It is true that supermarkets have increasingly attracted the majority of consumers, at the expense of local shops. As a result, these shops are being negatively affected and this trend can be seen as a double-edged sword overall.(what is this supposed to mean?) Local shops are being wiped out as they are becoming much less competitive, compared to supermarkets. Any rational individual will buy most of his or her food and household goods from a big store because prices are lower, the choice is greater, and the quality is more consistent. (is the last one true?) To retain old customers, local retailers have to cut their prices to compete with big chains. However, with rising fixed costs, including wages, rent and other bills, their profit margins are being sharply squeezed. Some of them have gone bust and therefore have been totally driven out by supermarkets. Perhaps customers are the only ones who are happy with the arrival of supermarkets. Apart from the lower prices discussed above, big stores also tend to provide a standardised service, for example, they have recently introduced self-service lanes for payment. This is a blessed relief to generations who can recall the surly greengrocer or butcher with a poor service attitude. Despite the benefits for customers, both the environment and community cohesion suffer a lot because of the popularity of supermarkets. Shopping at supermarkets means that a decent percentage of the produce has had a longer field-to-fork journey and more packaging is used in comparison with shopping at local independent retailers. This can take a greater toll on the environment. Also, money spent in local shops tends to stay in the community while after the arrival of a big supermarket, participation in local charities, churches, campaign groups and even voting(?) declines sharply. In conclusion, local businesses are being threatened by supermarkets and people with different perspectives have split feelings about this trend.