2. 外语
  3. For more than 50 years, microbiologists in the U.S. and Europe have warned against using antibiotics to fatten up farm animals.

For more than 50 years, microbiologists in the U.S. and Europe have warned against using antibiotics to fatten up farm animals.

admin2019-09-23  31
问题    For more than 50 years, microbiologists in the U.S. and Europe have warned against using antibiotics to fatten up farm animals. The practice, they argue, threatens human health by turning farms into breeding grounds of drug-resistant bacteria. Farmers responded that restricting antibiotics in livestock would devastate the industry and significantly raise costs to consumers. We have empirical data that should resolve this debate. Since 1995, Denmark has enforced progressively tighter rules on the use of antibiotics in raising pigs, poultry and other livestock. In the process, it has shown that it’s possible to protect human health without hurting farmers.
   Farmers in many countries use antibiotics in two key ways: (1) at full strength to treat sick animals and (2) in low doses to fatten meat-producing livestock or to prevent veterinary illnesses. Although even the proper use of antibiotics can inadvertently lead to the spread of drug-resistant bacteria, the habit of using a low or "sub-therapeutic" dose is a formula for disaster: the treatment provides just enough antibiotic to kill some but not all bacteria. The germs that survive are typically those that happen to bear genetic mutations for resisting the antibiotic. They then reproduce and exchange genes with other microbial resisters. Because bacteria are found literally everywhere, resistant strains produced in animals eventually find their way into people as well. You could hardly design a better system for guaranteeing the spread of antibiotic resistance.
   The data from multiple studies over the years support the conclusion that low doses of antibiotics in animals increase the number of drug-resistant microbes in both animals and people. As Joshua M. Scharfstein, a principal deputy commissioner at the Food and Drug Administration, put it, "You actually can trace the specific bacteria around and ... find that the resistant strains in humans match the resistant strains in the animals." And this science is what led Denmark to stop sub-therapeutic dosing of chickens, pigs and other farm animals.
   Although the transition unfolded smoothly in the poultry industry, the average weight of pigs fell in the first year. But after Danish farmers started leaving piglets together with their mothers a few weeks longer to bolster their immune systems naturally, the animals’ weights jumped back up, and the number of pigs per litter increased as well. The lesson is that improving animal husbandry — making sure that stalls and cages are properly cleaned and giving animals more room or time to mature — offsets the initial negative impact of limiting antibiotic use. Today Danish industry reports that productivity is higher than before. Meanwhile, reports of antibiotic resistance in Danish people are mixed, which shows — as if we needed reminding — that there are no quick fixes.
   Of course, the way veterinary antibiotics are used is not the only cause of human drug-resistant infections. Careless use of the drugs in people also contributes to the problem. But agricultural use is still a major contributing factor. Every day brings new evidence that we are in danger of losing effective antibiotic protection against many of the most dangerous bacteria that cause human illness. The technical issues are solvable. Denmark’s example proves that it is possible to cut antibiotic use on farms without triggering financial disaster. In fact, it might provide a competitive advantage. Stronger measures to deprive drug-resistant bacteria of their agricultural breeding grounds simply make scientific, economic and common sense.
The Danish government’s decision in 1995 to limit the use of antibiotics by farmers______.
选项 A、has produced healthier chickens but less healthy pigs
B、has caused concern about long-term productivity problems
C、has failed to lead to a drop in antibiotic resistance among people
D、has significantly improved the health of both humans and animals
答案C
解析 推断题。从第4段可以看出限用抗生素后家禽转型顺利，家畜转型较慢，但仍然增强了家猪的免疫力和存活率，可见家猪也很健康，排除A。第4句丹麦产业报告说生产率比以前更高，但未提及对长期生产力的关注，故应排除B。第4段最后一句提到“关于丹麦人抗生素耐药性的报道喜忧参半，提醒我们没有速效药”，即暂时未能降低人群中的抗药性。故选C。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/oL1YFFFM
本试题收录于： CATTI二级笔译综合能力题库翻译专业资格（CATTI）分类
0

CATTI二级笔译综合能力

翻译专业资格（CATTI）

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)