Organic food, grown without artificial chemicals, is increasingly popular nowadays. Consumers have been willing to pay up to twice as much for goods with organic labels (标签). However, if you think paying a little more for organic food gets you a more nutritious and safer product, then you’d better save your money. A study led by researchers at Stanford University says that organic products aren’t necessarily more nutritious, and they’re no less likely to suffer from disease-causing bacteria, either. 
For their new study, Smith-Spangler and her colleagues conducted a review of two categories(种类) of research, including 17 studies that compared health outcomes between consumers of organic against traditional food products, and 223 studies that analysed the nutritional content of the foods, including key vitamins, minerals and fats. While the researchers found little difference in nutritional content, they did find that organic fruit and vegetables were 20% less likely to have chemicals remaining on the surfaces. Neither organic nor traditional foods showed levels of chemicals high enough to go beyond food safety standards. And both organic and traditional meats, such as chicken and pork, were equally likely to be harmed by bacteria at very low rates. The researchers did find that organic milk and chicken contained higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, a healthy fat also found in fish that can reduce the risk of heart disease. However, these nutritional differences were too small, and the researchers were unwilling to make much of them until further studies confirm the trends.
Organic food is produced with fewer chemicals and more natural-growing practices, but that doesn’t always translate into a more nutritious or healthier product. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) states that, “Whether you buy organic or not, finding the freshest foods available may have the biggest effect on taste.” Fresh food is at least as good as anything marketed as organic.
4.What does the underlined sentence in the first paragraph mean?
A.Organic food helps you save money.
B.Organic food is not always nutritious.
C.Organic food contains much more nutrients.
D.Organic food is worth the high price.
5.How did Smith-Spangler and her colleagues carry out the research?
A.They made 223 studies about the consumers.
B.They made 17 studies about the nutrients.
C.They made two kinds of research.
D.They compared the consumers with the nutrients.
6.What might be the author’s attitude towards organic food?
A.It makes little difference to have organic food.
B.It costs less money if we all buy organic food.
C.Only the freshest organic food is worth twice the price.
D.We should not spend any money on organic food.
B
【文章大意】 本文是议论文。文章由人们花很多钱去购买有机食品入题,提出有机食品是否真的比传统食品更好的问题。然后引用专家的调查结果,证实有机食品并不比传统食品有更好的营养成分。
4.B　句意理解题。如果你想多花点钱买有机食品从而得到更营养更安全的食品,那么最好还是省省你的钱吧,再结合本篇文章都是谈有机食品并非更有营养、更安全,便知选项B正确。
5.C　 细节理解题。第二段介绍了研究者们将研究分为两大类:对消费者的研究和对营养成分的研究。故选C。
6.A　 推理判断题。作者引用美国斯坦福大学的研究数据表明所谓的有机食品并没有么特别之处。