2020年9月英语六级真题（第1套）

It is not controversial to say that an unhealthy diet causes bad health. Nor are the basic elements of healthy eating disputed. Obesity raises susceptibility to cancer, and Britain is the sixth most obese country on Earth. That is a public health emergency. But naming the problem is the easy part. No one disputes the costs in quality of life and depleted health budgets of an obese population, but the quest for solutions gets diverted by ideological arguments around responsibility and choice. And the water is muddied by lobbying from the industries that profit from consumption of obesity-inducing products.

Historical precedent suggests that science and politics can overcome resistance from businesses that pollute and poison but it takes time, and success often starts small. So it is heartening to note that a programme in Leeds has achieved a reduction in childhood obesity, becoming the first UK city to reverse a fattening trend. The best results were among younger children and in more deprived areas. When 28% of English children aged two to 15 are obese, a national shift on the scale achieved by Leeds would lengthen hundreds of thousands of lives. A significant factor in the Leeds experience appears to be a scheme called HENRY, which helps parents reward behaviours that prevent obesity in children.

Many members of parliament are uncomfortable even with their own government's anti-obesity strategy, since it involves a "sugar tax" and a ban on the sale of energy drinks to under-16s. Bans and taxes can be blunt instruments, but their harshest critics can rarely suggest better methods. These critics just oppose regulation itself.

The relationship between poor health and inequality is too pronounced for governments to be passive about large-scale intervention. People living in the most deprived areas are four times more prone to die from avoidable causes than counterparts in more affluent places. As the structural nature of public health problems becomes harder to ignore, the complaint about overprotective government loses potency.

In fact, the polarised debate over public health interventions should have been abandoned long ago. Government action works when individuals are motivated to respond. Individuals need governments that expand access to good choices. The HENRY programme was delivered in part through children's centres. Closing such centres and cutting council budgets doesn't magically increase reserves of individual self-reliance. The function of a well-designed state intervention is not to deprive people of liberty but to build social capacity and infrastructure that helps people take responsibility for their wellbeing. The obesity crisis will not have a solution devised by left or right ideology--but experience indicates that the private sector needs the incentive of regulation before it starts taking public health emergencies seriously.

Home to virgin reefs, rare sharks and vast numbers of exotic fish, the Coral Sea is a unique haven of biodiversity off the northeastern coast of Australia. If a proposal by the Australian government goes ahead, the region will also become the world's largest marine protected area, with restrictions or bans on fishing, mining and marine farming.

The Coral Sea reserve would cover almost 990 000 square kilometres and stretch as far as 1 100 kilometres from the coast. Unveiled recently by environment minister Tony Burke, the proposal would be the last in a series of proposed marine reserves around Australia's coast.

But the scheme is attracting criticism from scientists and conservation groups, who argue that the government hasn't gone far enough in protecting the Coral Sea, or in other marine reserves in the coastal network.

Hugh Possingham, director of the Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions at the University of Queensland, points out that little more than half of the Coral Sea reserve is proposed as "no take" area, in which all fishing would be banned. The world's largest existing marine reserve, established last year by the British government in the Indian Ocean, spans 654 000 km2 and is a no-take zone throughout. An alliance of campaigning conversation groups argues that more of the Coral Sea should receive this level of protection.

"I would like to have seen more protection for coral reefs," says Terry Hughes, director of the Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University in Queensland. "More than 20 of them would be outside the no-take area and vulnerable to catch-and-release fishing".

As Nature went to press, the Australian government had not responded to specific criticisms of the plan. But Robin Beaman, a marine geologist at James Cook University, says that the reserve does "broadly protect the range of habitats" in the sea. "I can testify to the huge effort that government agencies and other organisations have put into trying to understand the ecological values of this vast area," he says.

Reserves proposed earlier this year for Australia's southwestern and northwestern coastal regions have also been criticised for failing to give habitats adequate protection. In August, 173 marine scientists signed an open letter to the government saying they were "greatly concerned" that the proposals for the southwestern region had not been based on the "core science principles" of reserves--the protected regions were not, for instance, representative of all the habitats in the region, they said.

Critics say that the southwestern reserve offers the greatest protection to the offshore areas where commercial opportunities are fewest and where there is little threat to the environment, a contention also levelled at the Coral Sea plan.