Questões de Inglês

Read the text below and answer question:

TEXTO

Is it really possible that plant-based foods such as the Impossible Whopper are healthful?

By Cara Rosenbloom

September 9, 2019

With many American consumers interested in reducing their consumption of animal products without becoming vegetarian or vegan, the food industry has come up with a new craze: plant-based. Look around your grocery store, and you’ll see a growing number of dairy, egg and meat substitutes bearing this label.

But the industry has taken liberties with the definition of “plant-based.” Rather than focusing on whole foods such as vegetables, fruits, legumes and nuts, which is what health professionals mean when they recommend “plant-based eating,” food manufacturers are developing ultra-processed burgers out of pea or soy protein, methylcellulose and maltodextrin, and liquid “eggs” out of mung bean protein isolate and gellan gum. Then they crown this ultra-processed food with an undeserved health halo.

(…)

Plant-based ultra-processed products such as these are formulated to taste like the real deal. Thus, consumers can feel virtuous or principled for choosing plants over meat without sacrificing too much flavor. But is there any value to plant-based products that have been crushed, extruded and shaped into facsimiles of the foods they are replacing? Let’s look at that question through several lenses — considering nutrients, how processed the food is and how producing the food affects the planet.

When I was in nutrition school, the health value of food was mostly calculated based on the presence of desirable nutrients, such as fiber and vitamins, and on the absence of negative nutrients, such as sodium or trans fat. If you compare ultra-processed plant-based foods and similar animal-based foods solely on their nutrients, you’ll find they are roughly the same.

Plant-based foods are purposely formulated to mimic animal-based foods, so plant-based milk is enriched with calcium and vitamin D to mimic cow’s milk, while veggie burgers are rich in protein and made with iron and zinc to imitate beef. But they aren’t always made to reduce the presence of less-healthy nutrients. Sometimes, the processed plant-based food will have more sodium than the processed animal-based food, and sometimes the animal food will be higher in calories or saturated fat.

(…)

Using the term “plant-based” on fast food labels is just another attempt by marketers to re-brand junk food. True plant-based eating doesn’t mean opting for an Impossible Whopper in the drive-through or scrambling up some 15-ingredient “egg alternative.” It means a diet that includes nourishing options such as black beans, broccoli and brown rice. We’re always looking for some magical way to eat junky food and achieve health. Don’t be fooled by this plant-based pretense.

Adapted from the digital edition of The Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com

Read the text below and answer question:

TEXTO

Is it really possible that plant-based foods such as the Impossible Whopper are healthful?

By Cara Rosenbloom

September 9, 2019

With many American consumers interested in reducing their consumption of animal products without becoming vegetarian or vegan, the food industry has come up with a new craze: plant-based. Look around your grocery store, and you’ll see a growing number of dairy, egg and meat substitutes bearing this label.

But the industry has taken liberties with the definition of “plant-based.” Rather than focusing on whole foods such as vegetables, fruits, legumes and nuts, which is what health professionals mean when they recommend “plant-based eating,” food manufacturers are developing ultra-processed burgers out of pea or soy protein, methylcellulose and maltodextrin, and liquid “eggs” out of mung bean protein isolate and gellan gum. Then they crown this ultra-processed food with an undeserved health halo.

(…)

Plant-based ultra-processed products such as these are formulated to taste like the real deal. Thus, consumers can feel virtuous or principled for choosing plants over meat without sacrificing too much flavor. But is there any value to plant-based products that have been crushed, extruded and shaped into facsimiles of the foods they are replacing? Let’s look at that question through several lenses — considering nutrients, how processed the food is and how producing the food affects the planet.

When I was in nutrition school, the health value of food was mostly calculated based on the presence of desirable nutrients, such as fiber and vitamins, and on the absence of negative nutrients, such as sodium or trans fat. If you compare ultra-processed plant-based foods and similar animal-based foods solely on their nutrients, you’ll find they are roughly the same.

Plant-based foods are purposely formulated to mimic animal-based foods, so plant-based milk is enriched with calcium and vitamin D to mimic cow’s milk, while veggie burgers are rich in protein and made with iron and zinc to imitate beef. But they aren’t always made to reduce the presence of less-healthy nutrients. Sometimes, the processed plant-based food will have more sodium than the processed animal-based food, and sometimes the animal food will be higher in calories or saturated fat.

(…)

Using the term “plant-based” on fast food labels is just another attempt by marketers to re-brand junk food. True plant-based eating doesn’t mean opting for an Impossible Whopper in the drive-through or scrambling up some 15-ingredient “egg alternative.” It means a diet that includes nourishing options such as black beans, broccoli and brown rice. We’re always looking for some magical way to eat junky food and achieve health. Don’t be fooled by this plant-based pretense.

Adapted from the digital edition of The Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com

Leia o texto a seguir e responda à questão.

Native English speakers are the world’s worst communicators

    It was just one word in one email, but it caused huge financial losses for a multinational company. The message, written in English, was sent by a native speaker to a colleague for whom English was a second language. Unsure of the word, the recipient found two contradictory meanings in his dictionary. He acted on the wrong one.
    Months later, senior management investigated why the project had failed, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. “It all traced back to this one word,” says Chia Suan Chong, a UK-based communications skills and intercultural trainer, who didn’t reveal the tricky word because it is highly industry-specific and possibly identifiable. “Things spiralled out of control because both parties were thinking the opposite.”
    When such misunderstandings happen, it’s usually the native speakers who are to blame. Ironically, they are worse at delivering their message than people who speak English as a second or third language, according to Chong. “A lot of native speakers are happy that English has become the world’s global language. They feel they don’t have to spend time learning another language.”
    The non-native speakers, it turns out, speak more purposefully and carefully, trying to communicate efficiently with limited, simple language, typical of someone speaking a second or third language. Anglophones, on the other hand, often talk too fast for others to follow, and use jokes, slang, abbreviations and references specific to their own culture, says Chong. “The native English speaker is the only one who might not feel the need to adapt to the others,” she adds.

Adapted from http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20161028-native-english-speakers-are-the-worlds-worst-communicators

Leia o texto a seguir e responda à questão.

Native English speakers are the world’s worst communicators

    It was just one word in one email, but it caused huge financial losses for a multinational company. The message, written in English, was sent by a native speaker to a colleague for whom English was a second language. Unsure of the word, the recipient found two contradictory meanings in his dictionary. He acted on the wrong one.
    Months later, senior management investigated why the project had failed, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. “It all traced back to this one word,” says Chia Suan Chong, a UK-based communications skills and intercultural trainer, who didn’t reveal the tricky word because it is highly industry-specific and possibly identifiable. “Things spiralled out of control because both parties were thinking the opposite.”
    When such misunderstandings happen, it’s usually the native speakers who are to blame. Ironically, they are worse at delivering their message than people who speak English as a second or third language, according to Chong. “A lot of native speakers are happy that English has become the world’s global language. They feel they don’t have to spend time learning another language.”
    The non-native speakers, it turns out, speak more purposefully and carefully, trying to communicate efficiently with limited, simple language, typical of someone speaking a second or third language. Anglophones, on the other hand, often talk too fast for others to follow, and use jokes, slang, abbreviations and references specific to their own culture, says Chong. “The native English speaker is the only one who might not feel the need to adapt to the others,” she adds.

Adapted from http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20161028-native-english-speakers-are-the-worlds-worst-communicators

Leia o texto a seguir e responda à questão.

Native English speakers are the world’s worst communicators

    It was just one word in one email, but it caused huge financial losses for a multinational company. The message, written in English, was sent by a native speaker to a colleague for whom English was a second language. Unsure of the word, the recipient found two contradictory meanings in his dictionary. He acted on the wrong one.
    Months later, senior management investigated why the project had failed, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. “It all traced back to this one word,” says Chia Suan Chong, a UK-based communications skills and intercultural trainer, who didn’t reveal the tricky word because it is highly industry-specific and possibly identifiable. “Things spiralled out of control because both parties were thinking the opposite.”
    When such misunderstandings happen, it’s usually the native speakers who are to blame. Ironically, they are worse at delivering their message than people who speak English as a second or third language, according to Chong. “A lot of native speakers are happy that English has become the world’s global language. They feel they don’t have to spend time learning another language.”
    The non-native speakers, it turns out, speak more purposefully and carefully, trying to communicate efficiently with limited, simple language, typical of someone speaking a second or third language. Anglophones, on the other hand, often talk too fast for others to follow, and use jokes, slang, abbreviations and references specific to their own culture, says Chong. “The native English speaker is the only one who might not feel the need to adapt to the others,” she adds.

Adapted from http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20161028-native-english-speakers-are-the-worlds-worst-communicators

Leia o texto a seguir e responda à questão.

OXFAM AMERICA

    Oxfam stands for the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief. It was started in Oxford, England in 1942 in response to the European famine-related issues resulting from the Second World War. Ten other countries worldwide, including the United States and Australia, have started chapters of Oxfam. They make up what is known as Oxfam International.
    Oxfam America is dedicated to creating lasting solutions to hunger, poverty, and social injustice through long-term partnerships with poor communities around the world. As a privately funded organization, we can speak with conviction and integrity as we challenge the structural barriers that foster conflict and human suffering and limit people from gaining the skills, resources, and power to become self-sufficient.
    Oxfam implements various global projects that target areas particularly affected by hunger. The projects focus on developing self-sufficiency of the communities in which they are based, as opposed to merely providing relief in the form of food aid. Oxfam’s projects operate on the communal level, and are developed by evaluating issues causing poverty and hunger in the community and subsequently the possible infrastructure that could end hunger and foster the attainment of self-sufficiency. Examples of projects in which Oxfam America has been or is involved range from a women’s literacy program in India to providing microloans and agriculture education programs for small-scale organic farmers in California.

Adapted from http://students.brown.edu/Hourglass_Cafe/Pages/about.htm