A few weeks ago, the Food Standards Agency (FSA. in the UK issued a report

游客2023-09-08 63

问题    A few weeks ago, the Food Standards Agency (FSA. in the UK issued a report evaluating nutrient levels in organic versus non-organic foods like fruits, vegetables, meats, eggs, and dairy products. It is a complete, rigorous piece of research. And they found that, in terms of nutritional content, the differences between organic and non-organic foods are negligible.
   As the report states, "... organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products are broadly comparable in their nutrient content." They did in fact find some nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods, but concluded that it is "unlikely that these differences in nutrient content are relevant to consumer health."
   So here they have a nicely delimited (界定的) study of available research with rigorous standards and a fairly worded conclusion, all publicly available to download and read on the FSA website. The reaction, not surprisingly, was spectacular.  The British tabloids alternately gloated (幸灾乐祸) with delight over the comeuppance(赢得的惩罚)of extravagant middle class shopping habits or frivolously attacked the study for insulting the people’s common sense. But it was the reaction of the Soil Association, the leading British organic certification organization, which highlighted just how difficult it can be for good science to be understood.
   The Soil Association’s response, published in papers across the land, entirely disregarded the intent of the study and instead argued that organic food is better for the environment and contains less pesticides than non- organic food. But in the very first paragraph of the report, the team states that they aren’t looking at the impact on the environment of organic agriculture or the effect of pesticide use, both of which the FSA has extensively examined in other research. They are specifically looking at nutritional comparison. The Soil Association further argued that the FSA report had ignored studies that showed any benefit of organic food. As Ben Goldacre incisively dissected on his popular blog, Bad Science, the Soil Association’s response was logically flawed and entirely beside the point.
   The FSA study is good science and by attacking, rather than endorsing it, the organic lobby in the UK has been plainly unscientific. It’s hardly the right stance for an organization that carries su.ch widespread support from the well-educated, critical-thinking middle classes who choose to eat organic food. Any of the many other reasons to go organic—whether it is to avoid pesticides, to encourage better livestock practices, or to simply eat better tasting food—are sufficient to continue supporting the efforts of organic farmers. By misrepresenting the science and its intent, the Soil Association has damaged its credibility and objectivity, the very attributes that its organic label—a stamp of approval—is intended to convey.  [br] What’s Ben Goldacre’s opinion towards the Soil Association’s response?

选项 A、It is logic.
B、It is off the track.
C、It proposes the main point.
D、It is generally reasonable.

答案 B

解析根据题干关键词Ben Goldacre’s opinion，the Soil Association’s response定位到原文第四段最后一句：As Ben Goldacre incisively dissected on his popular blog，Bad Science，the Soil Association’s response was logically flawed and entirely beside the point．即本·高德克里在他的博客“负面科学”中指出，英国土壤协会的

转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/2995798.html

相关试题推荐

随机试题

最新回复(0)

A few weeks ago, the Food Standards Agency (FSA. in the UK issued a report

[originaltext]IthasbeenreportedthatincollegesacrosstheUnitedStat

[originaltext]IthasbeenreportedthatincollegesacrosstheUnitedStat

[originaltext]IthasbeenreportedthatincollegesacrosstheUnitedStat