3. 請就以下這一篇文章, 寫出一份約 250 字的 summary (15%)。然後用這篇summary 出 5 題克漏字選擇題，每題四個選項。並將正確答案畫底線。 (10%)。   Genetically manipulated food remains generally safe for humans and the environment, ahigh-powered science advisory board declared in a recnet report. The National Academiesof Science, Engineering and Medicine concluded that tinkering with the genetics of whatwe eat doesn't produce the "Frankenfood" monster some opponents claim — but it isn'tfeeding the world with substantially increased yields, as proponents promised.   With the line between engineered and natural foods blurring thanks to newertechniques such as gene editing, the 408-page report said, regulators need to make theirsafety focus more on the end-product of the food that's made rather than the nuts andbolts of how it's made.   The report waltzed a bit around the hot political issue of whether geneticallymodified food should be labeled. The study's authors said labels aren't needed for foodsafety reasons but potentially could be justified because of transparency, social andcultural factors, somewhat similar to made-in-America stickers. That stance was praisedby some environmental and consumer groups, but criticized by some scientists asunnecessary because the food poses no unique risks.   There's no evidence of environmental problems caused by genetically modifiedcrops, but pesticide resistance is a problem, the report said. Farms that use geneticallymodified crops in general are helped, but it may be a different story for smaller farmersand in poorer areas of the world, it said. Most of the modified plants are soybean, cotton,corn and canola; in most cases, genetic tinkering has made them resistant to certainherbicides and insects. When farms switched from conventional crops to the engineeredvarieties, there was no substantial change in yields. While experimental results suggestthat there should be an increase in production, U.S. Department of Agriculture datadoesn't show it, the report said.   The report first said it is important not to make sweeping statements on geneticallyengineered foods, which it called GE. Still, "the committee concluded that no differenceshave been found that implicate a higher risk to human health safety from these GE foodsthan from their non-GE counterparts." Although the National Academy has issued reportsbefore, saying it could find no safety problem with eating genetically modified food, theacademy committee chairman Fred Gould said this report is significant because his studyteam started by listening to critics of such foods, examined anew more than 1,000 studies,and created a website that allows consumers to look at evidence and decide forthemselves.   "To some extent we know more about some genetically engineered food than we doabout other food," committee member Dominique Brossard of the University ofWisconsin said. "There are limits to what can be known about any food. That's something we're not used to hearing as consumers."    Many scientists who work on the issue but weren't part of the study team lauded thereport as sensible, but not surprising. Mark Sorrells at Cornell called it "very wellbalanced, accurate, and reiterates much of what has already been published many times.""Science is science, facts are facts," emailed Bruce Chassy, an emeritus professor ofbiochemistry and food science at the University of Illinois. "There's just no sound basisfor their opposition just as there was never any scientific basis to believe GM plantsshould be viewed any differently than any other,"   One dissenter was Charles Benbrook, who used to be at Washington State Universitybut is now a private consultant. He said he feels the risks of genetically engineered foodare more serious than more mainstream scientists do, and that the human healthassessments aren't ample enough.   Some groups critical of genetically engineering foods criticized the report. Food &Water Watch criticized the National Academy as taking funding from biotechnology firmsand using "pro-GMO scientists" to write its reports. The report was funded by theBurroughs Wellcome Fund, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the New VentureFund, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with the academy itself. It was peerreviewed by outside experts and committee members are vetted for financial conflicts ofinterests, said academy spokesman William Kearney.