7 pages., via online journal., Pesticide use and pesticide residues in foods have been the subject of controversial public discussions and media coverage in Germany. Against this background, a better understanding of public risk perceptions is needed to promote efficient public health communication. To this end, this study captures the German public's perception of pesticide residues in foods. A representative sample of the population aged 14 years and older (n = 1,004) was surveyed via computer-assisted telephone interviewing on their attitudes and knowledge with regard to pesticide residues. Based on questions regarding their typical consumer behavior, respondents were classified into conventional and organic consumers to identify differences as well as similarities between these two consumer types. As assessed with an open-ended question, both organic and conventional consumers viewed pesticides, chemicals, and toxins as the greatest threats to food quality and safety. Evaluating the risks and benefits of pesticide use, more than two-thirds of organic consumers (70%) rated the risks as greater than the benefits, compared with just over one-half of conventional consumers (53%). Concern about the detection of pesticide residues in the food chain and bodily fluids was significantly higher among organic compared with conventional consumers. Only a minority of respondents was aware that legal limits for pesticide residues (referred to as maximum residue levels) exist, with 69% of organic and 61% of conventional consumers believing that the presence of pesticide residues in foods is generally not permitted. A lack of awareness of maximum residue levels was associated with heightened levels of concern about pesticide residues. Finally, general exposure to media reporting on pesticide residues was associated with more frequent knowledge of legal limits for pesticide residues, whereas actively seeking information on pesticide residues was not. The possible mechanisms underlying these findings are discussed.
28 pages, via online journal, While uncertainty is central to science, many fear negative effects of communicating scientific uncertainties to the public, though research results about such effects are inconsistent. Therefore, we test the effects of four distinct uncertainty frame types (deficient, technical, scientific, consensus) on three outcomes (belief, credibility, behavioral intentions) across three science issues (climate change, GMO food labeling, machinery hazards) with an experiment using a national sample (N = 2,247) approximating U.S. census levels of age, education, and gender. We find portraying scientific findings using uncertainty frames usually does not have significant effects, with an occasional exception being small negative effects of consensus uncertainty.
8 pages., via online journal., A self-administered survey of randomly selected recipients in 44 Missouri, U.S., communities found that most Missourians were very concerned about the quality of natural resources and having trees on streets and in parks. Respondents felt that Missouri was not doing well at making sure fewer trees are lost during development and at managing stormwater runoff. Residents in communities with a population of 50,000 or more, in the St. Louis and Kansas City suburbs, and in the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City show strong support for a ballot issue establishing a tree fund supported by a tax of US$5 or less. Missourians in communities with a population greater than 5,000 showed support for protecting or replacing trees during development through passage of a tree preservation ordinance. They lack basic knowledge of their community's tree program and could not correctly say whether their community was certified by The National Arbor Day Foundation as a Tree City USA. They are most likely to seek information on trees from their local garden center. The results of the survey, together with recent surveys of community forestry officials and street tree inventories, are used to make recommendations to state agencies charged with managing community forests.
