1 . On Thursday, June 28th, California passed the country’s toughest online laws. Starting January 1st, 2020, this law will allow consumers to ask an online organization what data is being held about them, why they require this data, and if there is any other company the organization will be sharing the data with. They can also request the removal of this information, and choose not to take part in the sale of personal data.
Many people reacted very favorably towards this new law, but big organizations like Google are against it. So why did California decide to create stricter online laws?
A man named Alastair Mactaggart, who is a real estate developer, spent more than 3 million dollars and secured more than 600,000 signatures on a ballot initiative. Ballot initiatives are petitions (请愿书) that are put to a public vote after receiving a certain number of signatures.
In an article from National Public Radio, Mactaggart recalled the moment when he became a privacy advocate. About four years ago, during a party, he asked a Google engineer whether he should be worried about his online privacy. The engineer responded by saying that “If you just knew how much we know about you, you’d be really worried.”
California’s lawmakers, to his relief, rushed to pass the bill. The law that was passed in June was close enough to the ballot initiative so Mactaggart agreed to withdraw it.
People believe that this new law will make companies more accountable for how they handle their information. However, it is not without loopholes (漏洞).
Under this new law, companies won’t be able to sell people’s personal information, but they can still “share” it. In the next few months, this new law could be modified. Companies such as Google are constantly trying to change the law in their favor, since data is a huge asset (财产) for these large enterprises.
The state’s lawmakers are expecting to create “clean-up laws” after the first 18 months the law goes into effect. We will have to wait and see how the law develops as it gets changed.
1. What is the purpose of the new law?| A．To protect online privacy. | B．To charge for online information. |
| C．To collect personal information legally. | D．To encourage the development of the Internet. |
| A．He once worked for Google. |
| B．He took part in the law-making process. |
| C．He was in favor of the lawmakers’ decision. |
| D．He was worried about the future of his business. |
| A．Sell its users’ personal information. | B．Share its users’ personal information. |
| C．Get support from the government. | D．Charge its users money. |
| A．Passed. | B．Explained. | C．Prepared. | D．Improved. |
2 . The Food and Drug Administration (F. D. A.) announced a new proposal on Wednesday that would change the criteria for which packaged foods the agency considers “healthy”, in an attempt to modernize its approach to nutrition and reduce the burden of diet-related diseases.
Currently, about 5 percent of all packaged foods are labeled “healthy”, according to the agency. The definition, which was set in 1994, allows for food manufacturers to add the word “healthy” to their products, as long as the products have limited amounts of total fat, saturated (饱和的) fat, cholesterol and sodium (钠) and provide at least 10 percent of the daily value of one or more of the following nutrients: vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein or dietary fiber. (Seafood, game meat and raw fruits and vegetables have slightly different criteria.) In 2021, the F. D. A. updated its guidelines to allow for some foods to contain more total fat and to include some that provide at least 10 percent of the daily value of vitamin D. Importantly, there is currently no limit on added sugars under the current definition- an omission that the F. D. A. believes is inconsistent with today’s nutrition science.
“The old rule was really outdated— you could create any kind of Frankenstein food that met the nutrient criteria and label it as healthy,” said Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a professor of nutrition in Boston. “This is a major advance.”
The proposed rule, which the agency announced to coincide with Wednesday’s White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health, introduces a new limit on added sugars-in general, no more than 2.5 grams per serving, although this can vary depending on the food.
The new definition aims to encourage healthy eating by prioritizing a mix of vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy, proteins and certain oils, including vegetable oils. A “healthy” food would need to contain a minimum amount of at least one of those food groups and be under the proposed limits for saturated fats and added sugars. Raw whole fruits and vegetables would automatically qualify. Many sugary cereals (谷物), highly sweetened yogurts and white breads, which might currently qualify as “healthy” under the existing definition, would be removed under the new rule．
1. What can we know about the old rule?| A．It was set in 1994. |
| B．It can guarantee people’s health. |
| C．It has strict limit on added sugar. |
| D．It was consistent with today’s nutrition science. |
| A．Negative. | B．Doubtful. | C．Uncaring. | D．Supportive. |
| A．Seafood. |
| B．Highly sweetened yogurts. |
| C．Raw whole fruits and vegetables. |
| D．Food containing large amounts of total fat. |
| A．A diary. | B．A textbook. | C．A newspaper. | D．A science fiction. |
3 . We’ve all been there, trying our best to do our bit to help save the planet, when a really essential item that you had to order online arrives in such an unbelievable amount of packaging that it makes you feel like it’s an unprepared game of passing the parcel.
It’s made even worse by the fact that some of the packaging can’t be recycled. In fact, 10 million tonnes of packaging waste are produced in the UK every year. A lot of this ends up in landfill, two-thirds of which could have instead been recovered.
The good news, however, is that how packaging waste is managed is in for a BIG shake-up in line with the “polluter pays principle”. By placing the main point of duty to pay on brand owners, they will be encouraged to choose more sustainable packaging options which are recyclable and reusable as much as possible. Otherwise, they will have to pay higher fees.
This is a system known as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) — meaning that those who have control over packaging design decisions will be encouraged to do the right thing for the planet at the beginning and consider what happens at the end of the packaging’s life from the start.
What this means is that instead of local authorities picking up the bill for household waste management, companies will have instead to pay for managing your household packaging waste as well as the form businesses, and they will be met with the associated little costs too.
And, as an added bonus, the new EPR laws on packaging will also mean that producers are required to put clear mandatory (强制性的) labelling on packaging, for example, this could be “RECYCLE” or “DO NOT RECYCLE”. Of course, we hope that the “DO NOT RECYCLE” category labelling is the minority. It is aimed that by 2030, 78% of packaging will be recycled in the UK.
1. What can we know from the first two paragraphs?| A．Two-thirds of packaging waste is recycled. |
| B．Over-packaging is often the case in life. |
| C．The quality of goods cannot be guaranteed. |
| D．Online shopping is getting less popular. |
| A．Designers. | B．Producers. | C．Customers. | D．Local authorities. |
| A．Pay higher taxes and recycle the packaging waste. |
| B．Put clear labelling on packaging and promote sales. |
| C．Cut packaging waste and improve packaging recycling. |
| D．Follow the packaging design trend and to right things. |
| A．Their labelling on packaging will be simple and generous. |
| B．The majority of their packaging needn’t be recycled. |
| C．They will be of high quality and inexpensive. |
| D．They’ll arrive in the right amount of recyclable packaging. |
4 . Texas has been one of the most restrictive gun-rights states in America.Thanks to a new law,however,the state will be one of the most relaxed,to the degree that police are discouraged from even asking about someone's guns. And if they do, they may not have much power to do anything if the person refuses to show a license.
To be sure, the law is strict in its own way,offering a model for regulation. Under the law, open-carry citizens have to be licensed, a process that includes safety and shooting tests. They also have to show no prior psychological problems, and they have to be at least 21 years old.
It is true that gun violence dropped sharply after restrictive laws were put in place in countries like Great Britain and Australia. However,the US public seems more interested than ever in weapons and the power they convey,despite gun control groups' concern over the increase of violence. Most states in America have steadily expanded gun rights since the end of a 10-year assault(攻击)weapons ban in 2004. Black Friday this year saw the biggest gun cache(贮存)ever purchased in one day.
Considering those trends,there's a heated debate about whether the new Texas law is a model piece of legislation(立法)for a changing America,or a walking disaster just begging for trouble. As the law doesn't provide any punishment for those who refuse to show a license to a police officer, critics fear that officers may find it tough to handle potentially deadly situations. After all, armed citizens will no longer be considered suspicious, even though a lot of people might be alarmed by the sight. Most police in Texas have been told to not engage gun carriers unless they are doing something questionable or appear drunk.
For sure,New Year's Day will be an exciting one for Texas gun owners. What's not yet known is how the rest of Texas will respond.
1. All of the following are required in the new Texas law for open carry EXCEPT| A．age limit |
| B．mental condition |
| C．online registration |
| D．gun-operating skills |
| A．The reason for putting forward the new Texas law. |
| B．The present situation of gun possession in America. |
| C．The impact of the assault weapons ban in 2004. |
| D．The inaction of the US government as to gun control. |
| A．Heavier workload for policemen. |
| B．Disrespect for officers. |
| C．Lack of trust among citizens. |
| D．Difficulty in crime prevention. |
| A．Negative. |
| B．Cautious. |
| C．Indifferent. |
| D．Approving. |
