聽(tīng)寫(xiě)填空,只寫(xiě)填空內(nèi)容,不抄全文,5個(gè)左右的句子,不用寫(xiě)標(biāo)號(hào),注意標(biāo)點(diǎn),口語(yǔ)中因結(jié)巴等問(wèn)題造成的重復(fù)單詞只寫(xiě)一遍~

Hints:
antioxidants
omega-3

Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma, is making a case against what he calls 'eating scientifically.'

Michael Pollan: [---1---]

[---2---] Terms like those have become common language in the United States.

Michael Pollan: [---3,4---]

[---5---]

Michael Pollan: It is a young science. They have not figured it out yet. [---6---]

And he said that's not necessary in order to eat healthfully.

Michael Pollan: You know, people ate perfectly well and very healthfully and happily for thousands of years before they knew what an antioxidant was.

Pollan's latest book – published in early 2008 – is called In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto.

For today, that's our show, we have more on our website. I'm Lindsay Patterson in where E&S, a clear voice for science.

【視聽(tīng)版科學(xué)小組榮譽(yù)出品】
There is so much biochemistry on display in the supermarket and rather around our heads today, where else in your life do you use so much biochemistry? He's talking about the breakdown of foods into scientific terms, for example, antioxidants and omega-3 fatty acids. The question is whether looking at food through that scientific lens does you any good. And my sense is no, it doesn't do you any good, that obsessing about nutrients, whether good or bad, does not lead to healthier eating or healthier people. Pollan believes nutrition science doesn't yet have the authority to guide us in our food choices. They have not plumbed the depths of a carrot to understand what makes a carrot a healthy food.