The idea that shopping is the new politics is certainly seductive. You probably go shopping several times a month, providing yourself with lots of opportunities to express your opinions. If you are worried about the environment, you might buy organic food; if you want to help poor farmers, you can do your bit by buying Fairtrade products; or you can express a dislike of evil multinational companies and rampant globalisation by buying only local produce. Sadly, it's not that easy. There are good reasons to doubt the claims made about three of the most popular varieties of “ethical” food: organic food, Fairtrade food and local food. People who want to make the world a better place cannot do so by shifting their shopping habits: transforming the planet requires duller disciplines, like politics.

   Organic food, which is grown without man-made pesticides and fertilisers, is generally assumed to be more environmentally friendly than conventional intensive farming. However, farming is inherently bad for the environment: since humans took it up around 11,000 years ago, the result has been deforestation on a massive scale. But following the “green revolution” of the 1960s greater use of chemical fertiliser has tripled grain yields with very little increase in the area of land under cultivation. Organic methods, which rely on crop rotation, manure and compost in place of fertiliser, are far less intensive. So producing the world's current agricultural output organically would require several times as much land as is currently cultivated. There wouldn't be much room left for the rainforest.

   Fairtrade food is designed to raise poor farmers' incomes. It is sold at a higher price than ordinary food, with a subsidy passed back to the farmer. But prices of agricultural commodities are low because of overproduction. By propping up the price, the Fairtrade system encourages farmers to produce more of these commodities rather than diversifying into other crops and so depresses prices—thus achieving, for most farmers, exactly the opposite of what the initiative is intended to do. And since only a small fraction of the mark-up on Fairtrade foods actually goes to the farmer—most goes to the retailer—the system gives rich consumers an inflated impression of their largesse and makes alleviating poverty seem too easy.

   Surely the case for local food, produced as close as possible to the consumer in order to minimise “food miles” and, by extension, carbon emissions, is clear? Surprisingly, it is not. A study of Britain's food system found that nearly half of food-vehicle miles (ie, miles travelled by vehicles carrying food) were driven by cars going to and from the shops. Most people live closer to a supermarket than a farmer's market, so more local food could mean more food-vehicle miles. Moving food around in big, carefully packed lorries, as supermarkets do, may in fact be the most efficient way to transport the stuff.

   What's more, once the energy used in production as well as transport is taken into account, local food may turn out to be even less green. Producing lamb in New Zealand and shipping it to Britain uses less energy than producing British lamb, because farming in New Zealand is less energy-intensive. And since the local-food movement looks suspiciously like old-fashioned protectionism masquerading as concern for the environment, helping poor countries is presumably not the point.

   注（1）：本文選自Economist，12/07/2006

   注（2）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿對象：第1~3題模仿2000年真題Text 1第1~3題；第4~5題分別模仿1999年真題Text 1第4題和Text 4第4題。

   1．In the author’s eyes, the view of seeing shopping as a political event is _______.

    [A] very helpful

    [B] not practical

    [C] simply nonsense

    [D] quite harmful

   2． According to the author, what may be the chief reason the disadvantage of organic food?

    [A] It cannot yield enough food

    [B] It is involved with some kind of political event.

    [C] It is directly responsible for the global deforestation.

    [D] It is not necessarily environment-friendly.

   3．Which of the following is TRUE according to the author?

   [A] Most benefit from fair-trade fool goes to farmers.

    [B] Fairtrade food encourages farmers to grow as many different produces as possible.

   [C] Fairtrade food fails to fulfill its original design.

    [D] Fairtrade food can effectively involve consumers to help reduce poverty.

   4．The author’s attitude towards the issue of local food seems to be _______.

    [A] approving

    [B] objective

    [C] indifferent

    [D] ironic

   5． It could be inferred from the text that _______.

    [A] local food might increase, instead of decrease, carbon emissions.

    [B] fairtrade food can encourage people to be more generous.

    [C] local food helps to save energy used in transportation.

    [D] local food aims against the practice of trade protectionism.

   篇章剖析

   本文是一篇議論文，主要討論了所謂的三種“道德食品”——有機食品、公平貿(mào)易食品和本地食品——實際上并沒有起到積極的作用，反而是消極的作用。第一段簡單說明了對于這三種食品的普遍想法；第二段分析了有機食品對于農(nóng)業(yè)發(fā)展的負(fù)面作用；第三段分析了“公平貿(mào)易食品”的不公平性；第四、五段通過分析和實際例子說明了所謂的本地食品只是貿(mào)易保護主義的幌子。

   詞匯注釋

   seductive [si`dQktiv] adj. 誘人的           compost [`kRmpRst] n. 混合肥料, 堆肥

   organic [R:`^Anik] adj. 器官的, 有機的    subsidy [`sQbsidi] n. 補助金, 津貼

   rampant [`rAmpEnt] adj. 猖獗的, 蔓生     fraction [`fr`kFEn] n. 小部分, 片斷

   ethical [`eWikEl] adj. 倫理的, 倫理學(xué)的     inflate [in`fleit] vt. 使膨脹, 使得意

   pesticide [`pestisaid] n. 殺蟲劑            largesse [`lB:dVes] n. 慷慨

  fertiliser [`fE:tilaizE] n. 肥料(尤指化學(xué)肥料) alleviate [E`li:vieit] vt. 減輕(痛苦等), 緩和 (情)

   inherent [in`hiErEnt] adj. 固有的, 內(nèi)在的   emission [i`miFEn] n. 散發(fā), 發(fā)射

   deforestation [di9fRris`teiFEn] n. 采伐森林  lorry [`lRri] n. 卡車

   triple [`tripl] v. 增至三倍                masquerade [9mAskE`reid] vi. 化裝; 冒充, 偽裝

   難句突破

   By propping up the price, the Fairtrade system encourages farmers to produce more of these commodities rather than diversifying into other crops and so depresses prices—thus achieving, for most farmers, exactly the opposite of what the initiative is intended to do.

   主體句式  The Fairtrade system encourage farmers to … rather than …

   結(jié)構(gòu)分析  本句結(jié)構(gòu)復(fù)雜：首先，句子開頭的狀語與后面的內(nèi)容存在因果關(guān)系；其次，句子的主體是在對兩方面的問題進行比較，由rather than連接著兩個部分；而比較后破折號后面的部分是一個長定語，與前面的內(nèi)容又存在因果關(guān)系。在閱讀的時候，一定要先理清主次，然后把各部分之間的修飾和限定等關(guān)系看清楚，才不至于出錯。

   句子譯文  通過提高價格，公平貿(mào)易體系鼓勵農(nóng)民生產(chǎn)更多的“公平貿(mào)易產(chǎn)品”，而不是生產(chǎn)多樣性的農(nóng)產(chǎn)品，因此將導(dǎo)致價格下跌——這樣一來，對于大多數(shù)農(nóng)民來說，比較終的結(jié)果正與他們的預(yù)期相反。

   題目分析

   1．B. 推理題。文章第一段比較后一句話中作者稱“人們希望讓世界變得更加美好，但要實現(xiàn)這個愿望，僅僅依靠改變購物習(xí)慣是不可能的——改變世界還是要靠比較乏味的方式，比如政治”，這說明作者認(rèn)為把購物作為政治活動的觀點是不實際的。

   2．D. 細(xì)節(jié)題。文章第二段中提到有機食品的環(huán)保性并不比傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)更強，而反而可能由于其推廣而增加對于農(nóng)田的需求，比較終導(dǎo)致對環(huán)境的破壞，因此答案為D。A錯誤的原因是，只要有足夠的農(nóng)田，通過生產(chǎn)有機食品也能夠滿足需求。C錯誤的原因是有機食品的生產(chǎn)到目前為止還不是去森林化的主要原因。

   3．C. 細(xì)節(jié)題。文章第三段開頭指出“公平貿(mào)易食品旨在提高貧困農(nóng)民的收入”，但是通過分析發(fā)現(xiàn)大部分利潤都被零售商賺走了，因此公平貿(mào)易食品在實踐中沒有實現(xiàn)其原來的設(shè)計目標(biāo)。

   4．D. 態(tài)度題。文章比較后一句話中指出“本地食品運動看起來更像傳統(tǒng)貿(mào)易保護主義一種經(jīng)過了掩飾的形式”，所以可以看出作者對本地食品運動的描述語氣充滿了諷刺的意味。

   5．A. 推理題。文章第四段開頭提到，“本地食品”的目的在于通過縮短運輸里程來減少二氧化碳的釋放，但在經(jīng)過一番分析之后，作者得出的結(jié)論是“因此本地食品越多，可能就意味著“食品運輸里程”越長”，因此答案為A。

   參考譯文

    有人把購物看成是一種新的政治活動，這種觀點的確很有吸引力。你每個月可能都得購物好幾次，因此你也就有了很多機會表達你的見解。如果為環(huán)境問題感到擔(dān)憂，你也許會購買有機食品；如果希望幫助貧困農(nóng)民，你可以通過購買公平貿(mào)易食品來盡綿薄之力；抑或，如果想對邪惡的跨國公司和猖獗的全球化表示反感，你就可以購買本地食品�？上�事情并不是那么簡單。我們有充分的理由懷疑有關(guān)這三種比較受歡迎的“道德食品”的主張。人們希望讓世界變得更加美好，但要實現(xiàn)這個愿望，僅僅依靠改變購物習(xí)慣是不可能的——改變世界還是要靠比較乏味的方式，比如政治。

    由于有機食品生產(chǎn)過程中不使用人造的殺蟲劑和肥料，因此人們一般都想當(dāng)然地認(rèn)為有機食品的環(huán)保性比傳統(tǒng)的集約型農(nóng)業(yè)更為明顯。不過，農(nóng)業(yè)在本質(zhì)上就是人類的一項破壞環(huán)境的活動：自從約1萬1千年前人類開始從事農(nóng)業(yè)以來，一直都在對森林進行大規(guī)模的破壞。但是隨著20世紀(jì)60年代“綠色革命”的到來，化學(xué)肥料的大量使用使得糧食產(chǎn)量提高了3倍，而耕地面積并沒有增加多少。有機生產(chǎn)方式不使用化學(xué)肥料，主要依靠輪作、糞肥和混合肥，并不是集約型生產(chǎn)。因此，如果目前全球農(nóng)業(yè)總產(chǎn)量都靠有機生產(chǎn)方式進行的話，那么所需耕地面積將是現(xiàn)有面積的數(shù)倍之多。這樣一來，熱帶雨林的面積也就會剩的不多了。

    公平貿(mào)易食品旨在提高貧困農(nóng)民的收入。其售價比一般食品高，而其中部分差價則作為補貼發(fā)還給農(nóng)民。但農(nóng)產(chǎn)品低廉的價格是因為生產(chǎn)過剩的原因。通過提高價格，公平貿(mào)易體系鼓勵農(nóng)民生產(chǎn)更多的“公平貿(mào)易產(chǎn)品”，而不是生產(chǎn)多樣性的農(nóng)產(chǎn)品，因此將導(dǎo)致價格下跌——這樣一來，對于大多數(shù)農(nóng)民來說，比較終的結(jié)果正與他們的預(yù)期相反。此外，由于價格差價的部分只有少部分歸農(nóng)民所有——大部分都被零售商賺走了——這種體系會讓有錢的消費者產(chǎn)生自己頗為慷慨大方的印象，而且讓人們覺得減少貧困似乎是輕而易舉的任務(wù)。

    本地食品是指在距離消費者盡可能近的地方生產(chǎn)，從而比較大限度地縮短了“食品里程”并減小了二氧化碳釋放的食品。那么本地食品的優(yōu)點可信么？令人驚訝的是，事實并非如此。一項針對英國食品制度的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，“食品運輸里程”（即運送食品的車輛行駛里程）有近一半是由送貨到商店及買東西后出商店的車子所行駛的。大多數(shù)人住的地方離超市較近，而距離農(nóng)貿(mào)市場比較遠(yuǎn)，因此本地食品越多，可能就意味著“食品運輸里程”越長。只有像超市一樣用包裹得嚴(yán)嚴(yán)實實的大貨車運送食品也許才是比較為高效的運貨方式。

    此外，如果把生產(chǎn)中使用的能源和運輸兩個因素都考慮進來的話，本地食品也許沒有那么環(huán)保。由于新西蘭農(nóng)業(yè)的能源使用不太密集，因此在新西蘭生產(chǎn)羊肉然后把它運到英國這一過程所消耗的能源要比直接在英國生產(chǎn)羊肉要少。況且，本地食品運動看起來更像傳統(tǒng)貿(mào)易保護主義一種經(jīng)過了掩飾的形式，其重點似乎并不在于幫助窮國的發(fā)展。