Questões de Concurso – Aprova Concursos

Read the text below to answer questions 13–15.

Margarine vs. butter: are synthetic spreads toast?

Sales of margarine are in decline, due to a combination of reformulated recipes, price, health and taste. Do you defend margarine, or is butter simply better?
Butter vs. margarine: it’s a fight that has gone on for decades. On one side, there’s butter — rich, creamy, defiantly full–fat and made for millennia by churning the milk or cream from cattle. On the other, there’s margarine: the arriviste spread invented in the 1860s. It might not taste delicious, and it doesn’t sink into your toast like butter, but for decades margarine has ridden a wave of success as the “healthy” alternative.
No longer. Sales of margarine have plummeted in the last year, according to Kantar, with “health” spreads dropping 7.4% in sales. Flora has been particularly badly hit, losing £24m in sales, partly due to reformulating its recipe.
Meanwhile, butter is back in vogue. Brits bought 8.7% more blocks of butter last year, and 6% more spreadable tubs. This is partly due to the “narrowing price gap between butter and margarine”, Tim Eales of IRI told The Grocer, but also to the home baking revival led by Mary Berry, Paul Hollywood and co. We’re all sticking unsalted butter in our sponges these days.
A yen for natural, unprocessed produce could also be a factor. “Since all the food scandals of the last 10 years, people are thinking about where their food comes from — butter is perceived as ‘pure’”, says food writer Signe Johansen. But is margarine really out for the count? Big brands are owned by powerful multinationals such as Unilever, with huge marketing budgets. Don’t rule spreads out just yet.
Margarine was invented in 1869 by a French food scientist, Hippolyte Mège–Mouriès, who responded to a challenge by Napoleon III. Napoleon wanted to find a long–life alternative to butter to feed troops in the Franco–Prussian war. Mège–Mouriès mixed skimmed milk, water and beef fat to create a substance similar to butter in texture, if not in taste. He called it “oleomargarine” after margarites, the Greek word for pearls — a reference to its pearly sheen. In 1871 he sold the patent to Jurgens, a Dutch firm now part of Unilever.
Beef fat was soon replaced by cheaper hydrogenated and non–hydrogenated vegetable oils. “Margarine gained a foothold during the first world war”, says food writer and historian Bee Wilson. “George Orwell wrote of the ‘great war’ that what he remembered most was not all the deaths but all the margarine. But at this stage people recognized it was an inferior substitute for butter: an ersatz food, like drinking chicory instead of coffee.”
In the second world war, British margarine brands were legally required to add vitamins to their recipes. “The move in status to margarine as a health food, marketing itself as a superior alternative, happened after the war”, says Wilson. Added “healthy” extras — vitamins, omega–3s, unpronounceables that lower your cholesterol — are still a mainstay of the market.
But while margarine has spent decades fighting butter on the health front, what about taste? “Margarine has never been able to replicate the flavour of true butter”, says Johansen. This despite the fact many brands add milk and cream to their spreads. “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter”? Really? I can.
Unsurprisingly, it’s hard to find a defendant of margarine among food writers and chefs. One of the few exceptions is Marguerite Patten, who is a fan of baking with Stork® . Indeed, Stork® does make for wonderfully crisp shortcrust pastry.
Margarine has taken a bashing on the health front in recent years, too. Negative press about trans fats in the 00s saw many brands remove hydrogenated fats from their spreads and reformulate their recipes. Growing suspicion of processed foods has led many consumers to return to butter. As Johansen puts it: “If you want a healthy heart, eat more vegetables.”
And yet, and yet. I’m looking at a tub of Pure Dairy–Free Soya Spread. It contains 14g saturated fat per 100g, compared to butter’s 54%. For many consumers, such stats still outweigh taste when it comes to deciding what’s on their toast. And what about vegans, and those with lactose intolerance? Margarine can fulfill needs that butter can’t.
It will never win any taste awards, but there is still a place for margarine on the supermarket shelves — even if there isn’t one for it in most food lovers’ fridges.
Margarine vs. butter: are synthetic spreads toast? Adapted. Available in:http://www.guardian.co.uk

Read the text below to answer questions 13–15.

Margarine vs. butter: are synthetic spreads toast?

Sales of margarine are in decline, due to a combination of reformulated recipes, price, health and taste. Do you defend margarine, or is butter simply better?
Butter vs. margarine: it’s a fight that has gone on for decades. On one side, there’s butter — rich, creamy, defiantly full–fat and made for millennia by churning the milk or cream from cattle. On the other, there’s margarine: the arriviste spread invented in the 1860s. It might not taste delicious, and it doesn’t sink into your toast like butter, but for decades margarine has ridden a wave of success as the “healthy” alternative.
No longer. Sales of margarine have plummeted in the last year, according to Kantar, with “health” spreads dropping 7.4% in sales. Flora has been particularly badly hit, losing £24m in sales, partly due to reformulating its recipe.
Meanwhile, butter is back in vogue. Brits bought 8.7% more blocks of butter last year, and 6% more spreadable tubs. This is partly due to the “narrowing price gap between butter and margarine”, Tim Eales of IRI told The Grocer, but also to the home baking revival led by Mary Berry, Paul Hollywood and co. We’re all sticking unsalted butter in our sponges these days.
A yen for natural, unprocessed produce could also be a factor. “Since all the food scandals of the last 10 years, people are thinking about where their food comes from — butter is perceived as ‘pure’”, says food writer Signe Johansen. But is margarine really out for the count? Big brands are owned by powerful multinationals such as Unilever, with huge marketing budgets. Don’t rule spreads out just yet.
Margarine was invented in 1869 by a French food scientist, Hippolyte Mège–Mouriès, who responded to a challenge by Napoleon III. Napoleon wanted to find a long–life alternative to butter to feed troops in the Franco–Prussian war. Mège–Mouriès mixed skimmed milk, water and beef fat to create a substance similar to butter in texture, if not in taste. He called it “oleomargarine” after margarites, the Greek word for pearls — a reference to its pearly sheen. In 1871 he sold the patent to Jurgens, a Dutch firm now part of Unilever.
Beef fat was soon replaced by cheaper hydrogenated and non–hydrogenated vegetable oils. “Margarine gained a foothold during the first world war”, says food writer and historian Bee Wilson. “George Orwell wrote of the ‘great war’ that what he remembered most was not all the deaths but all the margarine. But at this stage people recognized it was an inferior substitute for butter: an ersatz food, like drinking chicory instead of coffee.”
In the second world war, British margarine brands were legally required to add vitamins to their recipes. “The move in status to margarine as a health food, marketing itself as a superior alternative, happened after the war”, says Wilson. Added “healthy” extras — vitamins, omega–3s, unpronounceables that lower your cholesterol — are still a mainstay of the market.
But while margarine has spent decades fighting butter on the health front, what about taste? “Margarine has never been able to replicate the flavour of true butter”, says Johansen. This despite the fact many brands add milk and cream to their spreads. “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter”? Really? I can.
Unsurprisingly, it’s hard to find a defendant of margarine among food writers and chefs. One of the few exceptions is Marguerite Patten, who is a fan of baking with Stork® . Indeed, Stork® does make for wonderfully crisp shortcrust pastry.
Margarine has taken a bashing on the health front in recent years, too. Negative press about trans fats in the 00s saw many brands remove hydrogenated fats from their spreads and reformulate their recipes. Growing suspicion of processed foods has led many consumers to return to butter. As Johansen puts it: “If you want a healthy heart, eat more vegetables.”
And yet, and yet. I’m looking at a tub of Pure Dairy–Free Soya Spread. It contains 14g saturated fat per 100g, compared to butter’s 54%. For many consumers, such stats still outweigh taste when it comes to deciding what’s on their toast. And what about vegans, and those with lactose intolerance? Margarine can fulfill needs that butter can’t.
It will never win any taste awards, but there is still a place for margarine on the supermarket shelves — even if there isn’t one for it in most food lovers’ fridges.
Margarine vs. butter: are synthetic spreads toast? Adapted. Available in:http://www.guardian.co.uk

Read the text below to answer questions 13–15.

Margarine vs. butter: are synthetic spreads toast?

Sales of margarine are in decline, due to a combination of reformulated recipes, price, health and taste. Do you defend margarine, or is butter simply better?
Butter vs. margarine: it’s a fight that has gone on for decades. On one side, there’s butter — rich, creamy, defiantly full–fat and made for millennia by churning the milk or cream from cattle. On the other, there’s margarine: the arriviste spread invented in the 1860s. It might not taste delicious, and it doesn’t sink into your toast like butter, but for decades margarine has ridden a wave of success as the “healthy” alternative.
No longer. Sales of margarine have plummeted in the last year, according to Kantar, with “health” spreads dropping 7.4% in sales. Flora has been particularly badly hit, losing £24m in sales, partly due to reformulating its recipe.
Meanwhile, butter is back in vogue. Brits bought 8.7% more blocks of butter last year, and 6% more spreadable tubs. This is partly due to the “narrowing price gap between butter and margarine”, Tim Eales of IRI told The Grocer, but also to the home baking revival led by Mary Berry, Paul Hollywood and co. We’re all sticking unsalted butter in our sponges these days.
A yen for natural, unprocessed produce could also be a factor. “Since all the food scandals of the last 10 years, people are thinking about where their food comes from — butter is perceived as ‘pure’”, says food writer Signe Johansen. But is margarine really out for the count? Big brands are owned by powerful multinationals such as Unilever, with huge marketing budgets. Don’t rule spreads out just yet.
Margarine was invented in 1869 by a French food scientist, Hippolyte Mège–Mouriès, who responded to a challenge by Napoleon III. Napoleon wanted to find a long–life alternative to butter to feed troops in the Franco–Prussian war. Mège–Mouriès mixed skimmed milk, water and beef fat to create a substance similar to butter in texture, if not in taste. He called it “oleomargarine” after margarites, the Greek word for pearls — a reference to its pearly sheen. In 1871 he sold the patent to Jurgens, a Dutch firm now part of Unilever.
Beef fat was soon replaced by cheaper hydrogenated and non–hydrogenated vegetable oils. “Margarine gained a foothold during the first world war”, says food writer and historian Bee Wilson. “George Orwell wrote of the ‘great war’ that what he remembered most was not all the deaths but all the margarine. But at this stage people recognized it was an inferior substitute for butter: an ersatz food, like drinking chicory instead of coffee.”
In the second world war, British margarine brands were legally required to add vitamins to their recipes. “The move in status to margarine as a health food, marketing itself as a superior alternative, happened after the war”, says Wilson. Added “healthy” extras — vitamins, omega–3s, unpronounceables that lower your cholesterol — are still a mainstay of the market.
But while margarine has spent decades fighting butter on the health front, what about taste? “Margarine has never been able to replicate the flavour of true butter”, says Johansen. This despite the fact many brands add milk and cream to their spreads. “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter”? Really? I can.
Unsurprisingly, it’s hard to find a defendant of margarine among food writers and chefs. One of the few exceptions is Marguerite Patten, who is a fan of baking with Stork® . Indeed, Stork® does make for wonderfully crisp shortcrust pastry.
Margarine has taken a bashing on the health front in recent years, too. Negative press about trans fats in the 00s saw many brands remove hydrogenated fats from their spreads and reformulate their recipes. Growing suspicion of processed foods has led many consumers to return to butter. As Johansen puts it: “If you want a healthy heart, eat more vegetables.”
And yet, and yet. I’m looking at a tub of Pure Dairy–Free Soya Spread. It contains 14g saturated fat per 100g, compared to butter’s 54%. For many consumers, such stats still outweigh taste when it comes to deciding what’s on their toast. And what about vegans, and those with lactose intolerance? Margarine can fulfill needs that butter can’t.
It will never win any taste awards, but there is still a place for margarine on the supermarket shelves — even if there isn’t one for it in most food lovers’ fridges.
Margarine vs. butter: are synthetic spreads toast? Adapted. Available in:http://www.guardian.co.uk

Read the text below to answer questions 11–12.

Quality of School Lunches Questioned

The meat being provided to our nation’s students in their lunches may not meet requirements by the fast–food industry, according to a recent investigation.
Those pangs of guilt when biting into a fast–food hamburger are one thing, but who would imagine that burger could be made with higher–quality meat than what our students are getting in school?
A recent USA Today investigation found that the nation’s largest fast–food chains have higher quality and safety standards for the meat they use than what the U.S. Department of Agriculture has for the meat used for the National School Lunch Program, which is served to 31 million students a day.
While the USDA rules for meat sent to schools maintain government safety standards, the government rules have fallen behind the stricter regulations of fast–food chains and other large retailers. Fast–food chains test their meat five to ten times more often than the USDA for bacteria and would reject meat that the USDA deems safe for consumption.
The standards for meat sent to schools and retailers are so disparate that ground beef from a plant with a salmonella outbreak this past August was recalled by retailers, but ground beef from the same plant produced during that outbreak was still shipped to schools.
In addition to meat quality issues, school cafeterias are not being inspected as rigorously required by the Child Nutrition Act. USA Today found that 8,500 schools across the country did not have their kitchens inspected at all in 2008, and another 18,000 schools did not complete the two required yearly inspections.
The USDA is responsible for inspecting every school cafeteria twice a year, but the requirement is difficult to enforce. For starters, the USDA requires that states simply provide the number of schools that have been inspected, but don’t keep record of school names. Also, these cafeteria inspections are not free and the money is not automatically provided to meet the mandate. With resources for schools scares across the country, cafeteria needs are not often a top priority.
These quality control problems for school lunches are not going unnoticed by NEA (National Education Association) members. Education support professionals and educators know the important role nutritious school lunches play in student achievement. “While the lunches may, according to standards, be a balanced lunch, it leaves a lot to be desired as far as the standard applied to the contents of a school lunch”, said Bob Munoz, a Nevada educator.

Quality of School Lunches Questioned. Available in: http://www.nea.org

Read the text below to answer questions 11–12.

Quality of School Lunches Questioned

The meat being provided to our nation’s students in their lunches may not meet requirements by the fast–food industry, according to a recent investigation.
Those pangs of guilt when biting into a fast–food hamburger are one thing, but who would imagine that burger could be made with higher–quality meat than what our students are getting in school?
A recent USA Today investigation found that the nation’s largest fast–food chains have higher quality and safety standards for the meat they use than what the U.S. Department of Agriculture has for the meat used for the National School Lunch Program, which is served to 31 million students a day.
While the USDA rules for meat sent to schools maintain government safety standards, the government rules have fallen behind the stricter regulations of fast–food chains and other large retailers. Fast–food chains test their meat five to ten times more often than the USDA for bacteria and would reject meat that the USDA deems safe for consumption.
The standards for meat sent to schools and retailers are so disparate that ground beef from a plant with a salmonella outbreak this past August was recalled by retailers, but ground beef from the same plant produced during that outbreak was still shipped to schools.
In addition to meat quality issues, school cafeterias are not being inspected as rigorously required by the Child Nutrition Act. USA Today found that 8,500 schools across the country did not have their kitchens inspected at all in 2008, and another 18,000 schools did not complete the two required yearly inspections.
The USDA is responsible for inspecting every school cafeteria twice a year, but the requirement is difficult to enforce. For starters, the USDA requires that states simply provide the number of schools that have been inspected, but don’t keep record of school names. Also, these cafeteria inspections are not free and the money is not automatically provided to meet the mandate. With resources for schools scares across the country, cafeteria needs are not often a top priority.
These quality control problems for school lunches are not going unnoticed by NEA (National Education Association) members. Education support professionals and educators know the important role nutritious school lunches play in student achievement. “While the lunches may, according to standards, be a balanced lunch, it leaves a lot to be desired as far as the standard applied to the contents of a school lunch”, said Bob Munoz, a Nevada educator.

Quality of School Lunches Questioned. Available in: http://www.nea.org

Read the text below to answer question 17–18.

Alzheimer's disease

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a form of dementia, which is a

brain disorder. It damages nerve cells in the brain. This affects

your ability to remember things, think clearly, and care for

yourself. AD begins slowly, and symptoms get worse with time.

Eventually, a person with AD might need help in many areas,

including eating and getting dressed. For some people in the

early or middle stages of the disease, medicine might help

symptoms, such as memory loss, from getting worse for a

limited time. Other drugs may help people feel less worried or

depressed. Dealing with Alzheimer's disease can be extremely

difficult, but planning ahead and getting support can lighten the

load. AD usually begins after age 60, and risk goes up with age.

The risk is also higher if a family member has had AD. Scientists

are working to better understand AD. Ongoing studies are

looking at whether some things can help prevent or delay the

disease. Areas that are being explored include exercise, eating

omega–3 fatty acids, and keeping your brain active.

Alzheimer´s disease.

Available in: http://www.womenshealth.gov

Read the text below to answer question 17–18.

Alzheimer’s disease

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a form of dementia, which is a brain disorder. It damages nerve cells in the brain. This affects your ability to remember things, think clearly, and care for yourself. AD begins slowly, and symptoms get worse with time. Eventually, a person with AD might need help in many areas, including eating and getting dressed. For some people in the early or middle stages of the disease, medicine might help symptoms, such as memory loss, from getting worse for a limited time. Other drugs may help people feel less worried or depressed. Dealing with Alzheimer’s disease can be extremely difficult, but planning ahead and getting support can lighten the load. AD usually begins after age 60, and risk goes up with age. The risk is also higher if a family member has had AD. Scientists are working to better understand AD. Ongoing studies are looking at whether some things can help prevent or delay the disease. Areas that are being explored include exercise, eating omega–3 fatty acids, and keeping your brain active. Alzheimer´s disease.
Available in: http://www.womenshealth.gov