剑桥雅思7阅读：Test2雅思阅读PASSAGE 2真题+答案+解析

      剑桥雅思7阅读：Test2雅思阅读PASSAGE 2真题+答案+解析，我们一起来看看吧！

　　READING PASSAGE 2

　　You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 14- -26, which are based on Reading Passage 2below.

　　A For more than forty years the cost of food has beenrising. It has now reached a point where a growingnumber of people believe that it is far too high, and thatbringing it down will be one of the great challenges ofthe twenty first century. That cost, however, is not inimmediate cash. In the West at least, most food is nowfar cheaper to buy in relative terms than it was in 1960.Thecost is in thecollateral damage of the verymethods of food production that have made the foodcheaper: in the pollution of water, the enervation of soil,the destruction of wildlife, the harm to animal welfareand the threat to human health caused by modernindustrial agriculture.

　　B First mechanisation, then mass use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, thenmonocultures, then battery rearing of livestock, and now genetic engineering - theonward march of intensive farming has seemed unstoppable in the last half-century, asthe 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, thegrey partridge, the lapwing and the corn bunting, have vanished from huge stretchesof countryside, as have even more wild flowers and insects. This is a direct result of theway we have produced our food in the last four decades. Thousands of miles ofhedgerows, thousands of ponds, have disappeared from the landscape. The faecal filthof salmon farming has driven wild salmon from many of the sea lochs and rivers ofScotland. Natural soil fertility is dropping in many areas because of continuousindustrial fertiliser and pesticide use, while the growth of algae is increasing in lakesbecause of the fertiliser run-off.

　　Put it all together and it looks like a battlefield, but consumers rarely make theconnection at the dinner table. That is mainly because the costs of all this damage arewhat economists refer to as externalities: they are outside the main transaction, whichis for example producing and selling a field of wheat, and are borne directly by neitherproducers nor consumers. To many, the costs may not even appear to be financial atall, but merely aesthetic - a terrible shame, but nothing to do with money. And anywaythey, as consumers of food, certainly aren't paying for it, are they?

　　D But the costs to society can actually be quantified and, when added up, can amount tostaggering sums. A remarkable exercise in doing this has been carried out by one ofthe world's leading thinkers on the future of agriculture, Professor Jules Pretty, Directorof the Centre for Environment and Society at the University of Essex. Professor Prettyand his colleagues calculated the externalities of British agriculture for one particularyear. They added up the costs of repairing the damage it caused, and came up with atotal figure of 22,343m. This is equivalent to 2208 for every hectare of arable land andpermanent pasture, almost as much again as the total government and EU spend onBritish farming in that year. And according to Professor Pretty, it was a conservativeestimate.

　　E The costs included: E120m for removal of pesticides; 216m for removal of nitrates;255m for removal of phosphates and soil; E23m for the removal of the bugcryptosporidium from drinking water by water companies; E125m for damage to wildlifehabitats, hedgerows and dry stone walls; E1,1 13m from emissions of gases likely tocontribute to climate change; E106m from soil erosion and organic carbon losses;E1 69m from food poisoning; and 607m from cattle disease. Professor Pretty draws asimple but memorable conclusion from all this: our food bills are actually threefold. Weare paying for our supposedly cheaper food in three separate ways: once over thecounter, secondly through our taxes, which provide the enormous subsidies proppingup modern intensive farming, and thirdly to clean up the mess that modern farmingleaves behind.

　　F So can the true cost of food be brought down? Breaking away from industrial agricultureas the solution to hunger may be very hard for some countries, but in Britain, where theimmediate need to supply food is less urgent, and the costs and the damage ofintensive farming have been clearly seen, it may be more feasible. The governmentneeds to create sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food sectors, whichwill contribute to a thriving and sustainable rural economy, and advance environmental,economic, health, and animal welfare goals.

　　G But if industrial agriculture is to be replaced, what is a viable alternative? ProfessorPretty feels that organic farming would be too big a jump in thinking and in practices formany farmers. Furthermore, the price premium would put the produce out of reach ofmany poorer consumers. He is recommending the immediate introduction of a 'GreenerFood Standard', which would push the market towards more sustainable environmentalpractices than the current norm, while not requiring the full commitment to organicproduction. Such a standard would comprise agreed practices for different kinds offarming, covering agrochemical use, soil health, land management, water and energyuse, food safety and animal health. It could go a long way, he says, to shiftingconsumers as well as farmers towards a more sustainable system of agriculture.

　　你应该花20分钟回答基于下面阅读文章2的第14- 26题。

　　A 40多年来，食品价格一直在上涨。现在，越来越多的人认为这个数字太高了，降低它将是21世纪的挑战之一。然而，这一成本并不是即时的现金。至少在西方，现在大多数食品的相对价格都比1960年便宜得多。代价是使食物更便宜的所有食品生产方法的横向破坏:水的污染、土壤的退化、野生动物的破坏、对动物福利的损害以及现代工业化农业对人类健康的威胁。

　　首先是机械化，然后是化肥和杀虫剂的大量使用，然后是单一栽培，然后是牲畜的连续饲养，现在是基因工程——在过去的半个世纪里，随着农产品产量的飙升，集约化农业的发展似乎势不可挡。但它造成的损害是巨大的。例如，在英国，许多我们最喜爱的农田鸟类，如云雀、灰鹧鸪、田凫和玉米鹀，已经从广阔的乡村消失了，甚至有的野花和昆虫。这是过去40年我们生产食物的直接结果。数千英里长的灌木篱笆墙，数千个池塘，都从这片土地上消失了。鲑鱼养殖带来的粪便污染迫使野生鲑鱼从苏格兰的许多海洋湖泊和河流中逃离。由于工业化肥和杀虫剂的持续使用，许多地区的自然土壤肥力正在下降，同时由于化肥的流失，湖泊藻类的生长正在增加。

　　把所有这些放在一起，它看起来像一个战场，但消费者很少在餐桌上建立联系。这主要是因为所有这些损害的成本被经济学家称为外部性:它们不在主要交易(比如生产和销售一块小麦田)之外，而且既不是由生产者也不是消费者直接承担。对许多人来说，这些成本似乎根本不是经济上的，而仅仅是审美上的——这是一种可怕的耻辱，与金钱无关。不管怎样，作为食品消费者，他们肯定不会为此买单，对吧?

　　但是对社会造成的损失实际上是可以量化的，如果加起来，就会达到惊人的数目。埃塞克斯大学环境与社会研究中心主任朱尔斯·普雷蒂是世界农业未来的思想家之一。布莱蒂和他的同事计算了某一年英国农业的外部性。他们把修复它造成的破坏的成本加起来，得出的总数字为223.43亿欧元。这相当于每公顷可耕地和牧场投入2208英镑，几乎是当年英国政府和欧盟在农业上投入总额的一倍。据Pretty说，这是一个保守的估计。

　　E费用包括:除害剂1.2亿em;216m用于去除硝酸盐，255m用于去除磷酸盐和土壤;供水公司清除饮用水中的虫隐孢子虫E23m;对野生生物栖息地、灌木篱墙和干燥石墙的破坏，高达125米;E1, 1300万可能导致气候变化的气体排放;土壤侵蚀和有机碳损失E106m;食物中毒e690 m;还有6.07亿人死于牛瘟。Pretty从中得出了一个简单但令人难忘的结论:我们的食品账单实际上是三倍。我们正以三种不同的方式为我们所谓的廉价食物买单:一是通过税收，它为现代集约化农业提供了巨大的补贴，第三是清理现代农业留下的烂摊子。

　　外:那么食物的真实成本能降低吗?对一些来说，摆脱工业农业作为解决饥饿的办法可能困难，但在英国，对食物的迫切需求并不是那么迫切，综合农业的成本和破坏已经显而易见，因此摆脱工业农业可能更可行。政府需要创建可持续的、有竞争力的、多样化的农业和食品部门，这将有助于繁荣和可持续的农村经济，推进环境、经济、健康和动物福利目标。

　　但是，如果工业化农业要被取代，有什么可行的替代方案?布里蒂认为，对许多农民来说，有机农业在思想和实践上都太过激进。此外，价格溢价会使许多较贫穷的消费者买不起这些产品。他建议立即引入“绿色食品标准”，这将推动市场向更可持续的方向发展

　　READING PASSAGE 2

　　文章结构

　　体 裁：议论+说明文

　　主 题：食物成本花销的本质及其导致的几个最根本原因

　　段落概括

　　A食物成本降低将是21世纪人类的挑战之一。

　　B上世纪几大主要因素导致密集农业发展步伐不可阻挡地向前迈进。

　　C成本的外在因素是孤立于商品主要交易之外的。

　　D对英国一年农业成本的外部花费做出基本核算之后外部原因可最终导致的费用。

　　E人们正在以三种方式为想象中更便宜的食物付款。

　　F可持续的、有竞争性的、多样化的农业模式及食物体系是英国政府食品安全的有力方式。

　　G认为有机农业对于许多农民来说无论是理论上还是实践上都会是一个具大的进步。