Why GM is good for us 
　　Farm-raised pigs are dirty, smelly animals that get no respect. They’re also an environmental hazard. Their manure contains phosphorus, which, when it rains, runs off into lakes and estuaries, depleting oxygen, killing fish, stimulating algae overgrowth and emitting greenhouse gases.
　　Doing away with the pig is not an option. Pigs provide more dietary protein, more cheaply, to more people than any other animal. Northern Europe still maintains the highest pig-to-human ratio in the world (2-1 in Denmark), but East Asia is catching up. During the 1990s, pork production doubled in Vietnam and grew by 70 percent in China—along densely populated coastlines, pig density exceeds 100 animals per square kilometer. The resulting pollution is “threatening fragile coastal marine habitats including mangroves(紅樹林), coral reefs and sea grasses,” according to a report released in February by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
　　As it turns out, there is a solution to the pig problem, but it requires a change of mind-set among environmentalists and the public. Two Canadian scientists have created a pig whose manure doesn’t contain very much phosphorus at all. If this variety of pig were adopted widely, it could greatly reduce a major source of pollution. But the Enviropig, as they call it, is the product of genetic modification—which is anathema(忌諱) to many Westerners.
　　The Enviropig is one of many new technologies that are putting environmentalists and organic-food proponents in a quandary: should they remain categorically(無條件的) opposed to genetically modified (GM) foods even at the expense of the environment? Elsewhere, trees grown for paper could be made amenable to much more efficient processing, reducing both energy usage and toxic chemical bleach in effluents from paper mills. The most significant GM applications will be ones that help alleviate the problem of agriculture, which accounts for 38 percent of the world’s landmass and is crowding out natural ecosystems and species habitats.
　　In fact, although all commonly used pesticides dissipate so quickly that they pose a miniscule health risk to consumers, allergic food reactions to natural products kill hundreds of children each year. Genetically modified foods could greatly reduce this risk. U.S. Department of Agriculture scientist Eliot Herman has already created a less-allergenic soybean—an important crop for baby foods. Through genetic surgery, Herman turned off the soy gene responsible for 65 percent of allergic reactions. Not only was the modified soy less allergenic in tests but, as Herman explained, “the yield looks perfectly normal, plants develop and grow at a normal rate and they seem to have the same kinds of protein, oil and other good stuff in them.” Other scientists have reported promising results in shutting off allergy�瞔ausing genes in peanuts and shrimp. Should these advances be turned into products, organic soy or peanut products will be certifiably more dangerous to human health than comparable nonorganic products.
　　Unfortunately, this won’t happen any time soon. Because no society has ever banned allergenic foods, conventional farmers have no incentive to plant reduced-allergy seeds. And many members of the public have been led to believe that all genetic modifications create health risks. In this climate, much of the needed research isn’t being pursued. Chances are, farmers will continue to grow their polluting organic pork, their allergenic organic soy and their neurotoxin�瞫prayed organic apples. Worse still, they will make sure that no one else gets a choice in the matter of improving the conditions of life on earth—unless, that is, others rise up and demand an alternative.
　　考研詞匯：
　　deplete [diˈpli:t]
　　vt.用盡，使減少;耗盡資源
　　stimulate[ˈstimjuleit]
　　v.①刺激，使興奮;②激勵，鼓舞
　　[真題例句] The rats (49：develop) bacterial infections of the blood, (50：as if) their immune systems—the self�瞤rotecting mechanism against disease—had crashed.[1995年完形]
　　(49) [A] develop[B] produce
　　[C] stimulate[D] induce
　　[例句精譯] 老鼠患血液細(xì)菌感染，似乎它們的免疫系統(tǒng)——抵御疾病的自我保護(hù)機(jī)制——已崩潰。
　　(49) [A] 發(fā)展，開發(fā)[B] 生產(chǎn)，制造
　　[C] 刺激，激勵[D] 引誘，導(dǎo)致
　　emit[iˈmit]
　　v.散發(fā)，發(fā)射

　　[真題例句] According the the theory, the universe burst into being as a submicroscopic, unimaginable dense knot of pure energy that flew outward in all directions, emitting radiation as it went, condensing into particles and then into atoms of gas.[1998年翻譯]
　　[例句精譯] 根據(jù)這一理論，宇宙的形成是由一團(tuán)亞微觀的、極其稠密的純能量團(tuán)從四面八方向外擴(kuò)散，首先放出輻射線，濃縮成粒子，然后形成氣體原子。
　　amenable[əˈmi:nəbəl]
　　a.應(yīng)服從的, 有服從義務(wù)的, 有責(zé)任的
　　dissipate[ˈdisipeit]
　　v.驅(qū)散，(使)(云、霧、疑慮等)消散，浪費(fèi)(金錢或時(shí)間)
　　allergenic[əˈlə:dʒik]
　　a.[醫(yī)]引起過敏癥的
　　背景常識介紹：
　　轉(zhuǎn)基因食品(GM FOOD)，就是指科學(xué)家在實(shí)驗(yàn)室中，把動植物的基因加以改變，再制造出具備新特征的食品種類。“轉(zhuǎn)基因食品”如今已經(jīng)在世界上多個(gè)國家成了環(huán)境和健康的中心議題。并且，它還在迅速分裂大眾的思想陣營：贊同它的人認(rèn)為科技的進(jìn)步能大大提高我們的生活水平，而畏懼它的人則認(rèn)為科學(xué)的實(shí)踐已經(jīng)走得“太快”了。
　　參考譯文：
　　為什么轉(zhuǎn)基因食品對我們有好處?
　　農(nóng)場飼養(yǎng)的豬又臟又臭，得不到人的好感。它們同樣對環(huán)境也是一種威脅。它們的排泄物含有磷，下雨的時(shí)候，將被沖刷進(jìn)入湖中和江河口，耗盡水中的氧氣，殺死魚類，刺激藻類的生長，并且釋放溫室氣體。
　　但是不養(yǎng)豬也不是辦法。豬比任何其他的動物都能夠提供更多的更便宜的食用蛋白質(zhì)給更多的人。北歐地區(qū)依然是世界上人平均擁有豬的比例最大的(丹麥2：1 豬/人)，但是東亞這一比例正逐漸趕上來。在20世紀(jì)90年代，越南的豬肉生產(chǎn)翻了一倍，中國則增長了70%——在人口稠密的沿海一帶，豬的擁有密度超過了每平方公里100頭。根據(jù)聯(lián)合國食品和農(nóng)業(yè)組織2月份的一份報(bào)告，這種情況所導(dǎo)致的污染“正威脅著脆弱的海岸生態(tài)，包括紅樹林、珊瑚礁和海草”。
　　事實(shí)上，是有辦法解決這個(gè)由豬導(dǎo)致的污染的問題的，但是它需要環(huán)保人士和公眾改變一些根深蒂固的觀點(diǎn)。兩名加拿大的科學(xué)家培育了一種糞便當(dāng)中不含有多少磷的豬種。如果這種豬被廣泛采納，將會極大減少污染的來源。但是這種被我們稱為‘環(huán)保豬’的豬種是一種基因變異產(chǎn)品，這是很多西方人所忌諱的。
　　環(huán)保豬就是那些使得環(huán)保人士和有機(jī)食品支持者陷入兩難境地的新科技之一：他們到底是否應(yīng)當(dāng)無條件地繼續(xù)反對轉(zhuǎn)基因食品，哪怕是要以犧牲環(huán)境為代價(jià)呢?在其他一些領(lǐng)域，被用來造紙的樹木可以被改得更加容易處理，這樣一來就會減少能量消耗和造紙廠化學(xué)漂白物的排放。更加重要的是，轉(zhuǎn)基因?qū)⒈挥糜诰徍娃r(nóng)業(yè)問題，農(nóng)業(yè)如今占據(jù)了世界土地的38%，正排擠著生態(tài)系統(tǒng)和物種的棲息地。
　　事實(shí)上，盡管所有常用的殺蟲劑都會很快揮發(fā)，對消費(fèi)者的健康危害很小，但是對自然界食物過敏反應(yīng)卻每年都導(dǎo)致成百上千的兒童喪生。轉(zhuǎn)基因食物將減少這一風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。美國農(nóng)業(yè)部的科學(xué)家Eliot Herman 已經(jīng)制造出了一種少一些過敏性的大豆——一種重要的嬰兒食物。通過基因手術(shù)，Herman 將導(dǎo)致65%的過敏反應(yīng)的大豆基因去除。這種改變不僅僅在試驗(yàn)當(dāng)中少一些致過敏性，而且正如Herman 所說明的，“該產(chǎn)品看起來完全天然，植株的生長比例完全正常，并且似乎含有相同種類的蛋白質(zhì)、油和其他的有益物質(zhì)�！逼渌�科學(xué)家也稱在減少花生和蝦的過敏性基因方面取得了積極的成果。如果這些技術(shù)進(jìn)步被用到生產(chǎn)中，有機(jī)的大豆或者花生產(chǎn)品將比非有機(jī)的產(chǎn)品對人體的健康危害更大了。
　　但是，這不是會馬上發(fā)生的事情。因?yàn)闆]有哪個(gè)國家曾經(jīng)禁用過敏性的食品, 所以傳統(tǒng)的農(nóng)民沒有任何動力去種植低過敏的作物。并且公眾被引導(dǎo)認(rèn)為所有的轉(zhuǎn)基因都會產(chǎn)生健康威脅。在這種環(huán)境下，大多數(shù)需要的研究都沒有進(jìn)行�？赡艿那闆r是，農(nóng)民將繼續(xù)生產(chǎn)他們的污染環(huán)境的豬肉、過敏的有機(jī)大豆以及噴有神經(jīng)毒素的有機(jī)蘋果。更糟糕的是，他們將確保沒有其他人能夠有機(jī)會改進(jìn)這地球上的生物狀況——除非其他人站出來要求另外的選擇。