Food is transported thousands of miles from the farm to the market. Is it possitive or negative trend?
The mobile trend in the food allocation has become more and more prevalent around the globe. In recent times, the question whether it is a curse or a blessing has sparked an intense debate. On the one hand there is an army of people convinced that transport-related foods bestow many merits upon humankind. On the other, a host of progressives protest that this tendency brings our lives a wide variety of adverse effects. I totally support the later view for the following reasons.
It is, first, argued that the trading of food between countries could be considered as evidence of cultural amalgamation, which possibly contributes to enhancing mutual understanding amongst different nations in the time of globalisation. Take Japanese sushi, for example. In the past, this cuisine used to be regarded as something of an oddity in many countries. Thanks to the trading of foodstuff, today people all over the world could taste the dish that characterizes Japan even when staying at home. However, in terms of environment, there are more pains than gains if people continue choosing this type of food. Not only does transporting food comsume a great deal of alternative energy, it also emits harmful gases such as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. These things are perhaps one of fundamental explanations for the exhausted energy issue and the world's acute environmental pollution facing mankind in this day and age. If people do not avoid purchasing overseas foostuffs, our ecosystem might be under threat and the future generations would not have adequate natural resources in order to survive. As this has shown, locally produced food proves the best choice for minimizing pollutants and preserving the habitat of human beings.
The second advantage of this trend is claimed that by exchanging food among nations, more benefits are offered to the native land and strengthening the local economy. Vietnam is a typical example of this. Global demand for coffee has allowed Vietnam to take advantage of its tropical geography as well as contributing to significantly reducing the proportion of unemployment in the Tay Nguyen area. Nevertheless, there is a widespread belief that the act of using produce imported from abroad might lead to serious consequences for our health and it would be foolish to ignore it. Foodstuff is transported from one side to another side of the world throughout a long period of time before reaching consumers, it is uncertain whether it can be kept fresh and pasteurize without the support of harmful antioxidant, not to mention preservatives. The detrimental effects may be reflected in high rates of people suffering from serious diseases such as cancer due to absorbing toxic chemicals in food. Such severe damage is far greater than economic benefits attained. Thus, the drawbacks that come from foodstuffs traversing thousands of miles before consumption can clearly be seen.
All things considered, I strongly hold onto the view that there are more pains than gains realized in this scenario with regard to long-term well-being of humankind and environmental safeguards. In order to ensure a superior life for people, government should impose the laws to curb the consumption of overseas food.
Good Job dear Sophie!!!!!! Your style of writing is commendable!!! Also your vocabulary is superb!
However, I feel that you should bring the second para before the first one (make it the first para) because from the reader's perspective, ill effects on health sounds more important than all other factors.
All things considered -------- you have a very unique style of writing that I really admire. However, I wish if you said this part a little differently :)
Yes.... I feel it's better if you sum up what you said in your body in the conclusion. So this is what I suggest;
People certainly do enjoy merits of global food transportation. However, we also have to acknowledge that it has adverse effects on our health and environment. Therefore I strongly hold on to the view that there are more pains than gains in this scenario in terms of long-term well-being of mankind and the environment.
