Improving consumer understanding of pesticide toxicity labels: experimental evidence.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Jul 2024
27 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
17
01
2024
accepted:
22
07
2024
medline:
28
7
2024
pubmed:
28
7
2024
entrez:
27
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Consumers often inadvertently misperceive the health hazards associated with over-the-counter pesticides under the current textual labeling policy, potentially leading to improper use. We conducted an incentivized framed field experiment with eye tracking to evaluate the effectiveness of the current pesticide labels that convey risk using signal words (Caution, Warning, Danger) compared to two visually focused label alternatives: traffic light colors and skull intensity symbols. A total of 166 participants were randomly assigned to one of three label formats and asked to rank toxicity levels and make purchasing decisions within multiple price lists. Results show that signal words fail to adequately communicate toxicity levels. Specifically, participants' correct assessment of toxicity level dramatically improves from 54% under the existing signal word label to 95% under the traffic light and 83% under the skull intensity symbol labels. We also find that participants are more likely to choose the less toxic alternatives under the new labels, suggesting the current labeling system may affect choice and have unintended adverse effects on human health.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39068270
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-68288-9
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-68288-9
doi:
Substances chimiques
Pesticides
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
17291Informations de copyright
© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.
Références
Merchant, M. Understanding common house and garden insecticides. Texas A&M Extension. https://citybugs.tamu.edu/factsheets/ipm/ent-4002/ (2016).
Atwood, D., & Paisley-Jones, C. Pesticides industry sales and usage: 2008–2012 market estimates. US Environmental Protection Agency (2017).
Skevas, T., Stefanou, S. E. & Lansink, A. O. Do farmers internalise environmental spillovers of pesticides in production?. J. Agric. Econ. 64(3), 624–640 (2013).
doi: 10.1111/1477-9552.12007
International Agency for Research on Cancer. Some organophosphate insecticides and herbicides: Diazinon, glyphosate, malathion, parathion, and tetrachlorvinphos. Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, vol. 112 (2015).
Guyton, K. Z. et al. Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate. Lancet Oncol. 16(5), 490–491 (2015).
pubmed: 25801782
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70134-8
Marrs, T. C. Organophosphate poisoning. Pharmacol. Ther. 58(1), 51–66 (1993).
pubmed: 8415873
doi: 10.1016/0163-7258(93)90066-M
Shih, D. M. et al. Mice lacking serum paraoxonase are susceptible to organophosphate toxicity and atherosclerosis. Nature 394(6690), 284 (1998).
pubmed: 9685159
doi: 10.1038/28406
Fortes, C. et al. The association between residential pesticide use and cutaneous melanoma. Eur. J. Cancer 43(6), 1066–1075 (2007).
pubmed: 17331713
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.01.013
Tudi, M. et al. Exposure routes and health risks associated with pesticide application. Toxics 10(6), 335 (2022).
pubmed: 35736943
pmcid: 9231402
doi: 10.3390/toxics10060335
Rani, L. et al. An extensive review on the consequences of chemical pesticides on human health and environment. J. Clean. Prod. 283, 124657 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124657
Cocco, P. Pesticides and human health. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science (Oxford University Press, 2016).
Pogoda, J. M. & Preston-Martin, S. Household pesticides and risk of paediatric brain tumours. Environ. Health Perspect. 105, 1214–1220 (1997).
pubmed: 9370522
pmcid: 1470343
doi: 10.1289/ehp.971051214
Meinert, R., Schuz, J., Kaletsch, U., Kaatsch, P. & Michaelis, J. Leukemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in childhood and exposure to pesticides: Results of a register-based casecontrol study in Germany. Am. J. Epidemiol. 151, 639–646 (2000).
pubmed: 10752791
doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010256
US EPA. Learn about polychlorinated biphenyls. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/learn-about-polychlorinated-biphenyls (2024).
EPA. DDT: Brief history and status. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-brief-history-and-status#:~:text=In%201972%2C%20EPA%20issued%20a,based%20on%20studies%20in%20animals (2024).
Alcántara-de la Cruz, R., Cruz-Hipolito, H. E., Domínguez-Valenzuela, J. A. & De Prado, R. Glyphosate ban in Mexico: Potential impacts on agriculture and weed management. Pest Manag. Sci. 77(9), 3820–3831 (2021).
pubmed: 33723895
doi: 10.1002/ps.6362
Kinniburgh, F. The politics of expertise in assessing alternatives to glyphosate in France. Environ. Sci. Policy 145, 60–72 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2023.01.017
Fogliatto, S., Ferrero, A. & Vidotto, F. Current and future scenarios of glyphosate use in Europe: Are there alternatives?. Adv. Agron. 163, 219–278 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/bs.agron.2020.05.005
Wollaeger, H. M., Getter, K. L. & Behe, B. K. Consumer preferences for traditional, neonicotinoid-free, bee-friendly, or biological control pest management practices on floriculture crops. HortScience 50(5), 721–773 (2015).
doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI.50.5.721
Campbell, B., Khachatryan, H. & Rihn, A. Pollinator-friendly plants: Reasons for and barriers to purchase. HortTechnology 27(6), 831–839 (2017).
doi: 10.21273/HORTTECH03829-17
Emery, S. B. et al. A review of the use of pictograms for communicating pesticide hazards and safety instructions: Implications for EU policy. Human Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 21(4), 1062–1080 (2015).
doi: 10.1080/10807039.2014.953894
Bazoche, P. et al. Willingness-to-pay for pesticide reduction in the EU: Nothing but organic?. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 41(1), 87–109 (2014).
doi: 10.1093/erae/jbt011
Rihn, A. & Khachatryan, H. Does consumer awareness of neonicotinoid insecticides influence their preferences for plants?. HortScience 51(4), 388–393 (2016).
doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI.51.4.388
Khachatryan, H. et al. Visual attention to eco-labels predicts consumer preferences for pollinator friendly plants. Sustainability 9(10), 1743 (2017).
doi: 10.3390/su9101743
US EPA Office of Pesticide Programs. Label Review Manual. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-brief-history-and-status#:~:text=In%201972%2C%20EPA%20issued%20a,based%20on%20studies%20in%20animals (2018).
Rother, H. A. South African farm workers’ interpretation of risk assessment data expressed as pictograms on pesticide labels. Environ. Res. 108(3), 419–427 (2008).
pubmed: 18755451
doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2008.07.005
LePrevost, C. E., Storm, J. F., Blanchard, M. R., Asuaje, C. R. & Cope, W. G. Engaging Latino farmworkers in the development of symbols to improve pesticide safety and health education and risk communication. J. Immigr. Minor. Health 15, 975–981 (2013).
pubmed: 22833257
doi: 10.1007/s10903-012-9685-4
Rother, H. A. Pesticide labels: Protecting liability or health? Unpacking “misuse” of pesticides. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 4, 10–15 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.coesh.2018.02.004
Nelson, D. L., Reed, V. S. & Walling, J. R. Pictorial superiority effect. J. Exp. Psychol. Human Learn. Mem. 2(5), 523 (1976).
doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.2.5.523
Paivio, A. & Csapo, K. Picture superiority in free recall: Imagery or dual coding?. Cogn. Psychol. 5(2), 176–206 (1973).
doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90032-7
Muller, L. & Prevost, M. What cognitive sciences have to say about the impacts of nutritional labelling formats. J. Econ. Psychol. 55, 17–29 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2016.01.005
Argo, J. J. & Main, K. J. Meta-analyses of the effectiveness of warning labels. J. Public Policy Mark. 23(2), 193–208 (2004).
doi: 10.1509/jppm.23.2.193.51400
Cox, E. P. III., Wogalter, M. S., Stokes, S. L. & Tipton Murff, E. J. Do product warnings increase safe behavior? A meta-analysis. J. Public Policy Mark. 16(2), 195–204 (1997).
doi: 10.1177/074391569701600201
Balcombe, K., Fraser, I. & Di Falco, S. Traffic lights and food choice: A choice experiment examining the relationship between nutritional food labels and price. Food Policy 35(3), 211–220 (2010).
doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.12.005
Sutherland, L., Kaley, L. & Fischer, L. Guiding Stars: The effect of a nutrition navigation program on consumer purchases at the supermarket. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 91(4), 1090S-1094S (2010).
pubmed: 20147468
doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2010.28450C
Muller, L., Lacroix, A. & Ruffieux, B. Environmental labelling and consumption changes: A food choice experiment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 73, 871–897 (2019).
doi: 10.1007/s10640-019-00328-9
Ahles, A., Palma, M. A. & Drichoutis, A. C. Testing the effectiveness of lottery incentives in online experiments. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 106, 1435 (2024).
doi: 10.1111/ajae.12460
Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I. & Rutström, E. E. Elicitation using multiple price list formats. Exp. Econ. 9, 383–405 (2006).
doi: 10.1007/s10683-006-7055-6
Charness, G., Gneezy, U. & Imas, A. Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 87, 43–51 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.023
Findlay, J. M. Eye scanning and visual search. In The Interface of Language, Vision, and Action: Eye Movements and the Visual World Vol. 134 6–14 (Psychology Press, 2004).
Duchowski, A. T. A breadth-first survey of eye-tracking applications. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 34(4), 455–470 (2002).
pubmed: 12564550
doi: 10.3758/BF03195475
Liversedge, S. P. & Findlay, J. M. Saccadic eye movements and cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4(1), 6–14 (2000).
pubmed: 10637617
doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01418-7
Deubel, H. & Schneider, W. X. Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vis. Res. 36(12), 1827–1837 (1996).
pubmed: 8759451
doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(95)00294-4
Hoffman, J. E. & Subramaniam, B. The role of visual attention in saccadic eye movements. Percept. Psychophys. 57(6), 787–795 (1995).
pubmed: 7651803
doi: 10.3758/BF03206794
Kowler, E., Anderson, E., Dosher, B. & Blaser, E. The role of attention in the programming of saccades. Vis. Res. 35(13), 1897–1916 (1995).
pubmed: 7660596
doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(94)00279-U
Shepherd, M., Findlay, J. M. & Hockey, R. J. The relationship between eye movements and spatial attention. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. Sect. A 38(3), 475–491 (1986).
doi: 10.1080/14640748608401609
Palma, M. A. Neuroeconomics: An overview and applications to agricultural and food economics. In Handbook of Agricultural Economics Vol. 6 5085–5116 (Elsevier, 2022).
Segovia, M. S. & Palma, M. A. Testing the consistency of preferences in discrete choice experiments: An eye tracking study. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 48(3), 624–664 (2021).
doi: 10.1093/erae/jbaa024
Atalay, A. S., Bodur, H. O. & Rasolofoarison, D. Shining in the center: Central gaze cascade effect on product choice. J. Consum. Res. 39(4), 848–866 (2012).
doi: 10.1086/665984
Reutskaja, E., Nagel, R., Camerer, C. F. & Rangel, A. Search dynamics in consumer choice under time pressure: An eye-tracking study. Am. Econ. Rev. 101, 900–926 (2011).
doi: 10.1257/aer.101.2.900
Chandon, P., Hutchinson, J. W., Bradlow, E. T. & Young, S. H. Does in-store marketing work? Effects of the number and position of shelf facings on brand attention and evaluation at the point of purchase. J. Mark. 73(6), 1–17 (2009).
doi: 10.1509/jmkg.73.6.1
Merriam-Webster. Caution. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/caution
Gadema, Z. & Oglethorpe, D. The use and usefulness of carbon labelling food: A policy perspective from a survey of UK supermarket shoppers. Food Policy 36(6), 815–822 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.08.001