In many countries nowadays, consumers can go to a supermarket and buy food produced all over the world.
Do you think this is a positive or negative development?
In my view, the global availability of food in supermarkets is largely a positive development, even
though it comes with genuine drawbacks that need attention. The benefits of choice and access, in my
opinion, outweigh the environmental and local-economic costs.
The advantages are considerable. For the consumer, supermarkets now offer an extraordinary variety that
was unimaginable a generation ago — fresh fruit and vegetables from other continents, spices,
specialities and seasonal produce all year round. This is a clear improvement in diet and convenience.
It also means people can enjoy more nutritious food even when it isn't grown locally, which matters in
regions with limited agriculture. For producers in developing countries, the global market offers
income and export opportunities, and for consumers it helps keep prices competitive.
Nevertheless, there are real downsides. Transporting food across great distances has a significant
environmental cost, through the carbon emissions of shipping and the energy needed for refrigeration
and storage. There is also the question of quality and freshness, because food that travels far is
often picked before it is ripe and can be less nutritious or less tasty. In addition, a heavy reliance
on imported food can undermine local farmers and make a country vulnerable to global supply
disruptions, which became very evident during the pandemic.
Taking everything into account, I would still call this a positive development overall. The solution is
not to reject imported food, but to manage it more sensibly — by supporting local producers, reducing
food miles where possible, and consumers choosing seasonal and regional produce when they can. That
way, the world's food can be enjoyed while the worst effects on the environment and local economies are
kept in check.
A clear position (positive) is given and defended, with the drawbacks fully acknowledged and then
addressed. The question is answered directly without dodging the negatives.
Takeaway: For "positive or negative?", state your verdict plainly, give the strongest case for the
other side, then resolve it — this is honest and earns marks.
Balanced four-paragraph structure: verdict, benefits, drawbacks, resolution. Linkers ("The advantages
are considerable", "Nevertheless", "Taking everything into account") keep the argument flowing.
Takeaway: Signpost your verdict early, then use "nevertheless" to pivot to the counter-side, and a
clear resolution at the end.
Strong, precise vocabulary: "extraordinary variety", "a generation ago", "nutritional", "carbon
emissions", "undermine", "food miles", "vulnerable to supply disruptions". Register is academic and
accurate.
Takeaway: Learn topic vocabulary for globalisation and food (*food miles, supply chain, imported,
self-sufficient*).
Complex and error-free: relative clauses ("which became very evident"), concession ("even though it
comes with genuine drawbacks"), and conditionals. Tense control is accurate.
Takeaway: Use "even though" and "by supporting X, Y can be..." to show high-level grammatical
control.