Text 3

　　Environmental and public health activists have clashed with scholars and risk�瞐nalysis professionals for decades over the appropriate regulation of various risks, including those from consumer products and manufacturing processes. Underlying the controversies about various specific issues—such as pesticides, gene�瞫pliced foods, and hormones in beef—has been a fundamental, almost philosophical question: how should regulators, acting as society’s surrogate(代理者), approach risk in the absence of certainty about the likelihood or magnitude of potential harm?

　　Proponents of a more risk�瞐verse approach have advocated a “precautionary principle” to reduce risks and make our lives safer. There is no widely accepted definition of the principle, but in its most common formulation, governments should implement regulatory measures to prevent or restrict actions that raise even conjectural threats of harm to human health or the environment, even though there may be incomplete scientific evidence as to the potential significance of these dangers. Use of the precautionary principle is sometimes represented as “erring on the side of safety” or “better safe than sorry” —the idea being that the failure to regulate risky activities sufficiently could result in severe harm to human health or the environment, and that “over�瞨egulation” causes little or no harm. Brandishing the precautionary principle, environmental groups have prevailed upon governments in recent decades to assail the chemical industry and, more recently, the food industry.

　　Potential risks should, of course, be taken into consideration before proceeding with any new activity or product, whether it is the siting of a power plant or the introduction of a new drug into the pharmacy. But the precautionary principle focuses solely on the possibility that technologies could pose unique, extreme, or unmanageable risks, even after considerable testing has already been conducted. What is missing from precautionary calculus is an acknowledgement that even when technologies introduce new risks, most confer net benefits—that is, their use reduces many other, often far more serious, hazards. Examples include blood transfusions and automobile air bags, all of which offer immense benefits and only minimal risk.

　　Several subjective factors can cloud thinking about risks and influence how nonexistent view them. Studies of risk perception have shown that people tend to overestimate risks that are unfamiliar, hard to understand, invisible, involuntary, and /or potentially catastrophic—and vice versa. Thus, they overestimate invisible “threats” such as electromagnetic radiation and trace amounts of pesticides in foods, which inspire uncertainty and fear sometimes verging on superstition. Conversely, they tend to underestimate risks the nature of which they consider to be clear and comprehensible, such as using a chain saw or riding a motorcycle.

　　31. According to the text, control of potential risks

　　[A] has been stopped arguing by activists and scholars.

　　[B] should be taken cautiously for lack of certainty.

　　[C] is the most serious in manufacturing processes.

　　[D] should be in the hands of the society.

　　32. The word “conjectural” (paragraph 2) most probably means

　　[A] slight [B]natural

　　[C] manipulated [D] immense

　　33. According to paragraph two, the precautionary principle

　　[A] tends to aggravate our health or the environment.

　　[B] has been universally accepted by the public.

　　[C] aims to handle risks rather than provide safety.

　　[D] means taking measures to avoid potential harm to human health.

　　34. Which of the following statements is NOT mentioned in the passage?

　　[A] People are inclined to exaggerate the hidden dangers.

　　[B] People are not likely to value the apparent and visible risks.

　　[C] Environmental groups have succeeded in persuading governments to criticize some industries recently.

　　[D] There has been conclusive scientific evidence about potential risks to our health or environment.

　　35. It can be concluded from the text that

　　[A] most technologies tend to pose threats rather than offer benefits.

　　[B] it’s hard to fully appreciate the benefits technologies bring.

　　[C] the “precautionary principle” is unpopular with scholars and professionals.

　　[D] the “precautionary principle” centers merely on the benefits of technologies.