2. 医学
  3. You are what you eat notwithstanding, it is only recently that most consumers have become interested in the technical details of

You are what you eat notwithstanding, it is only recently that most consumers have become interested in the technical details of

admin2013-11-14  49
问题     You are what you eat notwithstanding, it is only recently that most consumers have become interested in the technical details of their food’s composition, production and transport. With obesity and climate change now major concerns, and "localvore" and "food miles" entering the lexicon, shoppers are clamoring for information. And many food companies are happy to supply it, resulting in a dizzying array of multicolored labels and claims.
    But not everyone is happy. A proposed law in Indiana is the latest attempt in the United States to ban milk labels proclaiming that the cows from whence the milk came were not treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone(rBGH, also called recombinant bovine somatotropin or rbST). This hormone, produced by engineered bacteria, is virtually identical to the cow’s own and can increase milk production by 10-15%.
    There are two bad arguments for banning such labels. The first — that it is impossible to determine from the milk whether the cow was injected with rBGH — is the reason cited in the bill language. The second — that proliferation of "no rBGH" labels will train consumers to distrust the product — is the real motivation.
    The first argument can be disposed of easily: it is already illegal to make false claims about a product. The second argument may seem more convincing. There is no firm scientific evidence that injecting cows with rBGH affects human health in any way, but prevalent labeling touting the absence of rBGH would suggest to consumers that there are some differences. The mandating(颁布)of an additional phrase such as that agreed last month in Pennsylvania — "No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-treated and non-rbST-treated cows" — ameliorates(减轻)this problem.
    There are good reasons not to ban accurate labels. More information means that consumers can be more discerning, and not just about their own health. They can vote with their purchases for farming practices they prefer. And if a company wants to use a technology with a bad reputation, it is the firm’s responsibility to educate the consumer about why it is beneficial. If consumers choose irrationally to reject it, that is their prerogative(特权). Capitalism thrives on the irrationality of consumers, from their noted fear of smelling bad, to their preference for redness in apples, farmed salmon and fast-food signage(标记).
    Indeed, if consumers were suddenly to become rational, an economic cataclysm(大灾难)would result, as households in all the rich nations would cut their consumption to only what they really needed. Such a crash would no doubt make the current economic doldrums(萧条)look like the mildest hiccup(打嗝).
The real intention behind the ban as we can learn from the passage is______.
选项 A、to convince consumers of confusion due to labels and claims
B、to get rid of the milk manufacturer’s bad reputation
C、to prove the safety of rbST-treated cows’ milk
D、to safeguard the sale of milk in the market
答案A
解析 本题考查细节。第三段有答案：The second—that proliferation of“no rBGH”labels will trainconsumers to distrust the product—is the real motivation，大意为“‘no rBGH’标签的泛滥会将顾客训练得不信任这些产品，这才是真正的目的。”为了解决顾客对产品的怀疑，才需要禁止这些标签。故本题选A最合适。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/QXU3777K
本试题收录于： 医学博士外语题库考研分类
0

医学博士外语

考研

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)