The term“genetically modified”(G-M)is an offspring of another term：biotechnology，a word that‘s been around for about 30 years.Biotechnology was coined in the shadow of new techniques that allowed scientists to modify the genetic material in living cells.Roughly，that means imitating biological processes to produce substances that，arguably，benefit things like agriculture，medicine and the environment.

　　Proponents of G-M foods argue using biotechnology in the production of food products has many benefits：it speeds up the process of breeding plants and animals with desired characteristics;can be used to introduce traits that a product wouldn‘t traditionally have;can improve the nutritional value of products;and can produce cheaper and more environmentally-friendly fertilizers.And，say the supporters，a11 of this is done safely.Bart Bilmer，an officer of biotechnology at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency，reinforces this.He says before being put on the shelves，all foods go through rigorous tests to ensure they’re up to snuff.The standard for“safe”is the food that‘s already being sold in grocery stores.It’s called the principle of substantial equivalence.And there‘s no doubt in Bilmer’s mind that it‘s a system that’s working and working well.

　　Advocacy groups，like the Council of Canadians and Greenpeace，don‘t see things quite the same way.They cite studies done by groups such as the British Medical Association which argue G-M foods could have disastrous consequences to our health.1)To the groups on this side of the issue，that“could”provides more than enough reason to proceed with extreme caution，something they say isn’t being done at present.Those on this side of the debate say there are a number of problems with the current approach to G-M foods.To begin with，they argue the notion of substantial equivalence is not a standard they trust.They want a new testing system independent from the industry.As well，G-M critics say enough time hasn‘t passed to study the long-term effects of the foods.Without knowing，argues Jennifer Story of the Council of Canadians，Canadians are“part of this giant experiment involving a radical and frontier science”。

　　One side says the foods on the shelves of Canada‘s grocery stores are safe.The other side says they’re not so sure.Both sides agree consumers may be confused with the information out there but don‘t agree on how to address that confusion.One side says the answer lies’in voluntary labels，the other says mandatory ones are the bare minimum.2) Whatever the case， it's a debate that makes us consider the role technology has in our lives.What makes this debate unique is that every meal we eat is at its very core.And that fact means one thing：it‘s an issue to be discussed not only around policy tables，but dinner tables.

　　1. The expression“are up to snuff”(Para.2 )probably means____.

　　[A]be healthy [B]be pleasant to taste

　　[C]meet the standard [D] be nutritious

　　2. The“principle of substantial equivalence”(Para.2 )is one by which____.

　　[A]G-M foods can be produced and processed

　　[B]one can define the safety of G-M foods

　　[C]foods can be genetically modified up to standard

　　[D]foods can be tested before they are sold at grocery stores

　　3. Those who advise taking a cautious attitude toward G-M foods warn that____.

　　[A]G-M foods will have disastrous consequences to people‘s health

　　[B]the long-term effects of G-M foods remain largely unknown

　　[C]most G-M foods do not meet the principle of substantial equivalence

　　[D]most fertilizers used in raising G-M foods are harmful to the environment

　　4. What Jennifer Story says implies____.

　　[A]she considers genetic food modification desirable

　　[B]she believes G-M food will have disastrous consequences to our health

　　[C]she predicts more and more Canadians will like G-M foods

　　[D]she takes a cautious attitude towards food modification

　　5. The author‘s attitude towards the issue of G-M food is____.

　　[A]positive [B]negative

　　[C]radical [D]impartial

　　參考答案：

　　1. [C] 這是一個俚語，意為“符合標準的”。第二段中該句的下一句實際上解釋了該詞組的意思。

　　2. [B] 該句的上一句實際上說明了其意思。

　　3. [B] 在第三段，認為應該慎重對待這種新型食物的人提到了兩點理由：一是他們認為目前測試其安全與否的標準不可靠;二是認為這種食物投放市場的時間尚短，還沒辦法研究其長期效應(long-term effects)。

　　4. [D] 在第三段最后一句她說，加拿大人毫無意識地成為一種全新的前沿科學的試驗品。她說的這一句話與上一句話的意思應該是一致的。由此推斷，在她看來，人們應該謹慎做事，因為人們還不了解新型食物的長期效應。

　　5. [D]意為：客觀的。作者列舉了擁護者和反對者的意見，對于孰是孰非并沒有提出自己的看法，所以在最后一句作者指出，問題還將繼續爭論下去。

　　編輯推薦：

　　2015年考研復習如何突破六大誤區

　　2015考研英語5500大綱詞匯匯編(帶下載)

　　考試吧獨家策劃：2015年考研大綱及解析專題

　　2007-2014年考研政治真題及答案|解析|估分|下載

　　考試吧考研題庫(新增數學三) 智能做題首選 立即體驗!