This is a joke, right? Call me when they sell this at my local groceries' (for cheap).
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.
The fact some grocery stores have it is besides the point.
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.
Where in the world is food distributed by non-companies for no profit? Venezuela? Cuba?
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.
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.
Do they think all those Indian mums are maxing out their credit cards to cook daal?
People usually harvest the fruits but this document made me question whether the kind of cactus I've always seen walking around is actually edible (and if not, whether edible cacti could be grown as easily as the non-edible one).
Besides, a number of these items are available at my local Bulk Barn; a low cost, "bring your own container" bulk purchasing store.