閱讀理解是學(xué)習(xí)英語以及考試中的題目，很多學(xué)生因為覺得難，其實，對于閱讀理解最好的方法就是多練習(xí)，因為學(xué)習(xí)英語的的直徑只有不斷練習(xí)，以下是小編給大家整理的閱讀理解：有機食品真的更健康嗎?希望可以幫到大家
Is organic food really healthier?
有機食品真的更健康嗎?
Organic food is more than just a passing fad. Organic food sales totaled a record US$45.2 billion in 2017, making it one of the fastest-growing segments of American agriculture. While a small number of studies have shown associations between organic food consumption and decreased incidence of disease, no studies to date have been designed to answer the question of whether organic food consumption causes an improvement in health.
有機食品可不僅僅是一時風(fēng)尚。2017年，其銷售總額創(chuàng)下歷史新高——452億美元，成為美國農(nóng)業(yè)增長最快的部分之一。雖然少數(shù)研究已表明食用有機食品和疾病發(fā)病率降低存在聯(lián)系，但尚未有研究對如下問題做出解答：食用有機食品是否會讓人更健康?
I’m an environmental health scientist who has spent over 20 years studying pesticide exposures in human populations. Last month, my research group published a small study that I believe suggests a path forward to answering the question of whether eating organic food actually improves health.
我是一名環(huán)境健康科學(xué)家，過去二十年一直都在研究人類接觸農(nóng)藥的情況。上個月，我的研究團隊發(fā)表了一篇小型研究，我認(rèn)為這項研究為上述問題提供了前進方向。
According to the USDA, the organic label does not imply anything about health. In 2015, Miles McEvoy, then chief of the National Organic Program for USDA, refused to speculate about any health benefits of organic food, saying the question wasn't "relevant" to the National Organic Program. Instead, the USDA's definition of organic is intended to indicate a production method that "foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity."
據(jù)美國農(nóng)業(yè)部表示，有機標(biāo)簽并不意味著健康。在2015年，美國農(nóng)業(yè)部國家有機計劃的時任負(fù)責(zé)人邁爾斯·麥克沃伊(Miles McEvoy)拒絕推測有機食品的健康益處，并表示這一問題與國家有機計劃并“不相關(guān)”。相反，美國農(nóng)業(yè)部對有機一詞的定義旨在表明一種生產(chǎn)方法，該方法可“鼓勵資源循環(huán)、促進生態(tài)平衡、保護生態(tài)多樣性。”
While some organic consumers may base their purchasing decisions on factors like resource cycling and biodiversity, most report choosing organic because they think it's healthier.
雖然有些購買有機產(chǎn)品的消費者可能是根據(jù)資源循環(huán)和生物多樣性等因素做出的購買決定，但大多數(shù)人還是因為覺得它更健康。
Sixteen years ago, I was part of the first study to look at the potential for an organic diet to reduce pesticide exposure. This study focused on a group of pesticides called organophosphates, which have consistently been associated with negative effects on children's brain development. We found that children who ate conventional diets had nine times higher exposure to these pesticides than children who ate organic diets.
十六年前，我參與了首個探索有機飲食潛力以降低農(nóng)藥接觸的研究。這項研究重點關(guān)注一組名為有機磷酸鹽的農(nóng)藥，這類農(nóng)藥一直被認(rèn)為會對兒童的大腦發(fā)育帶來負(fù)面影響。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，飲食傳統(tǒng)的兒童接觸這些農(nóng)藥的次數(shù)比食用有機食品的兒童高9倍。
Our study got a lot of attention. But while our results were novel, they didn't answer the big question. As I told The New York Times in 2003, "People want to know, what does this really mean in terms of the safety of my kid? But we don't know. Nobody does." It was true then, and it's still true now.
我們的研究受到了廣泛關(guān)注。雖然我們的結(jié)果是新穎的，但卻并未回答上述問題。正如我在2003年對《紐約時報》所說的那樣，“人們想知道，這對兒童的安全究竟有何意義?但我們并不知道答案。沒有人知道?！边@句話既適用于當(dāng)時，也適用于此時。
