首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
For more than 50 years, microbiologists in the U.S. and Europe have warned against using antibiotics to fatten up farm animals.
For more than 50 years, microbiologists in the U.S. and Europe have warned against using antibiotics to fatten up farm animals.
admin
2019-09-23
32
问题
For more than 50 years, microbiologists in the U.S. and Europe have warned against using antibiotics to fatten up farm animals. The practice, they argue, threatens human health by turning farms into breeding grounds of drug-resistant bacteria. Farmers responded that restricting antibiotics in livestock would devastate the industry and significantly raise costs to consumers. We have empirical data that should resolve this debate. Since 1995, Denmark has enforced progressively tighter rules on the use of antibiotics in raising pigs, poultry and other livestock. In the process, it has shown that it’s possible to protect human health without hurting farmers.
Farmers in many countries use antibiotics in two key ways: (1) at full strength to treat sick animals and (2) in low doses to fatten meat-producing livestock or to prevent veterinary illnesses. Although even the proper use of antibiotics can inadvertently lead to the spread of drug-resistant bacteria, the habit of using a low or "sub-therapeutic" dose is a formula for disaster: the treatment provides just enough antibiotic to kill some but not all bacteria. The germs that survive are typically those that happen to bear genetic mutations for resisting the antibiotic. They then reproduce and exchange genes with other microbial resisters. Because bacteria are found literally everywhere, resistant strains produced in animals eventually find their way into people as well. You could hardly design a better system for guaranteeing the spread of antibiotic resistance.
The data from multiple studies over the years support the conclusion that low doses of antibiotics in animals increase the number of drug-resistant microbes in both animals and people. As Joshua M. Scharfstein, a principal deputy commissioner at the Food and Drug Administration, put it, "You actually can trace the specific bacteria around and ... find that the resistant strains in humans match the resistant strains in the animals." And this science is what led Denmark to stop sub-therapeutic dosing of chickens, pigs and other farm animals.
Although the transition unfolded smoothly in the poultry industry, the average weight of pigs fell in the first year. But after Danish farmers started leaving piglets together with their mothers a few weeks longer to bolster their immune systems naturally, the animals’ weights jumped back up, and the number of pigs per litter increased as well. The lesson is that improving animal husbandry — making sure that stalls and cages are properly cleaned and giving animals more room or time to mature —
offsets
the initial negative impact of limiting antibiotic use. Today Danish industry reports that productivity is higher than before. Meanwhile, reports of antibiotic resistance in Danish people are mixed, which shows — as if we needed reminding — that there are no quick fixes.
Of course, the way veterinary antibiotics are used is not the only cause of human drug-resistant infections. Careless use of the drugs in people also contributes to the problem. But agricultural use is still a major contributing factor. Every day brings new evidence that we are in danger of losing effective antibiotic protection against many of the most dangerous bacteria that cause human illness. The technical issues are solvable. Denmark’s example proves that it is possible to cut antibiotic use on farms without triggering financial disaster. In fact, it might provide a competitive advantage. Stronger measures to deprive drug-resistant bacteria of their agricultural breeding grounds simply make scientific, economic and common sense.
The author believes that______.
选项
A、Denmark’s experience can be generalized
B、measures should be taken to reduce bacteria
C、antibiotics protection is essential to animals
D、limiting the use of antibiotics has technical proof
答案
A
解析
观点题。第5段第6句“丹麦的例子就证明了在农场减少抗生素的使用不会引发金融灾难。”因此选择答案A(丹麦的经验可以普及)。注意考生易误选D,其实是对第5段第5句的误读,该句说到的“技术问题可以解决”是说我们可以找到对抗耐药细菌的办法,容易让人想当然地认为抗生素的限用有技术支撑。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/gVMO777K
本试题收录于:
CATTI二级笔译综合能力题库翻译专业资格(CATTI)分类
0
CATTI二级笔译综合能力
翻译专业资格(CATTI)
相关试题推荐
Washington:TheBushadministrationhas【L1】______forthefirsttimethatitmaybewillingto【L2】______amultinationalforcein
A、Askthepersonsittingclosetoittohelp.B、Standupandgetit.C、Sitwhereoneis,butstretchone’sarmsforit.D、Don’t
A、menandwomenhaveexactlythesamebrainsintheirheadsB、menandwomenhavequitedifferentbrainsintheirheadsC、menthi
Whichofthefollowingcanbestdescribeherpersonality?
DarkChocolateDarkchocolateisknowntohelppreventheartdisease,buteatingtoomuchofitmaybenotsogoodforyour
PreparingforChina’sUrbanBillionThescaleandpaceofChina’surbanizationcontinuesatanunprecedentedrate.If【L1】___
Aninitialsurveyof2,000UKemployeesrevealedthathalfregularlylistentomusic【C1】______.Someofthoseemployees’bosses
TheMeToomovementinIndiagained【C1】______lastyearwhenpopularfiguresdecidedtocomeoutwiththeirstoriesofsexualabu
Howmanyofuswouldtempforthreeyearswhilewewaitedfortheperfectjob?Notmanyofus,perhaps.ButWentworthMiller,th
Threeweeksago,aninternationalpanelheadedbyGeorgeMitchell,aformermajorityleaderoftheU.S.Senate,issuedareport
随机试题
ImmigrationandProblemsHundredsofthousandsofpeoplesupportingimmigrationrightsintheUSfilledstreetsalloverAme
A.局灶性大量中性WBC浸润及组织液化坏死B.疏松结缔组织的弥漫性化脓性炎C.黏膜的浆液渗出D.体腔内蓄积大量的脓液E.急性杆菌痢疾的结肠病变
A.稽留流产B.先兆流产C.过期流产D.难免流产E.感染流产停经80天,子宫约孕50天大小,妊娠试验阴性
根据城市人口增长的绝对数量,城市人口增长有()。
根据《环境影响技术评价导则生态影响》(HJ19-2011),工程分析的重点不包括()。
根据税法的规定,纳税人土地增值税清算时应提供的清算资料包括()。
厌恶风险的投资者偏好确定的股利收益,而不愿将收益存在公司内部去承担未来的投资风险,因此公司采用高现金股利政策有利于提升公司价值,这种观点的理论依据是()。
“物质的抽象,自然规律的抽象,价值的抽象以及其他等等,一句话,一切科学的抽象都更深刻、更正确、更完全地反映着自然。”这一论断说明()。
基层组织是有关犯罪和社会治安问题信息最广泛、最直接、最敏感的来源。()
Hishonestyis______;nobodycandoubtit.
最新回复
(
0
)