The surveys found broad support for government to spend money on science, but that doesn't mean the public supports the conclusions that scientists draw.
If I understand the report correctly, they sampled "scientists", but not scientists actually working in the field. E.g. the fraction of scientists working on climate who attribute climate change to human activities is around 99% (IIRC), not below 90%. So all they did is compare a group with average education levels to a group with very high education levels (measured in obtained degrees). Not sure that tells us much. The sentence "that doesn't mean the public supports the conclusions that scientists draw" at least does not follow.
Some are things like having your food produce poison (insecticide). I'm not sure how my food containing more poison is more safe.
Probably for the same reason you use WiFi. You think there is a level of poison that is safe (Paracelsus says hi), whereas someone uninformed may think even a single molecule / ray is the devil.
Regarding your other misconceptions:
I'm not sure how my food containing more poison is more safe. Have the scientists actually studied it, or are they just assuming it's safe because other scientists made it?
There is a reason insecticides are put in: to combat insects, as the name suggests. Which can affect your food in a negative way. It's a trade-off with a benefit. Otherwise go for organic food, which uses other solutions (typically more manpower).
The study of the effects of toxins is a serious topic. There are safety standards for virtually every chemical -- ask your consumer protection agency. Typically the limits are derived from medical studies.