1 . 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“The old rule was really outdated— you could create any kind of Frankenstein food that met the nutrient criteria and label it as healthy,” said Dr.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. |
2 . 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. |
3 . Germany’s top court has ruled that parts of the country’s 2019 climate (气候) action law must be changed because they don’t do a good job of protecting young people. The result is a big victory for the nine young people who started the law suing (诉讼).
The court suing stresses an important part of the climate change: The change will impact greatly on young people far more than the adults. That’s because the effects of earth warming will become more serious over time. As young people become adults, they’ll be left to deal with many problems that today’s adults have ignored. The government’s failure to plan carefully was putting their future lives in danger.
In 2019, Germany passed a new law, promising that the country would be carbon neutral (碳中和) by 2050. The law made a detailed plan of action until 2030. But the law didn’t have any specific rules or plans for climate actions that would be taken between 2031 and 2050.
Last Thursday, the judges of Germany’s highest court agreed with the young people. They said that not taking climate action made the basic rights of young people to a good future in danger.
The young people had challenged the government’s law in four specific areas. The judges didn’t agree with all of the challenges. But having the court support even a part of their case is seen as a big victory. Neubauer is one of the young people who sued. She works with the climate action group Fridays For Future. Ms. Neubauer said, “Climate protection is our basic right. This is a huge win for the climate movement. It changes a lot.”
The court has given the German government until the end of 2022 to fix the law. The climate law will now need to have a much more detailed plan for the actions that will be taken after 2030 to cut Germany’s pollution, allowing it to become carbon neutral by 2050. Germany’s government has said that it will quickly begin working to make the needed changes.
1. Why did the nine young people sue the Germany government?| A．They faced a higher rate of losing jobs. |
| B．The government refused their law suing. |
| C．The local court ruled against the climate law. |
| D．They weren’t satisfied with the climate action law. |
| A．The adults nowadays are put under pressure. |
| B．The climate change will influence the young. |
| C．Earth warming is becoming out of control. |
| D．Humans feel uncertain about the future. |
| A．Improve the present law. |
| B．Win people’s wide support. |
| C．Take strict punishment measures. |
| D．Achieve carbon neutral in advance. |
| A．Business. | B．Health. |
| C．Education. | D．Environment. |
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. |
增加：在缺词处加一个漏字符号（
），并在其下面写出该加的词。删除：把多余的词用斜线（\）划掉。
修改：在错的词下划一横线，并在该词下面写出修改后的词。
注意：1. 每处错误及其修改均仅限一词；
2．只允许修改10处，多者（从第11处起）不计分。
Get a good educa
tion is more important today than ever before .In Canada mostly children attend public schools. Public schools are mainly found by governments through tax income. Students in Canada taught in English and in French. The rests of Canadian children attend private schools, that are supported mainly by fees paying by parents .By law ,the children must attend the school from age 5 to 16. There are several different levels in the Canadian education system .The first was called Elementary Schools ,which includes kindergartens through grade 7 or 8.
