2. 外语
  3. Between the 1950s and 1980s, we saw tremendous improvements in the safety of the food we eat in Europe. What we can call the "fi

Between the 1950s and 1980s, we saw tremendous improvements in the safety of the food we eat in Europe. What we can call the "fi

admin2011-02-09  114
问题     Between the 1950s and 1980s, we saw tremendous improvements in the safety of the food we eat in Europe. What we can call the "first wave" of food safety measures came with the pasteurization of milk and milk products and the introduction of rigid and effective hygiene systems in the production chain, mainly from the dairy and the abattoir to the supermarket. //
    The "second wave" of food safety measures came with the widespread introduction of HACCP, the hazard control system for the production chain.
    Yet, since the early 1980s, we have seen a marked increase in the reports of food-borne diseases, resulting from chemical or pathogenic contamination. //
    The number of confirmed cases of human disease caused by Salmonella has increased significantly since 1985—as much as five-fold in some European countries. For Campylobacter the increase has in some countries been even higher. Even though some of this could reflect better reporting, I believe everybody would agree that these problems are of a size that warrants action. //
    This situation, and associated loss of public confidence, suggests that something has gone wrong. We need a "third wave" of food safety measures.
    This third wave must be a focus on the direct risk to humans. We need to begin with the epidemiology of food-borne diseases and track them back through the food chain, all the way to the farm. This represents a tremendous challenge for the governments of Europe. //
    It means building up the capacity—and making effective use of expertise in assessing risks to human health. It means building up capacity for epidemiological tracking and mapping of food-related diseases, something that until now has held a rather low priority among most health authorities. It means improving our data collection efforts for both the pathogens in the food and human disease, so that the data are comparable both along the whole food chain and between regions and countries. We always have to remember that food chains are international. //
    And it will mean that officials concerned with agricultural productivity, and officials responsible for the health of populations, work together. Not only must they communicate. They must collaborate closely so that they can quickly trace back each incident of suspected food-borne disease to its source, analyze the size and geography of the problem and suggest both short and long term remedial measures. //
    This all calls for political action. People—both as consumers and producers—expect their government officials to work together for the common good. They demand this of those who represent them in government. Not only do they expect their politicians to make sure that government works in the primary interests of those who consume food: they also expect politicians to take action based on expert evidence. This calls for political courage, and for openness in government processes, so that risk assessment and analysis are transparent and available for public scrutiny. Only then can public health be maintained, and—at the same time—consumer confidence be restored. //
    This will mean a restructuring of agricultural ministries so that they move beyond a primary focus on economic issues. They need to represent the interests of the whole community— producers, processors and consumers. This kind of transformation will make for a healthier base for the future of the industry: this is already taking place in several European countries.
    The current efforts of the European Commission to strengthen and focus the scientific advice for food safety are an important contribution to the reforms already taking place in several countries. //
    It will also mean that ministries of health have to take interest in, and give priority to, action to monitor and prevent food-borne illness. They would need to strengthen their food safety resources and improve collaboration with other ministries. An incident of suspected food poisoning should no longer just be seen by doctors as a temporary health problem. It should be considered as a possible symptom of break-down in the food-safety system, and those who see patients need more help to decide what kind of event to report to public health authorities. //
    (Excerpts from the speech "Food Safety—a World-wide Challenge" by Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Director-General of World Health Organization, Uppsala, Sweden)
选项
答案 从上个世纪50年代年到80年代，欧洲食品安全有了极大的改进。我们称之为食品安全措施的“第一次浪潮”是伴随牛奶和奶制品巴氏灭菌法的出现而产生的，从奶牛场及屠宰场到超市的生产链中我们引入了严格而有效的卫生检测系统。// 由于在生产链中广泛使用了有害物检测系统，即“HACCP”，食品安全措施的“第二次浪潮”随之出现了 然而从80年代初开始，我们看到由化学污染和病原性污染引起的食源性疾病的报道明显增多。// 从1985年起，由沙门氏菌引起的确诊病例显著增加——在欧洲的一些国家该病例数已增至5倍。由空肠弯曲菌引起的疾病增幅甚至更大尽管部分原因是更多的病例得以报告，但我相信我们每个人都会同意：这些问题已经到了必须采取行动的地步。// 这种局面以及与之相关的公众信心的丧失，表明我们在食品问题上已经出现了纰漏。我们需要食品安全措施的“第三次浪潮” 第三次浪潮必须将重点放在对人体产生直接危害的环节上。我们需要以食源性疾病的流行病学为开端，沿着食物链的各个环节一直追踪到养殖场。这将是对欧洲各国政府的巨大挑战。// 这意味着建立一种能力——有效运用专业知识对殃及人类健康的危险进行评估；意味着建立起流行病学追踪和解释食源性疾病的能力，因为直到现在许多卫生机构并未对此予以重视；还意味着提高我们采集食物及人类疾病病原体数据的能力，使得数据在食物链的各个环节、不同国家和地区之间具有可比性，我们必须时刻记住食物链是国际性的。// 这将意味着主管农业生产和负责人口健康的政府官员们要携手合作。他们必须相互交流，不仅如此，还必须密切合作，这样才能快速地对每一例疑似食源性疾病进行追根溯源，分析其规模和地域分布情况，并提出近期和远期的治疗方案。// 所有这些需要我们采取政治行动。作为消费者和生产商，他们希望政府官员们为了公众利益事业能携手合作，要求代表他们利益的政府官员们这样做。他们不仅希望政治家们确保政府能为消费者的根本利益而工作，同样他们也希望政治家们依据专家的证据采取行动。这需要政治胆量，需要政府将工作程序公开化，对危险的评估和分析做到透明，便于公众进行检验。只有这样，才能维护公众健康，同时重树消费者的信心。// 这将意味着对农业部进行改革，使他们工作的首要目标不只是局限在经济问题上。他们需要代表整个社会的利益——生产商、加工者和消费者的利益。这种转变将会为食品行业的未来奠定更加健康的基础：这种变化已经在欧洲的一些国家发生了。 目前欧洲委员会正致力于加强和重视对食品安全提出科学性建议，这种努力对正在进行改革的国家是一个重要的贡献。// 这也将意味着各国卫生部必须对食源性疾病给予关注和重视，采取监控和预防行动，增加食品安全的资源，同时加强与其他部委的合作。医生不应该视疑似食物中毒的突发事件为暂时的健康问题，而是要想到这可能是食品安全系统遭遇瘫痪的征兆，对此医生需要更多的帮助来决定什么样的事件应上报公共卫生权威机构。// (节选自世界卫生组织前总干事布伦特兰博士在瑞典乌普萨拉发表的演讲“食品安全——世界范围的挑战”。)
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/JQ0O777K
本试题收录于： CATTI二级口译实务题库翻译专业资格（CATTI）分类
0

CATTI二级口译实务

翻译专业资格（CATTI）

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)