剑桥雅思7阅读Test2Passage2原文翻译
剑桥雅思7阅读Test2Passage2文章主要讲了食品的真实成本。
这篇文章的主要内容是关于现代工业农业对食品成本的副作用以及如何降低食品的真实成本。文章指出,在追求降低食品价格的过程中,我们忽视了工业农业对环境、动物福利和人类健康的危害。这些成本不是直接由生产者或消费者承担的,而是作为外部成本存在。然而,当这些成本被计算在内时,付出的代价是巨大的。文章提出了推动可持续农业和食品生产的必要性,通过改变农业模式和引入更绿色的食品标准来降低食品的真实成本。有机农业被认为是一种值得思考和实践的替代方案。通过这些举措,可以实现经济、环境、健康和动物福利的共同目标。
段落A For more than forty years the cost of food has been rising. It has now reached a point where a growing number of people believe that it is far too high, and that bringing it down will be one of the great challenges of the twenty-first century. That cost, however, is not in immediate cash. In the west at least, most food is now far cheaper to buy in relative terms than it was in 1960. The cost is in the collateral damage of the very methods of food production that have made the food cheaper: in the pollution of water, the enervation of soil, the destruction of wildlife, the harm to animal welfare and the threat to human health caused by modern industrial agriculture. | 段落A: |
段落B First mechanisation, then mass use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, then monocultures, then battery rearing of livestock, and now genetic engineering – the onward march of intensive farming has seemed unstoppable in the last half-century, as the yields of produce have soared. But the damage it has caused has been colossal. In Britain, for example, many of our best-loved farmland birds, such as the skylark, the grey partridge, the lapwing and the corn bunting, have vanished from huge stretches of countryside, as have even more wild flowers and insects. This is a direct result of the way we have produced our food in the last four decades. Thousands of miles of hedgerows, thousands of ponds, have disappeared from the landscape. The faecal filth of salmon farming has driven wild salmon from many of the sea lochs and rivers of Scotland. Natural soil fertility is dropping in many areas because of continuous industrial fertiliser and pesticide use, while the growth of algae is increasing in lakes because of the fertiliser run-off. | 段落B: |
段落C Put it all together and it looks like a battlefield, but consumers rarely make the connection at the dinner table. That is mainly because the costs of all this damage are what economists refer to as externalities: they are outside the main transaction, which is for example producing and selling a field of wheat, and are borne directly by neither producers nor consumers. To many, the costs may not even appear to be financial at all, but merely aesthetic – a terrible shame, but nothing to do with money. And anyway they, as consumers of food, certainly aren’t paying for it, are they? | 段落C: |
段落D But the costs to society can actually be quantified and, when added up, can amount to staggering sums. A remarkable exercise in doing this has been carried out by one of the world’s leading thinkers on the future of agriculture, Professor Jules Pretty, Director of the Centre for Environment and Society at the University of Essex. Professor Pretty and his colleagues calculated the externalities of British agriculture for one particular year. They added up the costs of repairing the damage it caused, and came up with a total figure of £2,343m. This is equivalent to £208 for every hectare of arable land and permanent pasture, almost as much again as the total government and EU spend on British farming in that year. And according to Professor Pretty, it was a conservative estimate. | 段落D: |
段落E The costs included: £120m for removal of pesticides; £16m for removal of nitrates; £55m for removal of phosphates and soil; £23m for the removal of the bug cryptosporidium from drinking water by water companies; £125m for damage to wildlife habitats, hedgerows and dry stone walls; £1,113m from emissions of gases likely to contribute to climate change; £106m from soil erosion and organic carbon losses; £169m from food poisoning; and £607m from cattle disease. Professor Pretty draws a simple but memorable conclusion from all this: our food bills are actually threefold. We are paying for our supposedly cheaper food in three separate ways: once over the counter, secondly through our taxes, which provide the enormous subsidies propping up modern intensive farming, and thirdly to clean up the mess that modern farming leaves behind. | 段落E: |
段落F So can the true cost of food be brought down? Breaking away from industrial agriculture as the solution to hunger may be very hard for some countries, but in Britain, where the immediate need to supply food is less urgent, and the costs and the damage of intensive farming have been clearly seen, it may be more feasible. The government needs to create sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food sectors, which will contribute to a thriving and sustainable rural economy, and advance environmental, economic, health, and animal welfare goals. | 段落F: |
段落G But if industrial agriculture is to be replaced, what is a viable alternative? Professor Pretty feels that organic farming would be too big a jump in thinking and in practices for many farmers. Furthermore, the price premium would put the produce out of reach of many poorer consumers. He is recommending the immediate introduction of a ‘Greener Food Standard’, which would push the market towards more sustainable environmental practices than the current norm, while not requiring the full commitment to organic production. Such a standard would comprise agreed practices for different kinds of farming, covering agrochemical use, soil health, land management, water and energy use, food safety and animal health. It could go a long way, he says, to shifting consumers as well as farmers towards a more sustainable system of agriculture. | 段落G: 但如果要取代工业农业,有哪种可行的替代方案呢?普里蒂教授认为对许多农民来说,有机农业可能是一种思维和实践上的巨大飞跃。此外,溢价会使得有机农产品对许多贫困消费者而言无法触及。他建议立即引入“更绿色的食品标准”,这将推动市场朝比现行标准更可持续的环境实践方向发展,而不需要完全承诺有机生产。这样的标准将包括不同类型农业的协定实践,涵盖农化合物使用、土壤健康、土地管理、水和能源利用、食品安全和动物健康。他说,这可以在很大程度上引导消费者和农民转向更可持续的农业体系。 |
2023年最新雅思模拟真题推荐:
2023雅思口语模考真题最新 |
2023雅思写作模考真题最新 |
2023雅思阅读模考真题最新 |
2023雅思听力模考真题最新 |
雅思口语模考 |
雅思写作批改 |
雅思真题资料题库PDF下载 |
有话要说: