C. Which of these statements are true? Correct the false ones.

1. Aging population and inadequate medical care are the main factors that influence the growing number of deaths.

2. The globalization of unhealthy lifestyles – tobacco use, harmful alcohol consumption, bad diets and physical inactivity are also the main factors that lead to the increase of the number of deaths.

3. As people migrate to cities, they start eating healthier food and leading healthier lifestyle.

4. Transport systems in big cities are not conductive to walking or biking.

D. Answer the questions.

1. Why will one of two children born today in developing countries be able to celebrate his 100^th birthday?

2. What factors influence the growing number of deaths?

3. What happens when people migrate to cities and gain access to more goods and services?

4. How did industrialized countries respond to tobacco”s threat?

5. What was the initiative of New York and Denmark to solve the problem of unhealthy diets?

Text 2

A. Read the article.

McDonald’s defends Ronald as ‘ambassador for good’

 

Jim Skinner, McDonald’s chief executive, forcefully defended the company’s marketing practices on Thursday, denying the hamburger chain was pushing unhealthy food on children.

McDonald’s has been under renewed pressure to overhaul advertising in the wake of a US government proposal last month asking food companies to curb marketing that entices children with products high in saturated fat, trans fat, sugars and sodium. On Wednesday, more than 600 health institutions and professionals signed a letter published in US newspapers urging McDonald’s to drop campaigns including the Ronald McDonald clown.

“Ronald McDonald is going nowhere,” Mr Skinner told shareholders at the company’s annual meeting. “[He] is an ambassador of McDonald’s and he is an ambassador for good.”

Corporate Accountability International, a watchdog group, has been leading the campaign against McDonald’s. At the meeting, the group helped propose a resolution that would require McDonald’s to undertake a study to assess its “health footprint” and the costs of its marketing that is targeted at children.

“Advertising is at the heart of McDonald’s business model, with annual expenditures reaching $2bn,” the group wrote in its letter. “Marketing can no longer be ignored as a significant part of this massive problem.” The resolution garnered just 6 per cent approval from McDonald’s shareholders.

Dr Donald Ziegler, of the American Medical Association, told Mr Skinner at the meeting: “McDonald’s and its competitors have stolen a page from Big Tobacco’s and Big Alcohol’s playbook when it comes to the marketing of a dangerous product to children. How similar are Joe Camel, the Marlboro Man, Spud McKinsey or Ronald McDonald?”

Mr Skinner noted the philanthropic work that McDonald’s does through the Ronald McDonald charity and maintained that the company is offering choices to its customers, not forcing them to eat unhealthy food.

.

 

McDonald’s has been promoting healthier options including salads, oatmeal and fruit smoothies, but critics remain unsatisfied.

In spite of promises that Ronald McDonald will remain central to McDonald’s, analysts and investors have noticed the mascot is less prominent in some of its advertising and in its remodelled restaurants.

Asked why the clown had been absent from recent shareholder meetings, Mr Skinner said he was busy doing noble work and could not make it in through thickets of protesters.

 

to defend - защищать

to be under pressure ['preʃə] - оказывать нажим на …

advertising - реклама

to curb [kɜːb] - обуздывать

customer – покупатель, клиент

to promote - продвигать

option - опция, выбор

forge [fɔːdʒ] - создавать, скреплять, ковать, подделывать

to maintain - поддерживать

 

B. Retell the article.

Text 3

A. Read the article.

Public wants labels for food nanotech -- and they're willing to pay for it

New research from North Carolina State University and the University of Minnesota finds that people in the United States want labels on food products that use nanotechnology -- whether the nanotechnology is in the food or is used in food packaging. The research also shows that many people are willing to pay more for the labeling.

"We wanted to know whether people want nanotechnology in food to be labeled, and the vast majority of the participants in our study do," says Dr. Jennifer Kuzma, senior author of a paper on the research and Goodnight-Glaxo Wellcome Distinguished Professor of Public Administration at NC State. "Our study is the first research in the U.S. to take an in-depth, focus group approach to understanding the public perception of nanotechnology in foods."

The researchers convened six focus groups -- three in Minnesota and three in North Carolina -- and gave study participants some basic information about nanotechnology and its use in food products. Participants were then asked a series of questions addressing whether food nanotechnology should be labeled. Participants were also sent a follow-up survey within a week of their focus group meeting.

Study participants were particularly supportive of labeling for products in which nanotechnology had been added to the food itself, though they were also in favor of labeling products in which nanotechnology had only been incorporated into the food packaging.

However, the call for labeling does not indicate that people are necessarily opposed to the use of nanotechnology in food products. For example, many study participants indicated support for the use of nanotechnology to make food more nutritious or to give it a longer shelf life -- but they still wanted those products to be labeled.

"People do have nuanced perspectives on this," Kuzma says. "They want labeling, but they also want access to reliable, research-based information about the risks associated with labeled products -- such as a Food and Drug Administration website offering additional information about labeled products."

The researchers also found that about 60 percent of the study participants who responded to the follow-up survey were willing to pay an additional 5 to 25 percent of the product price for either nanotechnology-free products or for nanotechnology labeling.

Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by North Carolina State University