【词汇】雅思阅读常用词(029)- The True Cost Of Food

Cambridge 07 Test 2 – Passage 2: The True Cost Of Food

For more than forty years the cost of food has been rising. It has now reached a point where a growing number of people believe that it is far too high, and that bringing it down will be one of the great challenges of the twenty first century. That cost, however, is not in immediate cash. In the west at least, most food is now far cheaper to buy in relative terms than it was in 1960. The cost is in the collateral damage of the very methods of food production that have made the food cheaper: in the pollution of water, the enervation of soil, the destructionof wildlife, the harm to animal welfare and the threat to human health caused by modern industrial agriculture.

First mechanisation, then mass use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, then monocultures, then battery rearing of livestock, and now genetic engineering – the onward march of intensive farming has seemed unstoppable in the last half-century, as the yields of produce have soared. But the damage it has caused has been colossal. In Britain, for example, many of our best-loved farmland birds, such as the skylark, the grey partridge, the lapwing and the corn bunting, have vanished from huge stretches of countryside, as have even more wild flowers and insects. This is a direct result of the way we have produced our food in the last four decades. Thousands of miles of hedgerows, thousands of ponds, have disappeared from the landscape. The faecal filth of salmon farming has driven wild salmon from many of the sea lochs and rivers of Scotland. Natural soil fertility is dropping in many areas because of continuous industrial fertiliser and pesticide use, while the growth of algae is increasing in lakes because of the fertiliser run-off.

Put it all together and it looks like a battlefield, but consumers rarely make the connection at the dinner table. That is mainly because the costs of all this damage are what economists refer to as externalities: they are outside the main transaction, which is for example producing and selling a field of wheat, and are borne directly by neither producers nor consumers. To many, the costs may not even appear to be financial at all, but merely aesthetic – a terrible shame, but nothing to do with money. And anyway they, as consumers of food, certainly aren’t paying for it, are they?

But the costs to society can actually be quantified and, when added up, can amount to staggering sums. A remarkable exercise in doing this has been carried out by one of the world’s leading thinkers on the future of agriculture, Professor Jules Pretty, Director of the Centre for Environment and Society at the University of Essex. Professor Pretty and his colleagues calculated the externalities of British agriculture for one particular year. They added up the costs of repairing the damage it caused, and came up with a total figure of £2,343m. This is equivalent to £208 for every hectare of arable land and permanent pasture, almost as much again as the total government and EU spend on British farming in that year. And according to Professor Pretty, it was a conservative estimate.

The costs included: £120m for removal of pesticides; £16m for removal of nitrates; £55m for removal of phosphates and soil; £23m for the removal of the bug cryptosporidium from drinking water by water companies; £125m for damage to wildlife habitats, hedgerows and dry stone walls; £1,113m from emissions of gases likely to contribute to climate change; £106m from soil erosion and organic carbon losses; £169m from food poisoning; and £607m from cattle disease. Professor Pretty draws a simple but memorable conclusion from all this: our food bills are actually threefold. We are paying for our supposedly cheaper food in three separate ways: once over the counter, secondly through our taxes, which provide the enormous subsidies propping up modern intensive farming, and thirdly to clean up the mess that modern farming leaves behind.

So can the true cost of food be brought down? Breaking away from industrial agriculture as the solution to hunger may be very hard for some countries, but in Britain, where the immediate need to supply food is less urgent, and the costs and the damage of intensive farming have been clearly seen, it may be more feasible. The government needs to create sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food sectors, which will contribute to a thriving and sustainable rural economy, and advance environmental, economic, health, and animal welfare goals.

But if industrial agriculture is to be replaced, what is a viable alternative? Professor Pretty feels that organic farming would be too big a jump in thinking and in practices for many farmers. Furthermore, the price premium would put the produce out of reach of many poorer consumers. He is recommending the immediate introduction of a ‘Greener Food Standard’, which would push the market towards more sustainable environmental practices than the current norm, while not requiring the full commitment to organic production. Such a standard would comprise agreed practices for different kinds of farming, covering agrochemical use, soil health, land management, water and energy use, food safety and animal health. It could go a long way, he says, to shifting consumers as well as farmers towards a more sustainable system of agriculture.

  • collateral 英 [kə’læt(ə)r(ə)l] 美 [kə’lætərəl] adj. 并行的;旁系的;附属的

  • enervation 英 [,enə:’veiʃən] 美 [,enə:’veiʃən] n. 衰弱;虚弱;削弱;神经无力

  • welfare 英 [‘welfeə]美 [‘wɛl’fɛr] n. 福利;幸福;福利事业;安宁 adj. 福利的;接受社会救济的

  • mechanisation 英 [,mekənai’zeiʃən, -ni’z-] [,mekənai’zeiʃən, -ni’z-] n. 机械化

  • fertiliser 英 [‘fɜːtɪlaɪsə] 美 [‘fə:tilaisə] n. 化肥(等于fertilizer)

  • pesticide 英 [‘pestɪsaɪd] 美 [‘pɛstɪsaɪd] n. 杀虫剂

  • monoculture 英 [‘mɒnə(ʊ)kʌltʃə] 美 [‘mɑnəkʌltʃɚ] n. 单作;单一栽培

  • soar 英 [sɔː] 美 [sɔr] vi. 高飞;高耸;往上飞舞

  • colossal 英 [kə’lɒs(ə)l] 美 [kə’lɑsl] adj. 巨大的;异常的,非常的

  • skylark 英 [‘skaɪlɑːk] 美 [‘skaɪlɑrk] n. 云雀;发疯般的胡闹

  • partridge 英 [‘pɑːtrɪdʒ] 美 [‘pɑrtrɪdʒ] n. [鸟] 鹧鸪;松鸡

  • lapwing 英 [‘læpwɪŋ] 美 [‘læpwiŋ] n. 鸟头麦鸡;田凫

  • bunting 英 [‘bʌntɪŋ] 美 [‘bʌntɪŋ] n. 触击;旗布;白颊鸟

  • hedgerow 英 [‘hedʒrəʊ] 美 [‘hɛdʒro] n. 灌木篱墙

  • faecal 英 [‘fi:kəl] 美 [‘fikl] adj. 渣滓的;排泄物的(等于fecal)

  • salmon 英 [‘sæmən] 美 [‘sæmən] n. 鲑鱼;大马哈鱼;鲑肉色;鲑鱼肉;橙红色,粉橙色 adj. 浅澄色的

  • loch 英 [lɒk] 美 [lɑk] n. 湖;海湾(狭长的)

  • algae 英 [ˈældʒiː] 美 [‘ældʒi] n. [植] 藻类;[植] 海藻

  • externalities n. 外部性;外部效应

  • transaction 英 [træn’zækʃ(ə)n; trɑːn-; -‘sæk-] 美 [træn’zækʃən] n. 交易;事务;办理;会报,学报

  • borne 英 [bɔːn]美  [bɔrn] v. 忍受;负荷;结果实;生子女(bear的过去分词)

  • aesthetic 英 [i:sˈθetɪk] 美 [esˈθetɪk; ɛsˈθɛtɪk] adj. 美的;美学的;审美的,具有审美趣味的

  • staggering 英 [‘stæɡərɪŋ] 美 [‘stæɡərɪŋ] adj. 惊人的,令人震惊的

  • sum 英 [sʌm] 美 [sʌm] n. 金额;总数

  • equivalent 英 [ɪ’kwɪv(ə)l(ə)nt] 美 [ɪ’kwɪvələnt] adj. 等价的,相等的;同意义的

  • hectare 英 [‘hekteə; -ɑː] 美 [‘hɛktɛr] n. 公顷(等于1万平方米)

  • arable 英 [‘ærəb(ə)l] 美 [‘ærəbl] n. 耕地 adj. 适于耕种的;可开垦的

  • pasture 英 [‘pɑːstʃə] 美 [‘pæstʃɚ] n. 草地;牧场;牧草

  • conservative 英 [kən’sɜːvətɪv] 美 [kən’sɝvətɪv] adj. 保守的

  • removal 英 [rɪ’muːv(ə)l] 美 [rɪ’muvl] n. 免职;移动;排除;搬迁

  • nitrate 英 [‘naɪtreɪt] 美 [‘naɪtret] n. 硝酸盐 vt. 用硝酸处理

  • phosphate 英 [‘fɒsfeɪt] 美 [‘fɑsfet] n. 磷酸盐;皮膜化成

  • cryptosporidium 英 [,kriptəu’spɔridiəm] 美 [,kriptəu’spɔridiəm] n. 隐孢子虫

  • erosion 英 [ɪ’rəʊʒ(ə)n] 美 [ɪ’roʒən] n. 侵蚀,腐蚀

  • cattle 英 [‘kæt(ə)l] 美 [‘kætl] n. 牛;牲畜(骂人的话);家畜;无价值的人

  • subsidy 英 [‘sʌbsɪdɪ] 美 [‘sʌbsədi] n. 补贴;津贴;补助金

  • prop 英 [prɒp] 美 [prɑp] vt. 支撑,支持,维持

  • feasible 英 [‘fiːzɪb(ə)l] 美 [‘fizəbl] adj. 可行的;可能的;可实行的

  • sustainable 英 [sə’steɪnəb(ə)l] 美 [sə’stenəbl] adj. 可以忍受的;足可支撑的;养得起的;可持续的

  • thriving 英 [‘θraɪvɪŋ] 美 [‘θriaiviŋ] adj. 繁荣的;蒸蒸日上的;旺盛的 v. 兴旺(thrive的ing形式)

  • premium 英 [‘priːmɪəm] 美 [‘primɪəm] n. 额外费用;奖金;保险费;(商)溢价 adj. 高价的;优质的

  • comprise 英 [kəm’praɪz] 美 [kəm’praɪz] vt. 包含;由…组成

  • agrochemical英 [ægrəʊ’kemɪk(ə)l] 美 [,æɡrokɛmɪkl] n. 农用化学品 adj. 农用化学品的






但这代价对社会的影响却是可以量化的,累积起来能高到吓人的地步。一项引人注目的将代价量化的活动已经完成。埃塞克斯大学社会与环境研究中心的主任Jules Pretty教授负责了该活动,他是位关注农业未来的领军思想家。Pretty教授和他的同事计算了某一年中英国农业外部经济效应的价值。他们综合了修复损坏所需的费用,得出的总数是二十三亿四千三百万英镑,具体到每公顷耕地和永久性牧场则为二百零八英镑,几乎和当年英国政府及欧盟在英国农业上的投入相当,据Pretty教授说这还是保守估计。