I'm not convinced you actually understood my comment. I'm not saying that processing and distribution in the context of capitalism and imperialism are qualitatively different from processing and distribution in pre-capitalist society (although I'd say they are at least quantitatively different, and it would be an interesting discussion to have); I'm saying that it's possible the author intended to say that spices were the first to be subjected to these processes in the context of capitalism and imperialism, rather than the fairly ridiculous claim that spices were the first foods to be subject to the processes of production and distribution as implied by the original wording.