Tl;dr: Food consumers care about price. That’s been true since at least Victorian times. Selling items in a competitive market can be tough for vendors but good for consumers.
Quality matters as well, but not for everybody so yes, price prevails for the majority. I choose to get better produce from an Amish market. The price is a bit higher but so is the quality. I don't find it more expensive in reference to the quality. One gets what they pay for excluding other factors such as an expensive neighborhood that adds to the price of everything.
The final point is a little more subtle: low prices for commodities are especially bad for producers in developing countries - farmers in those countries have a hard time making a profit competing with mechanized agriculture in developed countries. So it's good for consumers only if the overall development level is high.
And the lesson there seems to be protectionist policies make sense for developing nations.
It's very complicated, some of the greatest successes in catching up to 'developed nations' have relied on open markets and others have been far more protectionist. Protectionism has huge negatives in exchange for the benefit of being able to have a local industry in an area that's not disrupted by global markets. With a few exceptions, said industry is unlikely to become globally competitive and mostly competes for the market of the country it's in which may be a tiny portion of the global market. In contrast, industries honed by competition may be able to compete in the global marketplace, but are largely restricted by the practices that make them competitive there which tend to involve cheap labour for lower prices. If there were very clear answers here we would have seen far more countries following them to develop. Unfortunately, the truth is it's an extremely complicated case by case decision where it's very hard to know the right answer in general. We tend to see a strong bias for open markets on the right and protectionism on the left, which further complicates things as neither solution seems to capture the whole problem.
I'd argue it's not mechanized agriculture that they have a hard time competing with but rather Western practices around agriculture subsidies. If agriculture subsidies weren't in place, much of food sales would be considered dumping as most prices reflect said subsidies and would be massive selling at a loss without them.
So they need to retrain for another job. Technological unemployment is here to stay. If people in another country can make food that is better and cheaper, well that's globalism.