2019수능특강 영어 29강 본문

2019 수능특강 영어 29강.hwp

0.05MB

 

2019수능특강 영어 29강

1

Food is, indeed, rather like language, but one can be more free with food. It is not so tightly structured as the elements of language are. Consider the simplest case: the similarity of combining phonemes into a word and ingredients into a dish. “Tree” has three phonemes: /t/, /r/, and /i/ (/i/ is used to write the “ee” sound in standard sound transcriptions). A minimal sort of Texas chili might have three ingredients: beans, chili, and meat. With the word, if you mispronounce it (dree), drag out one sound (treeee), write it, yell it, or otherwise mangle it, it is still “the same word” to an English speaker. With the food, tripling the chili, or using a different type of bean, changes the dish materially and provides a quite different experience. To that extent, food is less tightly structured. One does not automatically reduce a range of different experiences to “the same thing.”

 

2

The role of nutrients has often been interpreted outside the context of the foods, dietary patterns, and broader social contexts in which they are found. Nutrition experts have, for example, made definitive statements about the role of single nutrients, such as the role of fat or fiber, in isolation from the foods in which we find them. This single-nutrient reductionism often ignores or simplifies the interactions among nutrients within foods and within the body. It has also involved the premature translation of an observed statistical association between single nutrients and diseases into a deterministic or causal relationship, according to which single nutrients are claimed to directly cause, or at least increase the risk of, particular diseases. Nutrition scientists have also tended to exaggerate any beneficial or harmful health effects of single nutrients. For example, the harmful effects of total fat, saturated fat, and dietary cholesterol—and the benefits of polyunsaturated fats, omega-3 fats, and vitamin D—have all, arguably, been exaggerated, if not in some cases seriously misrepresented, over the years.

 

3

Soldiers’ wartime exposure to commercially canned foods, though occasional, generated the beginnings of consumer trust. This trust flowed back up the chain of production, providing the first faint signs of wider demand that canners needed in order to innovate and expand. Tastes were often slow to change when ordinary consumers were given a choice between new products and their go-to standards. But because army men in the American Civil War had little choice when it came to their food supply, they gave new foods a chance and widened their palates to partially accommodate canned foods. After the war, they brought these new preferences home with them. The nature of trust that these battlefield encounters fostered was not yet rooted in scientific certainty, a better understanding of the risks, or knowledge of where the food had come from. Rather, it sprang from exposure and familiarity that made a new kind of food seem worth sampling and its convenience and accessibility worth appreciating.

 

4

We need to find out why people are not naturally motivated to eat sensibly and take exercise, and why the motivation to consume alcohol or to smoke persists in spite of their harmful effects on the body. The probable reason is that good or bad effects are not felt immediately but only several years or even decades later. With regard to nutrition there is some feedback from research, but it takes a very long time for the results of research to spread through society. The explanation is that the mechanisms of biochemical adaptation oppose clinical manifestations of nutritional imbalances (deficits or excesses of nutrients) and pronounced disturbances or disease arise only after the adaptation reserves have become exhausted. A similar phenomenon is observed with chronic consumption of alcohol and heavy smoking over a long period.