I’ve often encountered (most recently in this thread) the notion that a healthy diet is inherently expensive - to eat inexpensively necessarily means serious nutritional compromise. Yet I don’t find this persuasive. It seems to me that a diet of whole grains, veggies and limited meat is both cheap and fully healthy.
I follow this to some extent myself, which may mean that I’m not impartial here.
For example, typical breakfast cereals (especially those that are marketed heavily) can be shockingly expensive. I mostly eat oatmeal; buying this generically and in medium bulk (say, 3lbs at a time) yields a per-serving cost of around 0.11. Similarly, home-baked bread comes in at around .50/lb and in terms of nutrition seems to compare well with what you can buy in typical supermarkets. Veggies vary a lot in price, but squash, onions, potatoes, sweet potatoes and dried beans are nearly always cheap. Many canned veggies and fruits are cheap year-round (canned italian tomatoes reliably sell for around $.87/28oz at my local supermarket, which is actually no great shakes when it comes to value for money). Rice is both cheap and good, especially when jazzed up with some beans or other veggies.
In the above-linked thread, it seemed well accepted by some posters that one obvious way to eat cheaply was to frequent fast-food outfits like McDonalds, with a consequent loss of diet quality. Such places are ocertainly cheaper than many other restaurants, but it’s still easy to spend $7/person on a typical meal there. For that price, you can easily serve a rice & veggies meal to 4 people.
So my question is whether the cost of a healthy diet should inherently be regarded as high, or whether the low-cost alternative I’ve outlined is valid.
The answer to is obviously going to turn on what’s “healthy”. If you believe that a half-pound of organic sockeye salmon a day is vital, there’s no way you can eat cheaply. And I’m fully prepared to concede that the diet I’m outlining takes some prep time.