2. 职称英语
  3. A few weeks ago, the Food Standards Agency (FSA. in the UK issued a report

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

游客2024-05-30  23
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] Which of the following is TRUE according to the finding of FSA?
选项 A、The differences in nutrients between organic and non-organic foods are insignificant.
B、There is significant nutritional difference between organic and non-organic foods.
C、The differences in nutrient content are closely related with consumer health.
D、Organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products are noticeable in their nutrient content.
答案 A
解析 根据题干关键词the finding of FSA定位到原文第一段第二句：It is acomplete，rigorous piece of research．And they found that，in terms of nutritional content，the differences between organic and non-organic foods are negligible．可知FSA的研究发现，在营养成分方面，有机和非有机食品间的区别可以忽略不计。故 A项符合原文。A项中的ins
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/3612061.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)