Bread & fish vs Bread & wine

One interesting fact pointed out by the author, Richard Rohr in his book Jesus' Plan for a New World, is the overshadowing of the 'bread and fish' tradition by the 'bread and wine' tradition.

According to Rohr, the bread and fish meal stood for surplus (everytime Jesus multiplied bread and fish or there was fish involved, there always was a surplus of it, even after a mass consumption).  Secondly such meals involved the poor and hungry, not those already fulfilled, those who really came for Him and did not think of food and drink and all that - for such as these, He multiplied bread and fish. Thirdly, this meal was always an open meal - out in the open, under the blue sky, in the open fields, along the sea shore (I don't remember all the Biblical references, but I know there are).  Everyone was welcome - everyone!  Not just a select few or privileged ones.  Given these factors, I wonder how this was superseded by the one-time 'bread and wine' meal.  Of course, the bread and wine meal has a personal touch - Jesus says it is HIS body and blood that He is sharing.  Perhaps a combination of all these positive aspects would help us get a better picture of the 'Eucharist'.

And here's what Rohr has to say about the two meals:

The bread and wine tradition lent itself more to cult and ritualization. The bread and fish tradition, if retained, might have contributed to issues of justice, community and social reordering.  

Well, he has a point there.