Today’s food travels thousands of miles before it reaches customers. Why is this? Is this a positive or negative trend?
We all need food to survive. It is thought that with the domination of cutting-edge technology, such as airplane, food is accessible to everywhere while others see it as a danger, rather than a boon. I totally support the mobile trend in food distribution.
First of all, opponents of this tendency argue that the spread of food to far-away places is cost-ineffective. Such fees related to gasoline, transportation delivery, staff management and other types of insurance are way beyond the pocket of suppliers. However, economically, it bestows upon both producers and consumers more noticeable benefits. Due to scarcity of food in some areas, as a result of frozen or extremely scorching weather, crop failures are predictable, leading to a skyrocketing price. Hence, with the in-time delivery from other zones which are available in this type of needed food, the prices can be curbed and their taste is fully satisfied while businessmen who truly prioritize the demand of customers over others gain a huge amount of profit. Besides, as living standards of human escalates non-stop, their need for varied food, from eastern to western, is more urgent than ever, especially in times of globalization. As there goes a saying “variety is the spice of life”, food transported from thousands of miles away from its farm is inevitable.
The second disadvantage of this trend is believed to trigger the inability to control the quality of food and growing dependence of each nation. The past has shown that Roman, as a consequence of relying on food chain supply of other nations, ever saw its power going into steep decline whereas the task of far-distance distribution can hardly ensure the thorough examination between suppliers and buyers, and trigger unwanted virus damaging the food. Nevertheless, gone are the days that food was easily ruined by external factors when refrigerators and other types of modern innovations are employed to keep food fresh and pasteurize it effectively. Another point is that Roman might have seen a quick economic recovery if successfully developing other industries to compensate for their lack of food supply. Geographically, each nation is born to be in a location which could be either suitable or hostile to food production, but by focusing on their inherent strengths and exchanging their products, food supply and other types of products are readily accessible to both, and at the same time, this is conducive to heightening the specialization in their production and maximizing their output in general. Moreover, with this trend growing ever-prevalent, procedures of supervising food set up by food experts are internationalized. Entering the market of Wal-mart in America, customers are able to choose the lowest price dishes, while still feeling satisfied with their quality by dint of clear markings of out-of-date and usage attached to each item. Equally important, this tendency is a contributor to pressuring local food companies to continuously enhance their quality; otherwise, customers will turn to other markets for better ones with less cost.
All things considered, I strongly hold onto the view that more gains than pains are realized in this scenario for its cost-effective, motivational, win-win benefits for customers, producers and governments.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1559, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Equally,
...f-date and usage attached to each item. Equally important, this tendency is a contribut...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, first, hence, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, so, still, whereas, while, in general, such as, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 13.1623246493 190% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 10.4138276553 163% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 24.0651302605 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 84.0 41.998997996 200% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2799.0 1615.20841683 173% => OK
No of words: 522.0 315.596192385 165% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.36206896552 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77988695657 4.20363070211 114% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11312348804 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 309.0 176.041082164 176% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.591954022989 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 876.6 506.74238477 173% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.384769539078 0% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 20.2975951904 133% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 83.3901819021 49.4020404114 169% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.315789474 106.682146367 138% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.4736842105 20.7667163134 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.68421052632 7.06120827912 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.200248921133 0.244688304435 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0674426725423 0.084324248473 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0527218772985 0.0667982634062 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114469341356 0.151304729494 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0322066677292 0.056905535591 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.6 13.0946893788 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 50.2224549098 71% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.3001002004 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.36 8.58950901804 121% => OK
difficult_words: 178.0 78.4519038076 227% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 9.78957915832 77% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.1190380762 126% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.