单选题 Next week, the European Parliament will debate stringent regulation of a number of effective pesticides. If this regulation is passed, the consequences will be devastating.
In the 1960s, widespread use of the potent and safe insecticide DDT led to eradication of many insect-borne diseases in Europe and North America. But based on no scientific evidence of human health effects, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT, and its European counterparts followed suit. Subsequently, more than 1 million people died each year from malaria— but not in America or Europe. Rather, most of the victims were children and women in Africa and Asia.
Today, even while acknowledging that indoor spraying of small amounts of DDT would help prevent many deaths and millions of illnesses, nongovernmental organizations continue—with great success—to pressure African governments not to allow its use. In order to stave off such pressure, African public health officials cave, and their children die needlessly. Yet, rather than learning the tragic lesson of the DDT ban, the European Union wants to extend this unscientific ban to other effective insecticides, including pyrethroids and organophosphates—further undercutting anti-malarial efforts.
The currently debated regulation would engender a paradigm shift in the regulation of chemicals, from a risk-based approach—based on real world exposures from agricultural applications—to a hazard-based standard, derived from laboratory tests and having little or no basis in reality as far as human health is concerned. Of course, this is fine with anti-chemical zealots. Their concern is bringing down chemical companies in the name of "the environment" —tough luck if African children have to be sacrificed to their agenda, as was the case with DDT (which is still banned in the EU and not under consideration in the current debate).
Most poignantly, the fight against malaria and other insect-borne tropical diseases would take another hit, with resulting illness, disability and death disproportionally affecting children under five and pregnant women.
And what, after all, is the "danger" of these chemicals being debated? In fact, there is no evidence to support the contention that insecticides pose a health threat to humans. Even DDT, one of the most studied chemicals of all time, has been conclusively shown to be safe for humans at all conceivable levels of exposure sufficient to control malaria and save millions of lives.

单选题 When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT in the 1960s, in Europe ______.
A. the governments questioned the ban's effects
B. the environmental authorities also banned it
C. researchers paid more attention to the chemical
D. the general public showed support for the ban

单选题 Some nongovernmental organizations believe that DDT ______.
A. is somewhat good for illness prevention
B. threatens the health of African children.
C. will regain popularity in Europe
D. can soon become a political issue

单选题 According to the author, the "hazard-based standard" ______.
A. can cause an increase in research expenses
B. may lead to some environmental damage
C. will be applied widely by researchers
D. must be avoided in regulating chemicals

单选题 The author believes that the real intent of those supporting the regulation is to ______.
A. help cure insect-born tropical diseases
B. promote environmental protection
C. stop the chemical companies' business
D. protect African children against insects

单选题 After the debate, the European Parliament will ______.
A. consider DDT's positive uses
B. continue to keep DDT illegal
C. remove some restrictions on DDT use
D. study DDT's impact on human health

单选题 According to the author, the fight against malaria would ______.
A. suffer another severe setback
B. achieve another great success
C. bring another round of problems
D. produce another threat to people's health