In public discussions, threshold values tend to dominate, while the complex challenges of agriculture are rarely considered. Studies show, however, that once these relationships are explained and solutions are addressed, people respond in a more differentiated way.

Angela Bearth explains that threshold values are scientifically based but never purely objective. They rely on research, societal considerations, feasibility and acceptance. They differ from political threshold values, which 'also take feasibility, costs and context into account,' she says.

A central misunderstanding lies in the distinction between hazard and risk: in discussions about plant protection products, these two concepts are often confused. A hazardous substance does not automatically imply a high risk: it may be potentially harmful – a hazard – but risk describes how likely harm is to occur based on real-world exposure. Modern analytics can detect almost anything, but the mere detectability of a substance does not mean it poses a danger.

Trust, emotions and habits strongly shape our perception of risk. New or unfamiliar risks feel more threatening than familiar ones, even when they are objectively lower. Scientific uncertainties should be communicated openly – as should toxicological basics such as the principle 'The dose makes the poison.' Many people assume that a dangerous substance must be harmful even at very small amounts – yet it is the dose that determines whether any effect occurs at all. This fundamental toxicological insight is often absent from public debate.

According to Bearth, discussions become more objective when transparency is created, conflicts of goals are openly acknowledged and toxicological principles are explained clearly.

The episode calls for explaining threshold values factually rather than stoking fear: they include large safety margins and are designed to protect the population. Only when risks are weighed fairly can science remain credible.