The two seem to misunderstand each other's point of view. Experts believe the public does not really understand the problem, and the public often rejects the solutions of the experts. The experts seem unresponsive to public concerns. There is validity to both sides of this argument. Good public policy is best served by helping people understand what is at stake in the national pesticide debate.
Controversy confuses the issues, and inconsistent legislation contributes to the confusion.
The public debate continues to be a 'pro' and 'con' form of discussion with two sharply divided camps leaving little room for thoughtful discourse leading to sound public policy decisions. The two-sided practice of arriving at the truth by disclosing the contradictions in an opponent's argument, and overcoming them, is known as the dialectic. Attempts to divide anything into two ought to be regarded with much suspicion. While appearing to present an opportunity for change on the surface, this pro and con debate is often characterized by confusion, heated emotions, suspicions, and organized interest groups. There are much larger populations in the U.S. of interested citizens who are not directly connected to this public debate.