Last week CropLife America (CLA) shared findings from a series of consumer listening sessions conducted in 2021 to see how various messages aimed at fostering a better understanding of pesticide use registered and find ways to better communicate with the public on pesticide issues. The research firm Povaddo conducted the public opinion research on behalf of CLA and the American Seed Trade Association, building upon previous focus group research CLA commissioned in 2019 that explored current perceptions around pesticides.
Understanding that most people are on the fence or have unfavorable attitudes about pesticide products and that there is a dearth of positive stories about pesticides in the media, the objective of the new round of research was to determine how to better communicate with elected officials and the public about agriculture and pesticides. Povaddo conducted 12 focus groups with 96 participants across three cities, first to listen to concerns and perceptions and then to see how participants would respond to messages crafted around the themes that pesticides are sustainable, necessary and innovative.
Message 1: “Pesticides contribute to sustainable agricultural practices.”
The first message the focus group participants considered is that “Pesticides contribute to sustainable agricultural practices.” That statement was buttressed by supporting statements about no-till farming and cover crops:
- Pesticides support sustainable agricultural practices by enabling farming operations that improve soil erosion, conserve water, and reduce fuel, such as no-till farming.
- The use of cover crops is another pesticide-enabled farming practice that contributes to sustainable agriculture.
Povaddo Director Wendy Lawrence said that most participants responded favorably to messaging about no-till farming and cover crops. Povaddo backed the aforementioned supporting statements up by citing data from trusted sources and using terms like “low residue” and “short-lasting herbicides.” The focus group participants learned that no-till farming reduces soil erosion by about 90% and achieves dramatic fuel and energy savings. Quantifying the energy and carbon savings through comparisons to car emissions and the energy used to power homes also hit home with participants. With cover crops, the participants were informed that they mitigate soil erosion, reduce runoff by 80% and improve soil structure.
Takeaway: When promoting pesticides’ roles in contributing to sustainable agriculture, it is important to make strong correlations between the benefits of the practices and pesticides’ specific roles in enabling them, Povaddo counseled.
Message 2: “Pesticides are necessary.”
Povaddo tested three messages to support the premise that “pesticides are necessary”:
- Farmland is shrinking.
- Without pesticides, farmers’ businesses will be threatened.
- Crop yields could decrease by 70 to 80% without pesticides, and decreased crop yields that would occur without pesticides could put many farmers out of business.
- Pesticides are important for feeding the world.
Lawrence said that 2 out of 5 participants reacted positively to the message that pesticides are necessary because farmland is shrinking and 1 in 5 reacted negatively. Most people responded positively to the supporting messages related to farmers’ businesses being threatened without the availability of pesticides. The idea of decreasing crop yields struck a chord, even with people with a pessimistic view of pesticides, Lawrence said. The winningest message by far, though, was one that remains timely and topical: “Food demand and prices are increasing, affecting the world’s poorest.”
However, Lawrence cautioned that while that message resonates now with consumers who have seen the effects of rising inflation and shortages of consumer goods firsthand, it could be a temporary phenomenon. Consumer attitudes may change as the challenges we face continue to evolve. If things get back to normal, saying pesticides are necessary to help the world’s poorest often is considered a weak message. “Feeding the world” and “Making food more affordable” did not resonate with focus groups in 2019, for example.
Takeaway: When framing arguments around the idea that pesticides are necessary, Povaddo recommends using messages that are timely and appropriately empathetic.
Message 3: “Innovation and technology in pesticides move farming and society in the right direction.”
Two of the statements offered to bolster the theme of innovation and technology were:
- Innovations increase productivity and reduce agriculture’s environmental impact.
- Innovative pesticide products allow farmers to use fewer, more targeted pesticides.
Focus group participants liked hearing that digital tools help reduce greenhouse gasses and pesticide water runoff. Phrases such as less toxic, using the smallest amounts possible, taking a targeted approach/making targeted applications, and farmers only using pesticides as a last resort (integrated pest management) registered well with participants.
Takeaway: Focusing on positive change within the pesticide industry, including new, modern innovations and technologies, is highly recommended, Povaddo advised.
In addition to written messages and supporting information, the focus group participants watched a video of a farmer describing his farming practices, including his use of pesticides. The combination of video and narrative content had a powerful effect, Lawrence stated. Sharing personal stories impacts what people think about pesticides.
CropLife America will be sharing additional insights from its public opinion research in the coming weeks.
 shared findings from a series of
consumer listening sessions conducted in 2021 to see how various
messages aimed at fostering a better understanding of pesticide use
registered and find ways to better communicate with the public on
pesticide issues.){kind=small}
