At a recent meeting on enviromental threats off the coast of the state of Maine, most participants favored uniform controls on the quality of food fed to salmon species in fish farms located along the coast of the state. Such controls were overwhelmingly supported without regard to whether or not specific environmental damage could be linked to a particular type of food being used. What must, of course, be shown, in order to mitigate the risk of excessively restrictive contols, is that

A) all agreed upon controls that are uniform in nature will be implemented without any delay

B) all fish foods that will be the subject of controls are known to actually cause environmental damage off the coast of Maine

C) the meeting participants favoring uniform controls are primarily from an industry that completes with the salmon farmers

D) all of the chemicals that are ingredients in some of the controlled substances are known to cause environmental damage

E) the environmental damage that has historically been caused by the dangerous fish foods is not reversible in the foreseeable future, if ever

What must, of course, be shown, in order to mitigate the risk of excessively restrictive controls, is that ____________________

The question makes it clear that most participants are in favour of passing restrictive control measures. Also the premise states "Such controls were overwhelmingly supported without regard to whether or not specific environmental damage could be linked to a particular type of food being used." This statement can be rephrased to mean that it doesn't matters which food type causes which kind of problem, any food which causes any kind of eneviromental damage should be restricted. now the question is concerned about risk of too much of restrictive control , so only that choice which talks about lessening the risk of excessive control should be the answer.

a) Doesn't address the issue which passage asks.

b) Correct . - Rephrased this option says that only the foods which do cause environmental damage should be put under control. foods which don't cause problems should not be. Hence this is the right answer because it asks to completely avoid non-enviroment damaging foods to be put under restriction.

c) is not related with what we are concerned.

d) The tricky answer choice. "all of the chemicals that are ingredients in some of the controlled substances are known to cause environmental damage". we are not concerned with only some of the controlled substances but all of them.

e) This is a pessimistic choice that essentially states that damage already caused cannot be reversed. The premise and question stem is concerned about mitigating the risk of excessive control , not about saying that what has happened has happened. It asks about what can be done and not what cannot be done.