lt is not controversial to say that an unhealthy diet causes bad health. Nor are the b

asic elements ofhealthy eating disputed.Obesity raises susceptibility to cancer， and Britain is the sixth most obese countryon Earth. That is a public health emergency. But naming the problem is the easy part. No one disputes thecosts in quality of life and depleted health budgets of an obese population，but the quest for solutions getsdiverted by ideological arguments around responsibility and choice.And the water is muddied by lobbyingfrom the industries that profit from consumption of obesity-inducing products.

Historical precedent suggests that science and politics can overcome resistance from businesses thatpollute and poison but it takes time，and success often starts small. So it is heartening to note that aprogramme in Leeds has achieved a reduction in childhood obesity，becoming the first UK city to reverse afattening trend. The best results were among younger children and in more deprived areas. When 28% ofEnglish children aged two to 15 are obese，a national shift on the scale achieved by Leeds would lengthenhundreds of thousands of lives.A significant factor in the Leeds experience appears to be a scheme calledHENRY，which helps parents reward behaviours that prevent obesity in children.

Many members of parliament are uncomfortable even with their own government's anti-obesitystrategy，since it involves a “sugar tax”and a ban on the sale of energy drinks to under-16s.Bans and taxescan be blunt instruments，but their harshest critics can rarely suggest better methods.These critics justoppose regulation itself.

The relationship between poor health and inequality is too pronounced for governments to be passiveabout large-scale intervention.People living in the most deprived areas are four times more pronc to diefrom avoidable causes than counterparts in more affluent places.As the structural nature of public healthproblcms becomes harder to ignore，the complaint about overprotective government loses potency.

In fact，the polarised debate over public health interventions should have been abandoned long ago.Government action works when individuals are motivated to respond. Individuals need governments thatexpand access to good choices. The HENRY programme was delivered in part through children's centres.Closing such centres and cutting council budgets doesn't magically increase reserves of individual self-reliance. The function of a well-designed state intervention is not to deprive people of liberty but to buildsocial capacity and infrastructure that helps people take responsibility for their wellbeing. The obesitycrisis will not have a solution devised by left or right ideology—but experience indicates that the private sector needs the incentive of regulation before it starts taking public health emergencies seriously.

46. Why is the obesity problem in Britain so difficult to solve？

A) Government health budgcts are depleted.

B)People disagree as to who should do what.

C) Individuals are not ready to take their responsibilities.

D) Industry lobbying makes it hard to get healthy foods.

47. What can we learn from the past experience in tackling public health emergencies？

A)Governments have a role to play.

B) Public health is a scientific issue.

C) Priority should be given to deprived regions.

D) Businesses’responsibility should be stressed.

48. What does the author imply about some critics of bans and taxes concerning unhealthy drinks？

A) They are not aware of the consequcnces of obesity.

B)They have not come up with anything more constructive.

C)They are uncomfortable with parliament's anti-obesity debate.

D) They have their own motives in opposing government regulation.

49. Why does the author stress the relationship between poor health and inequality？

A) To demonstrate the dilemma of people living in deprived areas.

B)To bring to light the root cause of widespread obesity in Britain.

C)To highlight the area deserving the most attention from the public.

D) To justify government intervention in solving the obesity problem.

50. When will government action be effective？

A)When the polarised debate is abandoned.

B)When ideological differences are resolved.

C) When individuals have the incentive to act accordingly.

D) When the private sector realises the severity of the crisis.