The food people ate in the past was healthier than the food people eat today
Meals are an inevitable part of people’s life, and it’s a common debate concerning whether food in the past was healthier among the mass. From my standpoint, I am convinced this statement is totally correct with my concerns on pollution, additives and freshness in the modern society.
First of all, I assert that previous food was healthier because there was evidently less pollution decades ago. With the spread of industrialization, countless changes have been made both to the humankind and to the environment. Among all of them, the most pressing issue undoubtedly is the pollution. At the same time that more plants and factories are built, more water is polluted and more soil is contaminated. And all the pollution would have serious problem to us. For example, fishes living in contaminated water might become toxic and crops grow up in the field may contain some elements which is detrimental to body health. Therefore, since the produces could be severely affected by the contamination, food safety and reliability is a great challenge for all of us.
Besides the factor of pollution, another reason why I am convinced food in the past is healthier is that the increasing use of food additives. As the chemistry industry booms, businessmen now obtain abundant options now to render their commodities more appealing and tasty. For example, my father always tells me that the toasted chicken in the supermarket now look much more attractive and taste absolutely better, but its great taste is unnatural. So he believes there must are some additives whose impacts on bodies are unknown to the consumers and customers. Consequently, since it’s completely possible for the producer or seller of food to secretly add some food additives so as to make more profits, that may also do harm to people’s body when digesting them.
Beyond the reason of pollution and food additives, the freshness of food should not be ignored either. With accompany of the refrigerator and the ice producer, people now are capable to extensively expend the storage period of food. So, it comes a universal concern about the food freshness. According to a news report in China Daily, some unethical businessmen once sold meat that was produced three years ago to the market. Apparently, it is hard to tell what types of negative influences the food would have on people’s health.
All in all, I support the statement that my ancestors enjoyed a healthier way on their diet because of the problems of contamination, additives and freshness.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-10-21 | Storyline | 73 | view |
| 2019-08-19 | SERDARKOCAK | 73 | view |
| 2018-09-04 | celiawu | 90 | view |
| 2018-02-22 | Mehrdad.imn | 87 | view |
| 2016-07-03 | Bruce201609 | 86 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree this statement: To solve the problems of present and the future, people should review the past. 60
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is more important tomake friends with people who can have fun with us than to make friends with people who canhelp us when we are in need. 70
- It's a waste of money for Government to fund space travel or spaceexploration. 86
- The food people ate in the past was healthier than the food people eat today 90
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 685, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...ood to secretly add some food additives so as to make more profits, that may also do har...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, besides, but, consequently, first, if, look, may, so, therefore, as to, for example, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 15.1003584229 146% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 9.8082437276 82% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 13.8261648746 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.0286738351 82% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 43.0788530466 63% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 52.1666666667 109% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.0752688172 149% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2133.0 1977.66487455 108% => OK
No of words: 414.0 407.700716846 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15217391304 4.8611393121 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51076378781 4.48103885553 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95461184404 2.67179642975 111% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 212.727598566 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.565217391304 0.524837075471 108% => OK
syllable_count: 665.1 618.680645161 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 9.59856630824 63% => OK
Article: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.86738351254 161% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.94265232975 202% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.695457286 48.9658058833 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.65 100.406767564 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7 20.6045352989 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.75 5.45110844103 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.88709677419 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.277797251263 0.236089414692 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0825959311697 0.076458572812 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0935684760743 0.0737576698707 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15335188871 0.150856017488 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0856228287014 0.0645574589148 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 11.7677419355 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 58.1214874552 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 10.9000537634 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.86 8.01818996416 110% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 86.8835125448 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.