5 ms·

Many of the items on this list are very cheap today.

fsloth 8y ago
This. Western world has a bit skewed view of food anyway, since most distribution is handled by large companies that optimize for their own profit, and this applies to producers as well. We couldn't survive without modern "food chains", but that does not mean the crops used by the modern processes are the only viable ones. Rather, they are the most popular ones for which the processes have been optimized for.
- dmix 8y ago
  A huge part of it is that they make money on what people want to buy as well. I’m sure if they put seaweed and cacti in most American grocery stores most people would skip them for what they think will be good for dinner. Therefore having zero profit without the companies margins having anything to do with it. What’s available has typically played a role but it’s not the only metric.
  - firethief 8y ago
    Where do you live, Maine? Every grocery store around me has seaweed and cacti and I live in the sticks. Only the most demographically challenged parts of the country lack Asian and Mexican options in the supermarkets.
    - dmix 8y ago
      I just said whether or not it’s available isn’t the only metric but whether people want to eat it or not. Which plays far more into revenue than just margins. The fact some grocery stores have it is besides the point.
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      I haven't found that true in the Northeast at all, even to "debatable if it is the north or the south" Maryland. From my perspective it seems like a regional bias like thinking every convenience store has Philadelphia soft pretzels when in reality it makes it to the tristate area as staple standard at best. Sure you can get tacos, salsa, and egg rolls just about everywhere but any non-mainstream produce like plantains or lychee let alone seaweed or cacti are niche enough to call for specialty supermarkets.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  >Western world has a bit skewed view of food anyway, since most distribution is handled by large companies that optimize for their own profit Where in the world is food distributed by non-companies for no profit? Venezuela? Cuba?
  - Synaesthesia 8y ago
    Venezuela is actually capitalist, almost everything is privately owned and not government run.
    - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
      >Venezuela is actually capitalist, Really? Source? Because the government took over and controls the means of production. So you can see how I am confused by you saying that Venezuela isn’t “really” socialism. Or you can answer the topic at hand. Where is food distuributon successful where “companies optimizing for profit” is not the case.
      - Synaesthesia 8y ago
        The government has intervened to bring food to the poorest people, who have been cut off by corporations which do actually control the food supply. The government never took over the means of production.
  - fsloth 8y ago
    Um, if you read my entire posting I made it fairly clear I think it's awesome that we can use market forces to handle food distribution. Maybe I was too obscure. The point I wanted to express was that the current species that are mainstream for food production are there for many reasons, including the fact, that it's easier to optimize food production business from the point of view of distributors if the number of species used is small. Hence if there is an odd plant that is used only regionally, it does not mean it could not become a staple - just that it's not currently staple, and not necessarily for any inherent quality of plant itself.

This. Western world has a bit skewed view of food anyway, since most distribution is handled by large companies that optimize for their own profit, and this applies to producers as well. We couldn't survive without modern "food chains", but that does not mean the crops used by the modern processes are the only viable ones. Rather, they are the most popular ones for which the processes have been optimized for.

dmix 8y ago
A huge part of it is that they make money on what people want to buy as well. I’m sure if they put seaweed and cacti in most American grocery stores most people would skip them for what they think will be good for dinner. Therefore having zero profit without the companies margins having anything to do with it. What’s available has typically played a role but it’s not the only metric.
- firethief 8y ago
  Where do you live, Maine? Every grocery store around me has seaweed and cacti and I live in the sticks. Only the most demographically challenged parts of the country lack Asian and Mexican options in the supermarkets.
  - dmix 8y ago
    I just said whether or not it’s available isn’t the only metric but whether people want to eat it or not. Which plays far more into revenue than just margins. The fact some grocery stores have it is besides the point.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    I haven't found that true in the Northeast at all, even to "debatable if it is the north or the south" Maryland. From my perspective it seems like a regional bias like thinking every convenience store has Philadelphia soft pretzels when in reality it makes it to the tristate area as staple standard at best. Sure you can get tacos, salsa, and egg rolls just about everywhere but any non-mainstream produce like plantains or lychee let alone seaweed or cacti are niche enough to call for specialty supermarkets.
SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
>Western world has a bit skewed view of food anyway, since most distribution is handled by large companies that optimize for their own profit Where in the world is food distributed by non-companies for no profit? Venezuela? Cuba?
- Synaesthesia 8y ago
  Venezuela is actually capitalist, almost everything is privately owned and not government run.
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    >Venezuela is actually capitalist, Really? Source? Because the government took over and controls the means of production. So you can see how I am confused by you saying that Venezuela isn’t “really” socialism. Or you can answer the topic at hand. Where is food distuributon successful where “companies optimizing for profit” is not the case.
    - Synaesthesia 8y ago
      The government has intervened to bring food to the poorest people, who have been cut off by corporations which do actually control the food supply. The government never took over the means of production.
- fsloth 8y ago
  Um, if you read my entire posting I made it fairly clear I think it's awesome that we can use market forces to handle food distribution. Maybe I was too obscure. The point I wanted to express was that the current species that are mainstream for food production are there for many reasons, including the fact, that it's easier to optimize food production business from the point of view of distributors if the number of species used is small. Hence if there is an odd plant that is used only regionally, it does not mean it could not become a staple - just that it's not currently staple, and not necessarily for any inherent quality of plant itself.