I agree with Sami's interpretation and views. For the language student who may have to take an exam, however, here is a more direct response, following as closely as possible the original words and thoughts of the article: economic realities: large supermarket chains now dominate the market. romance of roses: going to a local florist shop to buy roses for Valentine's Day, knowing that it is an independently owned business. It's not particularly logical or well-written, but that's how the article is and that's what it says.

Apparently the paragraph is about the business of roses and how this industry is changes like all other industries, making it more systematic and less intimate, flowers have always been a symbol of love and intimacy that people buy to express their feelings, but in the shadow of modern economies and the rapid change in the shape of this industry, it became more of a product than a love symbol.

It doesn't mean much. It's a clever-sounding sentence that doesn't make a lot of sense. In the U.S. roses are THE traditional small gift by men who wish to express affection for a woman. So, roses are associated with romance. If you are not involved in the buying or selling roses, when you think of roses you think of "love" rather than "money." In this mini-essay, the writer states a thesis ("Like all other industries, the rose business must adapt to changing conditions in the marketplace.") He then goes on to support that thesis by giving some examples of how things have changed. He opens by saying the rose business had to change. You would expect him to close with a short summary of what the changes were. The summary is "The romance of roses has been replaced by economic realities." To me, this means "The rose business used to be driven by love, now it is driven by money." But I don't think that is an accurate summary of the preceding sentences.