Supermarkets should only sell food produced from within their own country rather than important from overseas

Supermarkets should only sell food produced from within their own country rather than important from overseas.

What are your opinions on this?

Nowadays, supermarkets are stocked with food products from around the world. Some would argue that it would be better if food produce was not imported. I firmly believe that this view is correct, and will discuss the reasons why in this essay.

It is certainly the case that importing food can have a negative effect on local culture. This can be seen in countries such as Japan where imported food has become more popular than traditional, local produce, eroding people’s understanding of their own food traditions. Although some would claim that this is a natural part of economic development in an increasingly global world, I feel strongly that any loss of regional culture would be detrimental.

A second major reason to reduce imports is the environmental cost. Currently, many food imports, such as fruit, are transported thousands of miles by road, sea and air, making the product more expensive to buy and increasing pollution from exhaust fumes. Despite the fact that the trade in food exports has existed for many years, I am convinced that a reduction would bring significant financial and environmental gains.

However, many jobs depend on food exports and some less developed countries may even depend on this trade for economic survival. In spite of this, the importance of developing local trade should not be undervalued.

In conclusion, I am certain that reducing food imports would have cultural and environmental benefits. What is more, the local economy should, in time, prosper commercially as the demand for local and regional products remains high resisting the competition from overseas

In the past, shopping was a routine domestic task. Many people nowadays regard it as a hobby.

To what extend do you think this appositive trend?

Going shopping used to be a chore, but recently it has become aleisure activity or a pleasant outing. To my mind, it is debatable whether this can be regarded as wholly positive development.

For earlier generations, buying food or consumer products involved visisting several shops, each with the same limited range on offer. Customers had less money and credit was not widely available. By contrast, shoppers nowadays can fin almost anything in supermarket or shpping mall. The comfortable environment, the variety and cinemas make sending money enjoyable.

Nowadays, with many parents working full-time, families have littlee time together. In my experience, it is normal to see families in the local shopping mall at weekend. Undoubtedly, one of the benefits of this is that they are together as a family. Nevertheless, this is not ideal especially if it leaves no time for other activities, such as sport.

Another negative result of this change in attitudes is the effect it has on young people all over the world, who spend time in shopping malls. The reasons for this are the influence of advertising and the availability of credit cards. On the one hand, they are with friends in a safe environment, but on the other, it can tempt them to buy things they do not really need and may cause them to get into debt. Moreover, it would be better for their health If they met friends to go swimming.

In conclusion I would like to suggest that although shopping now is less tedious, this is not necessarily a positive trend. It may be good for the retailers, but not for consumer if it replaces other, healthier activities.

“Countries become more developed due to mix of different people and their culture.

Do you agree or disagree?”

Model Answer:

In this era of globalization, few countries are left from extensive mixing of people and their cultures. Countries are becoming mere political regions and nations, reminder of bygone traditions. I believe this is happening clearly for the better.

The most beneficial contribution of population mixing is perhaps the complimenting of peoples, which encounter and fuse with each other, for mutual development. When people cross borders, they carry their ideas, knowledge and skills and let them blend with those of others. The compound is ideally beneficial because people generally take up and sustain what is good for them. For this blending of knowledge and ideas, today’s world is much more convenient and harmonious than it was less than a century ago. Enhancement of society, which is done easiest through blending of people, also has to be stated. A country may be conservative and grow financially, but today development is a socio-economic affair. This means that societies and countries do not develop merely by increasing monetary wealth but must also grow through the improvement of their people, which is done through “curing people by people”

Detractors of such opinion say that we’re losing our cultural and national identities as more and more exotic ideas, values and customs are being domesticated. This perhaps does have a factual base since blending of cultures definitely modifies customs. But such modification can hardly be called loss. Identities are made of long time traditions, which were “grown” somewhere back in time, so the loss that some may blame population mixing for may not be a loss at all, but possibly be the process of taking up newer identities or augmenting the already cherished ones. It is foolish, therefore, to be critical of mixing of people and culture, at least in this way.

In conclusion, I conclude that mixing of people and their cultures, despite its critics and occasional blemishes, is taking the whole world to a better place

Unpaid work.

Many young people work on a volunteer basis, and this can only be beneficial for both the individual and society as whole. However, I do not agree that we should therefore force all teenagers to do unpaid work.

Most young people are already under enough pressure with their studies, without being given the added responsibility of working in their spare time. School is just as demanding as a full-time job, and teachers expect their students to do homework and exam revision on top of attending lessons every day. When young people do have some free time, we should encourage them to enjoy it with their friends or to spend it doing sports and other leisure activities. They have many years of work ahead of them when they finish their studies.

At the same time, I do not believe that society has anything to gain from obliging young people to do unpaid work. In fact, I would argue that it goes against the values of a free and fair society to force group of people to do something against their will. Doing this can only lead to resentment amongst young people, who would feel that they were being used, and parents, who would not want to be raise their children. Currently, nobody is forced to volunteer, and this is surely the best system.

In conclusion, teenagers may choose to work for free and help others, but in my opinion we should not make this compulsory.