listen to a credible communicator who earns their respect; and the
backbone of respect is knowledge and effective communication.
Interest in risk communication is at an all-time high as government
officials, industry representatives, scientists, and health and environmental
safety advocates strive to communicate why the public should or
should not worry about pesticide risk. Delivery of a clear and effective
message through teaching, conversation, writing, or speech is a difficult
proposition, even in the best of situations.
It is difficult to get people to understand and accept risk. It is also
difficult to get those who ignore risk to acknowledge and respect it. As
individuals, we base our beliefs on what we know; and what we know
depends largely on our source of information. A person’s knowledge on
pesticides, coupled with their own personal values, forms the basis for
their stance on the issue.
There are myriad views on pesticide risk. But people tend to key into
concepts that complement their own agenda, that is, concepts that
validate their own preconceptions.
As risk communicators, our success in educating the public hinges
largely on our skills in public relations. Instead of talking to an audience,
we need to talk with them, to engage them in healthy dialogue. We must
acknowledge and respect the audience’s point of view, even if it is
unfounded or inappropriately skewed. We must afford the audience an
opportunity to validate their concerns; and we must share our points of
view and identify areas of agreement.
48