题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
How much genetically modified corn was planted in the US last year？
A．More than half.
B．65 million acres.
C．One third.
D．Three quarters.
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
更多“How much genetically modified …”相关的问题
How much corn planted in the U.S. last year was genetically modified？
A．More than half.
B．65 million acres.
C．One third.
D．Three quarters.
Biotech firms have not much interest in the developing world market because______.
A．running business there needs much in distribution
B．farmers there are too poor to buy their products
C．these firms want to keep their technology secret
D．farmers there don't like genetically modified crops
The European Union had approved a number of genetically
modified crops until late 1998. But growing public concern
over its supposed environmental and health risks led several 【M1】______
EU countries to demand a moratorium (暂时禁止) on imports
of any new GM produce. By late 1999 there were enough such
country to block any new approvals of GM produce. 【M2】______
Last year, America filed a complaint at the WTO about the
moratorium, arguing that it was an illegal trade barrier
because there was no scientific base for it. 【M3】______
As more studies have been completed on the effects
of GM crops, the greens' case for them has weakened. 【M4】______
Much evidence has emerged of health risks from eating 【M5】______
them. And, overall, the studies have shown that the
environmental effects on modified crops are, not always 【M6】______
as serious as the greens claim. Nevertheless, environmentalists
continue to find fault of such studies and argue that 【M7】______
they are inconclusive.
While Americans seem happy enough to consume food made
from GM crops, opinion polls continue to show that European
consumers dislike the idea. Europeans seem be taking the attitude 【M8】______
which, since there remains the slightest possibility of adverse 【M9】______
consequences and since it is clear how they, as consumers, benefit 【M10】______
from GM crops, they would rather not run the risk.
【M1】
Part B
Directions: In the following article some paragraphs have been removed. For Questions 66-70, choose the most suitable paragraph from the list A-F to fit into each of the numbered gaps. There is one paragraph which does not fit in any of the gaps. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1.
Supermarket shoppers have never been more spoilt for choice. But just when we thought traditional systems of selective farming had created the most tempting array of foods money can buy, we are now being presented with the prospect of genetically created strains of cabbages, onion, tomato, potato and apple.
It may not tickle the fancy of food purists but it fires the imagination of scientists. Last week they discovered that the classic Parisian mushroom contains just the properties that, when genetically mixed with a wild strain of mushroom from the Sonora desert in California, could help it grow en masse while at the same time providing it with the resilience of the wild strain.
66.______
" We have found a way of increasing the success rate from one to 90 per cent. "
This is just one of the many products that, according to skeptics, are creating a generation of "Frankenfoods". The first such food that may be consumed on a wide scale is a tomato which has been genetically manipulated so that it does not soften as it ripens.
67.______
Critics say that the new tomato—which cost $25 million to research—is designed to stay on supermarket shelves for longer. It has a ten-day life span.
Not surprisingly, every-hungry US is leading the search for these forbidden fruit. By changing the genes of a grapefruit, a grower from Texas has created a sweet, red, thin-skinned grapefruit expected to sell at a premium over its California and Florida competitors.
For chip fanatics who want to watch their waist-lines, new high-starch, low-moisture potatoes that absorb less fat when fried have been created, thanks to a gene from intestinal bacteria.
The scientists behind such new food argue that genetic engineering is simply an extension of animal and plant breeding methods and that by broadening the scope of the genetic changes that can be made, sources of food are increased. Accordingly, they argue, this does not inherently lead to foods that are less safe than those developed by conventional techniques. But if desirable genes are swapped irrespective of species barriers, could things spiral out of control？ "Knowledge is not toxic, "said Mark Cantley , head of the biotechnology unit at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, "It has given us a far greater understanding of how living systems work at a molecular level and there is no reason for people to think that scientists and farmers should use that knowledge to do risky things. "
Clearly, financial incentive lies behind the development of these bigger, more productive foods. But we may have only ourselves to blame. In the early period of mass food commerce, food varieties were developed by traditional methods of selective breeding to suit the local palate. But as suppliers started to select and preserve plant variants that had larger fruit, consumer expectations rose, leading to the development of the desirable clones. Still, traditionalists and gourmets in Europe are fighting their development.
68.______
Even in the pre-packaged US, where the slow-softening tomato will soon be reaching supermarkets, 1, 500 American chefs have lent their support to the Pure Food Campaign which calls for the international boycott of genetically engineered foods until more is known about the consequences of the technology and reliable controls have been introduced.
In the short term, much of the technology remains untested and in the long term the consequences for human biology are unknown. Questions have arisen over whether new proteins in gen
Find Yourself Packing It On？ Blame Friends
Obesity can spread from person to person, much like a virus, researchers are reporting today. When one person gains weight, close friends tend to gain weight, too.
Their study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, involved a detailed analysis of a large social network of 12,067 people who had been closely followed for 32 years, from 1971 to 2003.
The investigators knew who was friends with whom as well as who was a spouse or sibling or neighbor, and they knew how much each person weighed at various times over three decades. That let them reconstruct what happened over the years as individuals became obese. Did their friends also become obese？ Did family members？ Or neighbors？
The answer, the researchers report, was that people were most likely to become obese when a friend became obese. That increased a person's chances of becoming obese by 57 percent. There was no effect when a neighbor gained or lost weight, however, and family members had less influence than friends.
It did not even matter if the friend was hundreds of miles away, the influence remained. And the greatest influence of all was between close mutual friends. There, if one became obese, the other had a 171 percent increased chance of becoming obese, too.
The same effect seemed to occur for weight loss, the investigators say. But since most people were gaining, not losing, over the 32 years, the result was, on average, that people grew fatter.
Dr. Nicholas A. Christakis, a physician and professor of medical sociology at Harvard Medical School and a principal investigator in the new study, said one explanation was that friends affected each others' perception of fatness. When a close friend becomes obese, obesity may not look so bad.
"You change your idea of what is an acceptable body type by looking at the people around you," Dr. Christakis said.
The investigators say their findings can help explain why Americans have become fatter in recent years--each person who became obese was likely to drag along some friends.
Their analysis was unique, Dr. Christakis said, because it moved beyond a simple analysis of one person and his or her social contacts and instead examined an entire social network at once, looking at how a person's friend's friends, or a spouse's sibling's friends, could have an influence on a person's weight.
The effects, he said, "highlight the importance of a spreading process, a kind of social contagion, that spreads through the network."
Of course, the investigators say, social networks are not the only factors that affect body weight. There is a strong genetic component at work, too.
Science has shown that individuals have genetically determined ranges of weights, spanning perhaps 30 or so pounds for each person. But that leaves a large role for the environment in determining whether a person's weight is near the top of his or her range or near the bottom. As people have gotten fatter, it appears that many are edging toward the top of their ranges. The question has been why.
If the new research is correct, it may say that something in the environment seeded what some call an obesity epidemic, making a few people gain weight. Then social networks let the obesity spread rapidly.
Who had the greatest influence on people who became obese？
A．Their friends.
B．Their neighbours.
C．Their family members.
D．Their colleagues.
A. Their friends.
B. Their neighbours.
C. "Their family members.
D. Their colleagues.
A．no matter how much it costs
B．no matter how much does it cost
C．no matter how it costs
D．no matter how does it cost
How much is one shin？
A．Forty.
B．Twenty.
C．Ten.
