| 2004-12-02 09:55:00 |
《食品政治》、《食品安全》：美英中一瞥
大陸：百物變味變色
《每週質量報告》：「變了味的海味」2004年11月28日CCTV
一、提要：蝦米為什麼這樣紅/ 魚幹為什麼不招蟲/記者調查： 變了味的海味/違規加工不計後果/選購魚蝦專家支招/專家解讀：海味品加工亟待規範/
二、記者調查：（變了味的海味）/主持人：共同打造有質量的生活，這裏是《每週質量報告》，大家好。
http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/report/haiwei.txt
鄭義：還有什麼可吃？——一場關於食物安全的網上討論
http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/4/1/1/n440697.htm
美國：兩本書中的一些現象。
[美]瑪麗恩•內斯特爾《食品政治：響我們健康的食品行業》 劉文俊等譯，北京：社會科學文獻出版社（Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health by M Nestle - University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2002）
[美]瑪麗恩•內斯特爾《食品安全：令人震驚的食品行業真相》程池等譯，北京：社會科學文獻出版社（Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism by M Nestle, KOD Jensen ）
【翻譯評論（pp.1-4）：大體不錯。原書斜體字未特別標示（例如美國過去法律之著眼點為animals（而不是人）；凡人認為食品安全多為 politics（而不是人之健康）…….）。通常每段最後一句總結失真（兩句）。最後段將beef industry翻譯成「牛肉加工業」不當，因為該產業是由producers and processors組成，本書翻譯成「生產和加工」。少數漏譯：so small, so familiar, so voluntary】
---
紐約時報
EATING WELL
Read Any Good Nutrition Labels Lately?
By MARIAN BURROS/ December 1, 2004
WHEN mandatory nutrition labeling for packaged foods became the law of the land in 1994, the government predicted that Americans would routinely use it and that it would improve their eating habits. Give the government credit for getting it half right. Even as the country gets fatter and fatter, people say they do look at the nutrition facts panel on packaged foods.
*****
英國：除了舉國抗肥胖症之外，希望食物都貼上紅或黃或綠色標簽。
Shoppers want traffic light labels to show healthy food
By Valerie Elliott, Consumer Editor/ November 26, 2004
SHOPPERS want clear “traffic light” labels on food to help them choose healthy items, according to the Government’s food watchdog.
Symbols to steer people away from junk food are being devised by the Food Standards Agency and will also eventually appear in TV adverts. It is part of the Government strategy to tackle obesity and improve diet.
Is It Safe to Eat?
President Bush took a potentially useful step last week, appointing a cabinet-level committee to find ways to ensure the safety of imported food and other products. But his actions would be a lot more credible if the administration had not been cutting the staff and budget of food safety programs at the Food and Drug Administration while also planning to eliminate half of the agency’s laboratories.
Hearings before a House oversight subcommittee raised serious questions about the F.D.A.’s ability to protect the public against contaminated or adulterated foods. William Hubbard, a former top agency official who consults for a coalition of industry and consumer groups, told the committee that the F.D.A. has lost some 200 food scientists and 700 field inspectors over five years, exactly the wrong direction when food imports are skyrocketing. He also noted that the small budget increase the White House has proposed for food safety next year would be a decrease after accounting for inflation.
As if that weren’t discouraging enough, the committee’s chief investigator described how porous the current safety shield is. Agency personnel, he said, inspect less than 1 percent of all imported foods and conduct laboratory analyses on only a tiny fraction of those. Overwhelmed entry reviewers at one field office have so many items to screen that they typically have less than 30 seconds to decide whether an import needs closer scrutiny. Importers also learn to game the system by sending goods to lax entry points or mislabeling them. And they are allowed to take possession of suspect goods and arrange testing by private laboratories whose work is often shoddy or driven by financial concerns.
The F.D.A. insists that its plan to close 7 of the agency’s 13 laboratories will actually improve its capabilities, by allowing greater investment in modern equipment and training at the six remaining laboratories. That could conceivably be true, but the House investigator worries that there could be a tremendous loss of talent when laboratory analysts resign rather than be relocated. Congress and its research arm, the Government Accountability Office, will need to determine if this is a genuine move toward modernizing some aging laboratories, or a step that could further weaken the F.D.A.
沒有留言:
張貼留言
注意：只有此網誌的成員可以留言。