In developed and developing countries grocery stores provide to their clients food items from different corners of the world. Whereas I see why it can be considered negative, my personal take on the question is that this change brings more good than harm.
On the one hand, when international products are available in the nearest shops, citizens have lower motivation to travel abroad in order to experience local food options, as they can do so in their hometowns. Consequently, it might pose a threat to local businesses and governments would have to create special policies to preserve traditional products in the supermarkets from extinction.
On the other hand, people are now exposed to a richer variety of food choices, enabling their diet to be full of protein and different nutrients found across the globe. Customers are not only given better options when deciding what to purchase for dinner, but also have an advantage of learning a new culture through real experience, which is more exciting than reading about national dishes and products on paper. European supermarkets are filled with food from various areas of the planet, making their clients conscious about unknown cultures and eager to become closer to it. When the USSR almost lacked access to international trade, the citizens were cut off from the rest of the world, having no understanding of what a multicultural life, with exports from the USA and Europe, would feel like.
To conclude, globalisation which led to shops offering food from various states might not always be an advantage to a country’s economy. However, history has shown that the supply of international items is necessary to a happier and more civilized life.