We are in a global health crisis, and it grows worse by the year, as the World Health Organization has warned that by 2030 almos

admin2019-08-27  35

问题    We are in a global health crisis, and it grows worse by the year, as the World Health Organization has warned that by 2030 almost half the world’s population will be overweight or obese if current trends continue. There are already 124 million obese children, a more than tenfold increase in four decades, and more than a million of these live in the UK, which has the worst obesity rates in western Europe. Four in five will grow up to be obese adults; and the leader of the UK’s paediatric body warns that this will cost them 10 to 20 years of healthy life.
   This is a social problem, both in cause and consequence, as concurred by Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the UK’s National Health Service, whose cautioning that obesity could bankrupt the health service comes across as the placard-wielding stance of a roadside prophet of doom — yet the government’s response has been as modest and inadequate as these figures are shocking. Medical experts describe its childhood obesity strategy as weak, embarrassing and even insulting. Though it inherited a tax on sugary drinks, it rowed back from restrictions on price-cutting promotions and junk food marketing or advertising, leaving its strategy to rely heavily on measures such as school activity programmes.
   Campaigners had warned that would not be enough; now research proves they were right — even when such initiatives tackle both diet and exercise, and make efforts to reach out to families. Children in schools in England’s West Midlands were given a year of extra physical activity sessions, a healthy eating programme and cookery workshops with their parents, all of which failed to have any significant effect on children’s weight.
   The causes of the obesity epidemic are multiple and complex, as the landmark Foresight report produced over a decade ago underscored: we live in an obesogenic environment, and some more so than others (more than twice as many children in deprived areas are obese as in affluent areas). TVs and smartphones in bedrooms and reliance on cars play their part; so too do food deserts, where fruit and vegetables are expensive or inaccessible, which leaves the more economically strapped sector of the population choosing to fill a hungry child with donuts rather than apples.
   But one factor leaps out: greed. The problem is not gluttony by a generation of Augustus Gloops but the avarice of the Willy Wonkas who press junk food on consumers, then profess surprise at the results. The tactics of big food are, as the global health organisation Vital Strategies points out in its report Fool Me Twice, strikingly similar to those of big tobacco over the years. But big food has the advantage that everyone needs to eat, while no one needs to smoke, and that a biscuit does not damage health as a cigarette does, obesity notwithstanding. Thus, these companies tell us that we should not restrict individual freedom; that it is up to people to show self-discipline; and that their products are fine as occasional indulgences — never mind that they present family-size packs as if they are suitable for individuals, nor that highly processed foods, packed with salt and sugar, tend to be cheaper to produce, store and deliver—as well as being habit-forming.
   Other countries have been far bolder in tackling the industry, instead of relying on voluntary action. In Latin America, governments have forced companies to remove cartoon characters — naturally an instant appeal to young children—from cereal boxes, imposed junk food taxes and ordered school tuck shops to replace high-salt/sugar products with fruit and vegetables. Tougher rules reshape consumer perceptions and decisions and in doing so, they can also push companies into changing products.
   A ban on junk food advertising before the 9pm watershed is long overdue. It should be supplemented by a ban on promotions and price cuts for "sharing" bags of chocolates, as Action on Sugar urged last month, and the sugar tax on drinks could be extended to food products, with the revenue channelled into initiatives making fresh produce more affordable and attractive to consumers. The government’s failure to force change means that the rest of us will pay the price — in ill health and higher taxes—as big food rakes in the profits.
Company policy to manufacture family-size packs of unhealthy food while stating that it is consumers who are responsible for limiting what they eat is an example of______.

选项 A、analogy
B、rhetoric
C、hypocrisy
D、sophistry

答案D

解析 本题为细节推理题。定位至文章第五段可知,这些公司告诉我们,我们不应该限制个人自由;表现出自律是人们自己的事;食用他们的产品只是偶尔的放纵——不要介意他们为个人提供家庭装。由此可以看出,厂商一方面推出其实并不适合个人的家庭装,另一方面又说自律是个人的事,这是一种诡辩。因此本题选D。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/9oTO777K
0

最新回复(0)