How many odd FAQs have you seen? Worse than frequently asked questions that no sensible person would ask, are the answers that do not answer the intent of the question. FAQs on Genetic Modification (GM) often fall into this error. Many people consider the subject of GM to be a lot more than a concern about the science --so a sensitive FAQ writer may have tried to pose and answer questions about worries, concerns, and dealing with problems that arise.
"Q: What assurances can be given to farmers who want to remain GM-free?
A: As a condition of allowing the trials the GM crops will need to be grown using Best Management Practices. Harvesting and transport of the canola will be undertaken in such a way as to prevent seed loss outside the sown area. The Roundup Ready canola will be delivered to specific delivery points in the CBH system where it can be segregated and monitored." There is more, but you can check that out yourself.
I could have imagined myself a farmer concerned about GM contamination, or even asked a few farmers about the questions they would ask, then answered in a way that they may have felt was sufficient. So a good FAQ (but not the answer) is:
"Q: Will the government consider a strict liability regime?
A: The Government is not considering the introduction of strict liability legislation. Australian and international reports have concluded that common law is sufficient to deal with any issues that may arise from growing GM crops."
How would you work with the author of this set of FAQs to improve the writing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment