As the study itself says:
Healthier diets deﬁned based on ﬁbre or fat content will, by deﬁnition, have fewer calories, so they will naturally cost more per calorie. Yet, such diets will not necessarily cost more per serving or per meal. In the setting of a global obesity pandemic, assessing price differences per calorie may make little sense when a healthier diet also leads to reductions in total calorie consumption.
I don't think meat stripped of fat is any healthier compared to eating meat as it is in the animal, and also organs, and maybe even some bone marrow on top. Liver, for example, is quite packed with certain vitamins, especially A, also iron, and is often cheap as it's considered some "lesser" kind of meat.
Or fish - some types of it are dirt cheap (may depend on your location, of course). Yes, salmon may be tastier, but are blander types of fish any less healthy?
I guess the study may have compared "healthy" in the mainstream, advertised sort of way - skinless fatless chicken, lean meat, tuna fillets, fat free everything etc.
Meat produced from american food animal lines is very fatty compared to what is in the wild. Turkeys for instance, can't really walk their breasts are so big, and cannot mate: http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=11929
"Fat as it's in the animal" is quite unnatural compared to wild animals, or even animals that can feed normally (aka, grass, as opposed to penned and force fed corn).
Meat is a manufactured product here. Control your fat intake yourself as you would with any other manufactured product
It's not that "eating healthy" is "more expensive" necessarily in real terms.
A big factor is the fact that our government uses the threat of violence to extract money from people, and then uses it to pay people to make less healthy food cheaper.
Considering the avg diet, many people will be able to consume less. I did this personally in an attempt to live on a minimal budget. If healthy eating costs .47 more per 200 cals, and $1.50 more, just cut 600 cals out of your diet. The avg cal consumption is 2600-3000 in that range. Unless your an athlete or serious physical activity, its more than most people need.
I know this can be done. I went on 1700-1800 cals a day for four months (some days less, and still around that range) and feel great. Cut my food budget about in half. Changed grocery stores, you can actually live on very little money when you cut out the crap you don't need.
Semi-Starvation Period (24 weeks): During the 6-month semi-starvation period, each subject’s dietary intake was cut to approximately 1,560 calories per day.
a 24-week starvation phase, during which the caloric intake of each subject was drastically reduced—causing each participant to lose an average of 25% of their pre-starvation body weight
So, I'm guessing here - either your weight is way smaller than an average adult, or you have way slower metabolic rate compared to an average adult, or you miscalculated your calorie intake?
I'm for taxing the bad instead of subsidizing the good however.. But we can't ignore the personal responsibility aspect and these studies while useful also give ammunition to the excuse makers and excuse making is a tremendous impediment to solving important social problems.
So buying healthier pre-prepared food is more expensive than buying less healthy pre-prepared food. I wonder if they compare with food prepared healthily at home, or produced healthily at home.
Reminds me, it's time to plant a handful of beans.
There's also the staples, rice and beans and whatnot, but that's boring as heck. Fast food also wins on tastiness.. and since we're not robots, that's vitally important.
If optimized it could take only a few hours,and could be a shared family activity.
But it's still work, and being a working poor is exhausting so i understand them preferring to rest.
The human power needed to replicate processed food is greater than simple preparation of healthy food.
1/4 onion +
1 can of kidney beans +
3 cups of cooked rice +
Salt, Pepper, Paprica for taste.
1/2 pint of non-fat yoghurt (18oz / 450g)
1 fist full of mixed nuts.
That should cover protein, calcium, vitamin and carb needs for a fairly good diet.
1/2 tomato +
1/2 lime +
Salt, Pepper, Paprica for taste +
3 cups of cooked rice on the side or mixed in.
Thats one recipe.
The rest of the items can be their own recipe, or eaten separately =)
Carrots, lettuce, spinach and water are ridiculously cheap.
If it's over-priced, branded, luxury convenience product in tiny quantities, then it's obviously going to cost more.
The other cheap way to eat: freegan.
I'll do the math for you: One pound of carrots has roughly 190 calories. So you'd need to eat at least 10 pounds of carrots to get average your daily energy requirement. How much is a pound of carrots? $0.99?
A McDonald's Bacon Cheddar McChicken has 480 calories for $1. So you'd only have to buy four of them.
65c. Not so different.
And carrots+beans+rice are less vomit-inducing than McDonalds burgers in bulk.
That's not a healthy diet.
It seems like everybody who does dispute healthy food costing more is
a) basing this on their own experience as a single mid 20's male
b) not taking into account the cost of time
c) fancies themselves as a cook
Considering that most families in Europe and America are two income ones, considering that retailers such as Tesco openly subsidise unhealthy food and make up the loss on fresh food, and considering that you can buy 1000 calories of pizza for less than €1, it just seems obvious to me that fresh food is far more expensive. Bad food may cost you more in the long term, but if you go to a chain retailer right now, you'll get far more calories into you if you buy shit food.
But in reality, not much more.
Or more importantly, long term less.