2023考研英語閱讀農業與營養
Agriculture and nutrition農業與營養
Hidden hunger隱性饑餓
How much can farming really improve peopleshealth? 農業到底能為促進人類健康貢獻多少?
IN A market in southern Uganda two traders squatbehind little piles of sweet potatoes and a sign thatsays with extra vitamin A. A passing shoppercomplains about the price: 10% more than ordinarysweet potatoes. Yes, say the traders, but theyrebetter, bred with extra vitamin A. The bargaininggoes back and forth, but the struggle to improve thecrop has already been won. Since 2007, when an outfit called HarvestPlus began distributing thebiofortified rootcrop in Uganda and Mozambique, 50,000 farmers have started to plant it orcrops like it. Vitamin A intake has soared and the produce commands a premium. The shoppereventually buys some.
烏干達南部的一個市場上，兩個小販蹲坐在一小堆紅薯邊，一旁的牌子上寫著富含維A。顧客路過，抱怨價格太貴：比一般紅薯貴10%。貴是貴一點，小販解釋道，但是這種紅薯更優質，富含更多維A。雖然還要再討價還價一番，但已經確定的是作物營養價值方面已經有所進步了。自 2007年，供應商HarvestPlus開始在烏干達和莫桑比亞銷售生物合成的塊根作物，近5萬農戶開始種植此類作物。維A含量的顯著增多，使得產品價格升高。顧客最終也逐漸開始購買此類農產品。
Nutrition has long been the Cinderella of development. Lack of calorieshungeris a headline-grabber, particularly as rising food prices push more people towards starvation. But the hiddenhunger of micronutrient deficiencies harms even more people and inflicts lasting damage onthem and their societies. It, too, worsens as food prices rise: families switch from costly,nutrient-rich, fruit, vegetables and meat to cheaper, nutrient-poor staples.
營養一直以來都是發展中被遺忘的短板，攝入能量不足饑餓占領了大大小小報刊的頭版，尤其是當食品價格上漲，導致更多的人面臨饑餓。然而，缺乏微量元素的隱性饑餓影響著更廣泛的人群，并且對人們以及社會造成長期的危害。不僅如此，隱性饑餓還會加速食品價格上漲：很多家庭會從營養豐富的昂貴水果、蔬菜及肉類轉向價格便宜但營養價值較低的主食產品。
In 2008 the Copenhagen Business School asked eight eminent economists to imagine they had$75 billion to spend on causes that would most help the world. Five of their top ten involvednutrition: vitamin supplements for children, adding zinc and iodine to salt and breeding extramicronutrients into crops . Others included girls schools and tradeliberalisation.
2008年，哥本哈根商學院邀請8位著名的經濟學家一同設想如果有750億美元，將會用到哪些他們認為對世界最有幫助的事業上。十大事業中的前五項就包括營養：兒童補充維生素，食鹽加鋅和碘以及農作物增加微量元素。其他事業還包括女童教育以及貿易自由化。
Of the 40 nutrients people need, four are inchronically short supply: iron, zinc, iodine andvitamin A. Vitamin A is essential for the mucousmembranes that protect the bodys organs, such asthe eyes. Lack of it causes half a million children togo blind every year; half of them die within a year astheir other organs fail. Vitamin A supplements werethe Copenhagen experts top choice. Zinc deficiencyimpairs brain and motor functions and causesroughly 400,000 deaths a year. Shortage of iron weakens the immune system and affects,in some poor countries, half of all women of child-bearing age.
在人體所需的40種營養元素中，有4種長期匱乏：鐵、鋅、碘和維A。維A對保護人體器官粘膜至關重要，比如眼睛。維A的缺乏每年導致近50萬兒童失明，其中一半的兒童因其他身體器官衰竭而死亡。補充維A是哥本哈根的經濟學家最優先的選擇。缺鋅對大腦與運動神經功能有害，每年近40萬人因缺鋅死亡。缺鐵致使免疫力下降，在一些貧困國家，到達生育年齡的婦女中有一半都有缺鐵性貧血。
Too hungry to think properly餓得無法集中精神
The missing nutrients bite wide and deep. Education levels drop ; earning-power weakens. Even marriage chances wane: malnourished boysmarry women of lower educational levels when they grow up.
缺乏營養對人體危害很大，導致教育水平下降以及收入能力降低。甚至婚姻也因此走下坡路：營養不良的男性長大后會娶教育水平較低的女性為伴。
Common responses include handing out vitamin pills and fortifying common foods withmicronutrients . But policymakers are now asking whetherfarming could do more to improve nutrition. That was the subject of a recent conference inDelhi organised by the International Food Policy Research Institute and attended by 1,000-oddpoliticians, scientists and activists.
普通的解決方法包括發放維生素片以及向日常食物中添加微量營養元素。但政策制定者們現在提出的問題是農業是否能夠更好地促進營養。這個問題也是近期由國際糧食政策研究所在德里召開的會議的主題，與會者包括1000余位政客、科學家與社會活動家。
Farming ought to be especially good for nutrition. If farmers provide a varied diet to localmarkets, people seem more likely to eat well. Agricultural growth is one of the best ways togenerate income for the poorest, who need the most help buying nutritious food. And inmany countries women do most of the farm work. They also have most influence on childrenshealth. Profitable farming, womens income and child nutrition should therefore go together. Intheory a rise in farm output should boost nutrition by more than a comparable rise in generaleconomic well-being, measured by GDP.
農業理應增進營養。如果農戶能夠像當地市場提供多樣化的食品，人們便能有更健康的飲食。貧窮人群最需要獲得幫助，購買有營養的食品，而農業發展則是增加貧窮人群收入的最好方式之一。在許多國家，務農的主要是女性，她們對兒童的健康也有著很大的影響。因此，可盈利性務農、女性收入以及兒童營養應該齊頭并進。從理論上講，農業產出增加比相應比例的總體經濟增長要更有利于促進營養。
In practice it is another story. A paper written for the Delhi meeting shows that an increase inagricultural value-added per worker from $200 to $500 a year is associated with a fall in theshare of the undernourished population from about 35% to just over 20%. That is not bad.But it is no better than what happens when GDP per head grows by the same amount. Soagriculture seems no better at cutting malnutrition than growth in general.
而現實中則完全不同。德里會議上的一篇論文指出，每位工人每年的農業增值200到 500美元將使得營養不良人群比例從35%降低到20%。這已經是個很明顯的進步了。然而，這還是不及同比例的人均GDP增長所帶來的效果明顯。因此，在減少營養不良方面，農業似乎不如總體經濟增長起作用。
Another paper?? confirms this. Agricultural growthreduces the proportion of underweight children,whereas non-agricultural growth does not. But whenit comes to stunting , it is the other way round: GDPgrowth produces the benefit; agriculture does not.As a way to cut malnutrition, farming seemsnothing special.
另一篇論文證實了這一點。農業增長確實減少了體重偏輕的兒童比例，而在這一點上 非農業增長無法做到。但是在身高方面，則是另一番狀況了：GDP增長可以促進兒童長高，而農業增長則無能為力。因此，談到改善營養不良，農業并沒有什么特殊效果。
Why not? Partly because many people in poor countries buy, not grow, their foodespeciallythe higher-value, more nutritious kinds, such as meat and vegetables. So extra income is whatcounts. Agriculture helps, but not, it seems, by enough.
為什么呢?部分原因是由于貧窮國家的許多人都選擇購買食品，而并不自己種植尤其是那些高價值且營養價值更豐富的食物，如肉類與蔬菜類。因此，增加收入才是最重要的因素。而農業，雖然有所幫助，但還不夠。
In addition, when poor people do have a bit more cash, they do not spend it all on food, asnutritionists hope . A study from Maharashtra, in western India, backin 1983, found that poor people spent two-thirds of their extra income on food; and the verypoorest did not spend much more of their extra money than the least poor, even though theyhad just one-sixth of the income. People spent almost 40% of their additional rupees onwheat, rice or sugar: costly and not very nutritious. So even when thepoor do spend more on food, they do not buy the stuff that is most nutritious or the bestvalue. In a forthcoming book Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo of the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology conclude that the poor seem to have many choices, and they dontelect to spend as much as they can on food.
此外，當窮人手里多一點錢時，他們并不會像營養學家所期望的那樣，將這些多出來的錢花在食物上。一份1983年印度西部Maharashtra邦的研究報告發現，窮人將額外所得的2/3用于購買食物。而最貧窮的人與次貧窮的人相比，就算前者額外收入僅占后者的1/6，也不會花費更多來購買食物。人們額外收入中的幾乎40%都用于購買小麥、大米和糖：花費頗多且營養價值不高。因此，就算窮人購買更多食物，也不等于他們能買最有營養或價值最優的食物。MIT的Abhijit Banerjee和EstherDuflo即將發行的新書如此總結道：窮人們似乎有很多選擇，但是卻不愿花太多錢在食物上。
Agriculture, then, is no magic solution. But farming could do more to improve nutritionas isclear from countries widely varying records. Malawi, Bangladesh and Vietnam all increasedagricultural value-added by roughly $100 a head from 1990 to 2007, and cut malnutrition by15-20 percentage points. Egypt, Guatemala and India pushed up agricultural value-added moreyet their malnutrition rates rose.
這樣看來，農業并不是萬能的。但根據世界各國的各項記錄來看，農業在改善營養方面還可以做的更好。從1990年到2007年，馬拉維、孟加拉國和越南的人均農業增值都增加了 100美元左右，營養不良比例也降低了15到20個百分點。埃及、危地馬拉和印度農業增值更多但營養不良比例反而增加了。
The success stories are instructive. In 1990 a charitable organisation called Helen KellerInternational started to encourage market gardens in Bangladesh, providing women with seeds and advice. By 2003 , four-fifths offamilies in the target area had gardens, against 15% in the whole country. Almost all womenand children were eating green vegetables three times a week, compared with only a thirdbeforehand. And vitamin A intake had soared. Projects like this work because they improve whatpeople like to eat anyway.
成功的事例很有啟發性。1990年，海倫??凱勒國際慈善組織開始鼓勵孟加拉國開展市場菜園項目，為婦女提供種子和咨詢服務。到2003年，項目區域內的4/5的家庭都擁有菜園，高于全國比例15%;且幾乎所有的婦女和兒童一周能吃上三次新鮮綠色蔬菜，而之前只有三分之一。此外，維A攝入量也大量增加。類似這樣的項目通常收效良好，因為它們可以改善人們的飲食。
Agriculture and nutrition農業與營養
Hidden hunger隱性饑餓
How much can farming really improve peopleshealth? 農業到底能為促進人類健康貢獻多少?
IN A market in southern Uganda two traders squatbehind little piles of sweet potatoes and a sign thatsays with extra vitamin A. A passing shoppercomplains about the price: 10% more than ordinarysweet potatoes. Yes, say the traders, but theyrebetter, bred with extra vitamin A. The bargaininggoes back and forth, but the struggle to improve thecrop has already been won. Since 2007, when an outfit called HarvestPlus began distributing thebiofortified rootcrop in Uganda and Mozambique, 50,000 farmers have started to plant it orcrops like it. Vitamin A intake has soared and the produce commands a premium. The shoppereventually buys some.
烏干達南部的一個市場上，兩個小販蹲坐在一小堆紅薯邊，一旁的牌子上寫著富含維A。顧客路過，抱怨價格太貴：比一般紅薯貴10%。貴是貴一點，小販解釋道，但是這種紅薯更優質，富含更多維A。雖然還要再討價還價一番，但已經確定的是作物營養價值方面已經有所進步了。自 2007年，供應商HarvestPlus開始在烏干達和莫桑比亞銷售生物合成的塊根作物，近5萬農戶開始種植此類作物。維A含量的顯著增多，使得產品價格升高。顧客最終也逐漸開始購買此類農產品。
Nutrition has long been the Cinderella of development. Lack of calorieshungeris a headline-grabber, particularly as rising food prices push more people towards starvation. But the hiddenhunger of micronutrient deficiencies harms even more people and inflicts lasting damage onthem and their societies. It, too, worsens as food prices rise: families switch from costly,nutrient-rich, fruit, vegetables and meat to cheaper, nutrient-poor staples.
營養一直以來都是發展中被遺忘的短板，攝入能量不足饑餓占領了大大小小報刊的頭版，尤其是當食品價格上漲，導致更多的人面臨饑餓。然而，缺乏微量元素的隱性饑餓影響著更廣泛的人群，并且對人們以及社會造成長期的危害。不僅如此，隱性饑餓還會加速食品價格上漲：很多家庭會從營養豐富的昂貴水果、蔬菜及肉類轉向價格便宜但營養價值較低的主食產品。
In 2008 the Copenhagen Business School asked eight eminent economists to imagine they had$75 billion to spend on causes that would most help the world. Five of their top ten involvednutrition: vitamin supplements for children, adding zinc and iodine to salt and breeding extramicronutrients into crops . Others included girls schools and tradeliberalisation.
2008年，哥本哈根商學院邀請8位著名的經濟學家一同設想如果有750億美元，將會用到哪些他們認為對世界最有幫助的事業上。十大事業中的前五項就包括營養：兒童補充維生素，食鹽加鋅和碘以及農作物增加微量元素。其他事業還包括女童教育以及貿易自由化。
Of the 40 nutrients people need, four are inchronically short supply: iron, zinc, iodine andvitamin A. Vitamin A is essential for the mucousmembranes that protect the bodys organs, such asthe eyes. Lack of it causes half a million children togo blind every year; half of them die within a year astheir other organs fail. Vitamin A supplements werethe Copenhagen experts top choice. Zinc deficiencyimpairs brain and motor functions and causesroughly 400,000 deaths a year. Shortage of iron weakens the immune system and affects,in some poor countries, half of all women of child-bearing age.
在人體所需的40種營養元素中，有4種長期匱乏：鐵、鋅、碘和維A。維A對保護人體器官粘膜至關重要，比如眼睛。維A的缺乏每年導致近50萬兒童失明，其中一半的兒童因其他身體器官衰竭而死亡。補充維A是哥本哈根的經濟學家最優先的選擇。缺鋅對大腦與運動神經功能有害，每年近40萬人因缺鋅死亡。缺鐵致使免疫力下降，在一些貧困國家，到達生育年齡的婦女中有一半都有缺鐵性貧血。
Too hungry to think properly餓得無法集中精神
The missing nutrients bite wide and deep. Education levels drop ; earning-power weakens. Even marriage chances wane: malnourished boysmarry women of lower educational levels when they grow up.
缺乏營養對人體危害很大，導致教育水平下降以及收入能力降低。甚至婚姻也因此走下坡路：營養不良的男性長大后會娶教育水平較低的女性為伴。
Common responses include handing out vitamin pills and fortifying common foods withmicronutrients . But policymakers are now asking whetherfarming could do more to improve nutrition. That was the subject of a recent conference inDelhi organised by the International Food Policy Research Institute and attended by 1,000-oddpoliticians, scientists and activists.
普通的解決方法包括發放維生素片以及向日常食物中添加微量營養元素。但政策制定者們現在提出的問題是農業是否能夠更好地促進營養。這個問題也是近期由國際糧食政策研究所在德里召開的會議的主題，與會者包括1000余位政客、科學家與社會活動家。
Farming ought to be especially good for nutrition. If farmers provide a varied diet to localmarkets, people seem more likely to eat well. Agricultural growth is one of the best ways togenerate income for the poorest, who need the most help buying nutritious food. And inmany countries women do most of the farm work. They also have most influence on childrenshealth. Profitable farming, womens income and child nutrition should therefore go together. Intheory a rise in farm output should boost nutrition by more than a comparable rise in generaleconomic well-being, measured by GDP.
農業理應增進營養。如果農戶能夠像當地市場提供多樣化的食品，人們便能有更健康的飲食。貧窮人群最需要獲得幫助，購買有營養的食品，而農業發展則是增加貧窮人群收入的最好方式之一。在許多國家，務農的主要是女性，她們對兒童的健康也有著很大的影響。因此，可盈利性務農、女性收入以及兒童營養應該齊頭并進。從理論上講，農業產出增加比相應比例的總體經濟增長要更有利于促進營養。
In practice it is another story. A paper written for the Delhi meeting shows that an increase inagricultural value-added per worker from $200 to $500 a year is associated with a fall in theshare of the undernourished population from about 35% to just over 20%. That is not bad.But it is no better than what happens when GDP per head grows by the same amount. Soagriculture seems no better at cutting malnutrition than growth in general.
而現實中則完全不同。德里會議上的一篇論文指出，每位工人每年的農業增值200到 500美元將使得營養不良人群比例從35%降低到20%。這已經是個很明顯的進步了。然而，這還是不及同比例的人均GDP增長所帶來的效果明顯。因此，在減少營養不良方面，農業似乎不如總體經濟增長起作用。
Another paper?? confirms this. Agricultural growthreduces the proportion of underweight children,whereas non-agricultural growth does not. But whenit comes to stunting , it is the other way round: GDPgrowth produces the benefit; agriculture does not.As a way to cut malnutrition, farming seemsnothing special.
另一篇論文證實了這一點。農業增長確實減少了體重偏輕的兒童比例，而在這一點上 非農業增長無法做到。但是在身高方面，則是另一番狀況了：GDP增長可以促進兒童長高，而農業增長則無能為力。因此，談到改善營養不良，農業并沒有什么特殊效果。
Why not? Partly because many people in poor countries buy, not grow, their foodespeciallythe higher-value, more nutritious kinds, such as meat and vegetables. So extra income is whatcounts. Agriculture helps, but not, it seems, by enough.
為什么呢?部分原因是由于貧窮國家的許多人都選擇購買食品，而并不自己種植尤其是那些高價值且營養價值更豐富的食物，如肉類與蔬菜類。因此，增加收入才是最重要的因素。而農業，雖然有所幫助，但還不夠。
In addition, when poor people do have a bit more cash, they do not spend it all on food, asnutritionists hope . A study from Maharashtra, in western India, backin 1983, found that poor people spent two-thirds of their extra income on food; and the verypoorest did not spend much more of their extra money than the least poor, even though theyhad just one-sixth of the income. People spent almost 40% of their additional rupees onwheat, rice or sugar: costly and not very nutritious. So even when thepoor do spend more on food, they do not buy the stuff that is most nutritious or the bestvalue. In a forthcoming book Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo of the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology conclude that the poor seem to have many choices, and they dontelect to spend as much as they can on food.
此外，當窮人手里多一點錢時，他們并不會像營養學家所期望的那樣，將這些多出來的錢花在食物上。一份1983年印度西部Maharashtra邦的研究報告發現，窮人將額外所得的2/3用于購買食物。而最貧窮的人與次貧窮的人相比，就算前者額外收入僅占后者的1/6，也不會花費更多來購買食物。人們額外收入中的幾乎40%都用于購買小麥、大米和糖：花費頗多且營養價值不高。因此，就算窮人購買更多食物，也不等于他們能買最有營養或價值最優的食物。MIT的Abhijit Banerjee和EstherDuflo即將發行的新書如此總結道：窮人們似乎有很多選擇，但是卻不愿花太多錢在食物上。
Agriculture, then, is no magic solution. But farming could do more to improve nutritionas isclear from countries widely varying records. Malawi, Bangladesh and Vietnam all increasedagricultural value-added by roughly $100 a head from 1990 to 2007, and cut malnutrition by15-20 percentage points. Egypt, Guatemala and India pushed up agricultural value-added moreyet their malnutrition rates rose.
這樣看來，農業并不是萬能的。但根據世界各國的各項記錄來看，農業在改善營養方面還可以做的更好。從1990年到2007年，馬拉維、孟加拉國和越南的人均農業增值都增加了 100美元左右，營養不良比例也降低了15到20個百分點。埃及、危地馬拉和印度農業增值更多但營養不良比例反而增加了。
The success stories are instructive. In 1990 a charitable organisation called Helen KellerInternational started to encourage market gardens in Bangladesh, providing women with seeds and advice. By 2003 , four-fifths offamilies in the target area had gardens, against 15% in the whole country. Almost all womenand children were eating green vegetables three times a week, compared with only a thirdbeforehand. And vitamin A intake had soared. Projects like this work because they improve whatpeople like to eat anyway.
成功的事例很有啟發性。1990年，海倫??凱勒國際慈善組織開始鼓勵孟加拉國開展市場菜園項目，為婦女提供種子和咨詢服務。到2003年，項目區域內的4/5的家庭都擁有菜園，高于全國比例15%;且幾乎所有的婦女和兒童一周能吃上三次新鮮綠色蔬菜，而之前只有三分之一。此外，維A攝入量也大量增加。類似這樣的項目通常收效良好，因為它們可以改善人們的飲食。
