2. 职称英语
  3. I’ll admit I’ve never quite understood the obsession (难以破除的成见) surrounding g

I’ll admit I’ve never quite understood the obsession (难以破除的成见) surrounding g

游客2023-08-10  55
问题     I’ll admit I’ve never quite understood the obsession (难以破除的成见) surrounding genetically modified (GM) crops. To environmentalist opponents, GM foods are simply evil, an understudied, possibly harmful tool used by big agricultural businesses to control global seed markets and crush local farmers. They argue that GM foods have never delivered on their supposed promise, that money spent on GM crops would be better channeled to organic farming and that consumers should be protected with warning labels on any products that contain genetically modified ingredients. To supporters, GM crops are a key part of the effort to sustainably provide food to meet a growing global population. But more than that, supporters see the GM opposition of many environmentalists as fundamentally anti-science , no different than those who question the basics of man-made climate change.
    For both sides, GM foods seem to act as a symbol: you’re pro-agricultural business or antiscience. But science is exactly what we need more of when it comes to GM foods, which is why I was happy to see Nature devote a special series of articles to the GM food controversy. The conclusion: while GM crops haven’t yet realized their initial promise and have been dominated by agricultural businesses, there is reason to continue to use and develop them to help meet the enormous challenge of sustainable feeding a growing planet.
    That doesn’t mean GM crops are perfect, or a one-size-tits-all solution to global agriculture problems. But anything that can increase farming efficiency—the amount of crops we can produce per acre of land—will be extremely useful. GM crops can and almost certainly will be part of that suite of tools, but so will traditional plant breeding, improved soil and crop management—and perhaps most important of all, better storage and transport infrastructure (基础设施), especially in the developing world. (It doesn’t do much good for farmers in places like sub-Saharan Africa to produce more food if they can’t get it to hungry consumers. ) I’d like to see more non-industry research done on GM crops— not just because we’d worry less about bias, but also because seed companies like Monsanto and Pioneer shouldn’t be the only entities working to harness genetic modification. I’d like to see GM research on less commercial crops, like corn. I don’t think it’s vital to label GM ingredients in food, but I also wouldn’t be against it—and industry would be smart to go along with labeling, just as a way of removing fears about the technology.
    Most of all, though, I wish a tenth of the energy that’s spent endlessly debating GM crops was focused on those more pressing challenges for global agriculture. There are much bigger battles to fight. [br] What does the author say is vital to solving the controversy between the two sides of the debate?
选项 A、Breaking the GM food monopoly.
B、More friendly exchange of ideas.
C、Regulating GM food production.
D、More scientific research on GM crops.
答案 D
解析 推理判断题。定位句中的But science is exactly what we need more of when it comes toGM foods表明，对于转基因食品，对我们来说更重要的是科学，need more of紧扣题干中另一个关键词vital，故答案为D)。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/2912731.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)