The Plain Writing Act of 2010 was created in order to “enhance citizen access to government information and services by establishing that government documents issued to the public must be written clearly, and for other purposes”. Being a government organization, the United States Department of Agriculture is no exception to this rule. They provide essential information to the public regarding farming, forestry, rural economic development, and food, and therefore it seems obvious why the information they are presenting must be inclusive and accessible to anyone who reads it. As someone who is interested in the affairs of the USDA on a personal level, I have scrutinized their work in order to determine if it meets the requirements of the law. Furthermore, I have worked to determine if adhering to the plain writing act is enough to ensure that it is easily understood by the public.
In order to answer this, I chose to look at a specific part of the Animal Welfare act that was published by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. This act, which was updated in 2019, essentially outlines the federal laws that are in place to protect animals. Because it was published by a government industry and intended for the public, the USDA had no choice in the matter of style; it has to be in plain language. Although arguably following the general standards of what constitutes as “plain language” according to the plain language act, the actual accessibility of the text is up for debate.
The Center of Plain language.Gov provides an evaluation report card that outlines how governmental agencies are rated based on their adherence to the plain language act. Surprisingly, the USDA scored one of the highest. They were judged in three categories:
1. Compliance: This looks at the organization's ability to adjust and respond to audiences' reactions to their website and written material and also being transparent with the goal of using plain language.
2. Writing: The actual text was analyzed to determine if it was easy to read and easy to understand. The following was looked at:
3. Information design: How the information was presented was considered to ensure it is organized, and effective in capturing attention and reinforcing the important information.
1. Compliance: This looks at the organization's ability to adjust and respond to audiences' reactions to their website and written material and also being transparent with the goal of using plain language.
2. Writing: The actual text was analyzed to determine if it was easy to read and easy to understand. The following was looked at:
- Did the writer limit their use of passive and hidden verbs?
- Did the writer use common words and avoid or define jargon?
- Was the content direct and concise or wordy?
- Was the narrative cohesive?
- Was spelling, grammar, style and terminology correct?
3. Information design: How the information was presented was considered to ensure it is organized, and effective in capturing attention and reinforcing the important information.
The Animal Welfare Act meets the requirements for compliance because the USDA clearly states on their website that they intend to use plain language in all of their documents. I would argue that the act met some but not all of the requirements under the writing section. Active voice was used throughout, and most jargon was avoided. The guidelines also suggest repeating terms when referring to the same concept to avoid confusion. The Animal Welfare Act does have examples of this throughout the text which are underlined below.
“USDA Animal Care, a unit within the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, administers the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). This federal law establishes requirements concerning the transportation, sale, and handling of certain animals and includes restrictions on the importation of live dogs for purposes of resale, prohibitions on animal fighting ventures, and provisions intended to prevent the theft of personal pets. Regulations established under the AWA set standards for the humane care and treatment for certain animals that are exhibited to the public, sold for use as pets, used in research, or transported commercially. Facilities using regulated animals for regulated purposes must provide their animals with adequate housing, sanitation, nutrition, water and veterinary care, and they must protect their animals from extreme weather and temperatures. The regulations also establish specific requirements that must be met prior to the importation of dogs for resale purposes.”
The repeated words not only provide consistency but also highlight the main idea which is the purpose of the established and regulated animal requirements. This emphasises the vital information in the passage.
Although these follow the plain language guidelines, there are some elements of official style that could have easily been avoided. Many words could be switched out with more common and more concrete ones such as the words “adequate”, “concerning” and “intended”.
“...must provide their animals with adequate housing, sanitation, nutrition, water and veterinary care, and they must protect their animals from extreme weather and temperatures.”
“This federal law establishes requirements concerning transportation…”
“...and provisions intended to prevent the theft of personal pets.”
I would argue that these words are not very common in people’s everyday vocabulary and have vague definitions. After reading these sentences, I realized it didn’t provide any actual information because these words are subjective. What is “adequate housing” to one person could be very different from what the act actually wants. Along with that, I found many instances of nominalization, which makes the verb less effective. The act has “requirements” instead of “requiring” and “prohibitions” versus “prohibits”.
I also think it is important to note that the word “animals” that is repeatedly used, is quite inclusive. Not included in this short explanation of the act, is the unfortunate but very relevant exclusion of livestock. According to the law, any farm animal regarded as an asset, is considered property and therefore not protected under the Animal Welfare Act. This is a perfect example of how information appears to be straightforward, while actually misconstruing the truth. The USDA uses this tactic often in order to skirt around topics that the public would have issues about, but that is opening a whole new can of worms.
Referring back to the specific attributes of the written act, I noticed the sentences are also typically long, averaging 24 words per sentence. When I plugged the text into a readability calculator, the website suggested simplifying both the sentence structure and word choice in order to make it more readable. According to the results of the test, the Gunning Fog index of 22.69 and a Flesch Reading Ease of 9.45 this indicates that the text is much more difficult to understand than the average person would be able to comprehend. The USDA explicitly explains that their purpose is to inform United States citizens, as is the plain writing act. Looking at the readability index however, it is indicated that the text is written for those who have a higher level of education. That changes the information from being inclusive to very exclusive.
Plainlanguage.gov is an official government run website that helps organizations communicate effectively following the Plain Language Act. It provides an example (as shown below) of a USDA regulation that has been changed to be in more of a plain language style. It addresses the format of the text to make it more visually appealing and easier to read. The Animal Welfare Act could have followed a similar style such as bullet points for each of the sections that are long lists to make the information more concise and organized.
I would argue that it is difficult to maintain the level of credibility when trying to incorporate plain language. Before the Plain language Act, government organizations used very official style when presenting information and thus official style became the norm. Switching to plain language not only takes time and effort, but also a change in the mindset of those who write the information. When looking at the Animal Welfare Act, it could meet all the requirements of plain language, without actually being effectively communicated. I think that is a perfect example of how laws can be too vague and thus failing to do what was intended. The USDA used the loopholes in the law to create a shield that the public could not penetrate. The Act, although seemingly transparent, excludes many and lacks the information that the public has a right to know and comprehend.
Uncovering the truth behind large corporations and government entities and unethical actions takes more than just a whistleblower or under cover activists. It takes the general public being aware of our rights, and calling them out when they are being obtuse, in order to keep those with authority accountable.
Kaitilyn Bestor
No comments:
Post a Comment