文章较难，大家听写填空即可~
Here in New York, the ___1___ state budget includes one ___2___ that’s probably making more news than the rest of the budget’s contents combined: a tax on nondiet soda and other high-calorie drinks. If the budget is passed by the legislature, sugary drinks would be ___3___ an extra penny-per-ounce excise tax. The idea is to both raise money for the state—an estimated billion dollars a year—and motivate people to consume less soda. But do higher costs really get people to eat more healthfully?
A study published in the March 8th ___4___ of the journal Archives of Internal Medicine says yes. Researchers tracked the eating habits and health of over 5,000 young adults for two decades. They found that a 10 percent increase in the price of soda was associated with a 7 percent decrease in soda calories consumed. ___5___
The higher tax is, of course, a political decision, not a scientific one. But the science does support the idea that such sin taxes accomplish their healthful intent.
pending provision slapped with issue Higher prices were also associated with lower total calorie intake, lower body weight and improved insulin resistance.
今年纽约州提交的财政预算案中有一项引发热议：向汽水等高热量饮料征收“肥胖税”。若预算案得以通过，含糖饮料将面临每盎司1美分的额外征税。这将给州政府带来每年10亿美元左右的财政收入，同时敦促人们减少汽水消费。然而涨价是否真能使消费者望而却步，转而支持健康饮食呢? 3月8日《内科医学档案》发布的一项调查（作者凯亚•达菲等，O）给出了肯定的答案。研究人员就5000余年轻人10年间的饮食习惯及健康状况进行了跟踪调查。结果发现当汽水价格上涨10%，人们从汽水中摄取的卡路里就减少7%。这一举措同样导致人们卡路里摄取量普遍下降，体重减轻，胰岛素耐受性得到改善。 当然，增税是一项政治决策，而非科学举措。但科学家无疑支持这类为了人类健康而征收的“罪过税”。