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
52
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://www.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
TheblackpeopledidnotvoteinAmericain1941.
Whichofthefollowingstatementsistrueaccordingtowhatyouhaveheard?
Mymotherwasatypicalhousewife,whocaredforherfamily.
Earthquakesoftenhappennearvolcanoes,butthisisnotalwaystrue.Thecentersofsomeare【L1】______.Thebottomoftheseas
A、Smokingisusuallyassociatedwithpoverty.B、Smokingisnotasunhealthyasitseems.C、Smokingisthestudents’bestpastime
Nike’sSuccessNikeperformedwellduringthelastquarter.Businesswasupineverymajormarket,in【L1】______,bothinits
TheTrendsofChineseTouristsTravellingAbroadVocabularyandExpressionsshoppingtourdutyfreeproductsTahitiM
PreparingforChina’sUrbanBillionThescaleandpaceofChina’surbanizationcontinuesatanunprecedentedrate.If【L1】___
Itissaidthatthesuperbughaslearnedtooutsmarteventhemostsophisticatedantibiotics.Whatdoes"outsmart"meanhere?
________thatsheisinterestedinchildren,Iamsurethatteachingistherightprofessionforher.
随机试题
正常人体日平均尿量为
脂肪供热占膳食总热能多少较为适宜
临床试验的多中心试验计划和实施要考虑的是
根据《重大危险源辨识》(GB18218—2000)标准,重大危险源分为()。
【背景】某房地产开发公司(甲方)通过招投标确定某施工单位(乙方)为中标单位。双方依据《建设工程施工合同(示范文本)》(GF—1999—0201)签订了一份合同总价为2000万元的建设工程施工合同,合同工期为10个月。2006年3月开始施工,2006
某施工单位承包了一项通信局站的电源系统安装工程,施工单位编制了施工组织计划,其中资源配备计划包括机具及仪表使用计划、材料需求计划;电源系统的接地系统有交流接地系统、工作接地系统、保护接地系统和防雷接地系统。工程完工后,施工单位编制了竣工材料,包括竣工图、
根据《水利工程施工安全管理导则》SL721—2015,项目法人组织制定的安全生产管理制度其基本内容中不包括()。
系统分析的第一个阶段的主要任务是()。
10000
Whatevolutionarychangeinbirdsledtoanest’sbuilding?
最新回复
(
0
)