No, wheat is not crucial in a way that people would starve if it were not available. There are dozens of other foods that could be grown which would provide equ

No, wheat is not crucial in a way that people would starve if it were not available. There are dozens of other foods that could be grown which would provide equivalent nutritional benefit. It is not a unique or particularly advantageous source of any nutrition. It does not have any unique advantageous growing properties. Additionally, while many people are not familiar with cereal grains other than the close wheat family, there is really nothing that different about their flavor or how they taste in cooking. The only useful, unique thing about wheat is that the protein provides a texture in baked goods and sauces that people find pleasant. When forced to explore alternative grains for a couple of years, and having eaten my mothers alternative grain cooking before that, I learned that the gluten-free foods often actually taste better. Wheat is necessary and flavorful like Windows is user friendly and required for your computer to function. If you put my comment in context, I am not intending to advocate any sort of eradication program for wheat. I’m responding with mild hyperbole to the notion that it is particularly critical to preserve wheat. The main idea that I am promoting here is that there’s nothing special about wheat, other than that it is particularly harmful to some people.