The assertion in the post title is absolutely untrue. You can get foods like beans, chicken, eggs, milk, oatmeal, and pasta in bulk and for very little money. There isn't some false dichotomy between "esoteric, lefty food" and McDonald's cheeseburgers.
If you really want to save money on food for a family, get a slow cooker and make large quantities of food at once. The article is correct when it states that food is more plentiful for the poor now than ever.
I think it was a missed opportunity, most people who are that poor that calories matter are usually not the ones who do smart planning with their financial resources.
As someone who is currently almost that poor, having the luxury to plan ahead can costs money and time. It is really hard to justify any of the more nutritious foods when you're trying to spend no more than $10/day, total, on all meals. (less than $5/day is very common - or less - for many people). If you want to blame someone, I suggest pointing the finger at those that have kept the minimum wage from rising to sane levels instead of pre-judging those that have to live off those wages.
It is easy to suggest that this is merely a matter of proper planning if you haven't been in this kind of a situation. How much nutritious food would you be able to acquire with a budget of $6.47/day[1] ($5.41/day/person for a family of four)? This gets worse when you consider the long hours (and cost in both cash and time[2]) of blue-collar jobs (sometimes below minimum wage).
It can get even more complicated when you factor in stuff like the gas or buss fare it takes to get to a decent store that sells food that is better than fast food or 7/11-style junk; investors usually don't open new grocery stores near the residential areas with most poverty.
The point that this article is trying (badly) to express is not that the McDouble is a shining example of great nutrition, (it also makes no claims about the taste...); they are (correctly) pointing out that it is a shockingly good value compared to what else would be available to someone that only has $2 to spend on a meal. Rice may be cheap, but it doesn't provide the protein, and almost everything else at the $2 limit is also going to lack the fiber and vitamins. The McDouble may not have a lot, but it probably has a much wider variety than you will find in rice[3] due to the bugger including a bit of dairy, both meat and starch, and almost-but-not-quite vegetables in the ketchup and pickle. While the fat content is on the high side, it's not terrible. The worst part of the cheeseburger is really the sodium.
The McDouble is certainly a better choice, nutritionally speaking, than the traditional cheap food: $0.20 fried ramen noodles with shocking amounts of salt.
From a pure engineering perspective, this is an impressive achievement a lot of supply chain tricks and product optimization went into making a prepared food cheap enough to be profitably sold for only $1-$2.
> Rice may be cheap, but it doesn't provide the protein, and almost everything else at the $2 limit is also going to lack the fiber and vitamins.
How about Feijoada? Mostly black beans and rice, which are both ridiculously cheap when bought in bulk. Years ago (don't know about currently) it was good enough to be the basic staple of Brazilian army conscripts. And one thing we know for sure is that soldiers burn a lot of calories.
Wikipedia claims[1]:
Rice is rich in starch, an excellent source of
energy. Rice also has iron, vitamin B and protein.
Beans also contain a good amount of iron and an
even greater amount of protein than rice. Together
they make up a complete protein, which provides
each of the amino acids the body cannot make for
itself.
To supplement that, wouldn't cheap vitamin pills be good enough to keep you alive?
I know it doesn't sound appetizing, but "beggars can't be choosers". It sounds a lot more appealing to me than trying to live on ramen. And it sounds a lot healthier to me than most of what McDonald's sells.
In the USA, not buying a few packs of cigarettes can save you enough money to buy a whole month's worth of rice and beans. I've seen quite a few "poor people" at the supermarket using government funded EBT cards to pay $3 for a 10 ounce bag of potato chips (in addition to buying a whole bunch of other expensive, unhealthy crap).
Now if you're talking outside the USA, then yes, there are plenty of "truly poor". And our government doesn't help. E.g. we mandate using huge percentages of our corn crop to make Ethanol as a gasoline additive. That drives up the cost of basic staples like corn in Mexico.
There are many truly poor people around the world. There are very few of them in the USA, unless it's because of mental health issues or because of voluntary lifestyle choices.
I've often thought that it would be a good thing to have a "standard pantry" that was a set of basic ingredients and foods with a range of recipes that can be made from this pantry all for a set price.
the culinary training provided to every school child. Treat basic nutrition like a utility service supported by society/the government.
That could be a great product, if it was done right.
An even better idea would be to hand out that "standard pantry" to people for free when they first sign up for food stamps. Having that initial supply would help a lot with the problem of not having enough money and time to do anything besides "maintaining"[1]. It is a lot easier to justify buying the bulk package of something that is better in the long run when you don't have add "skipping the next two (or more) dinners" to the cost.
[1] a term used in the medium.com url I referenced in my previous comment
> An even better idea would be to hand out that "standard pantry" to people for free
I agree. But it's probably very hard to get most poor people to accept that. They could survive (for the most part) on a bag of rice and a bag of beans every month. But instead they use the food stamps to buy 10 ounces of potato chips for $3. You need to solve that problem first.
McDoubles were popular with skinny guys who had a hard time putting on weight. One would stuff their faces with calories and hit the weights in order to do get bigger and it would be very hard if a guy didn't get in enough calories. So that's why a calorie dense item like a McDouble would help. However, that's changed with McDonald's increasing prices such that you aren't getting protein bang for your buck. Now, as one poster had already stated, you get a better deal (monetary and nutritional) with chicken, milk, lentils, beans, whole wheat pasta and eggs.
Because that's what the word means? "Nourishing; efficient as food." Obviously what efficient means is different in different contexts. They mean not going hungry or starving to death. We no longer think of that as an issue of course, and tend to worry about other food issues, which is their entire point.
I don't think the McDouble is truly the cheapest per Calorie. Perhaps they man taste/desirability which is more subjective.
I enjoy an occasional McDonald's burger. But my biggest concern is what's in it. E.g up until 2011 their hamburgers had "pink slime"[1] in them.[2] Yummy!
That fact alone leads me to be concerned that McDonald's approach to my health could be akin to "whack a mole". They dropped the slime after everyone made a big stink about it. What else is still in there that I don't know about?
Contrast to Chipotle, which McDonald's used to own a major stake in. I can actually see Chipotle cut the steak they use into little pieces, I can actually see them carry that steak out to the serving line.
The premise of this article is incredibly short sighted: it doesn't factor in the long-term health effects of eating such food, or the sustainability of those ingredients, or the environmental impact of all those to-go food packages on landfills. In short, the article has set the bar very low when it comes to describing the impact of the McDouble and associated foods.
Soylent is perfectly fine fallout shelter food or for soldiers in combat or perhaps shut-ins with fickle food issues. It is not a viable substitute for actual food regardless of nutritional benefit.
The thing is, people who purchase McDonalds aren't just going to switch to Soylent because they're looking for a cheap energy dense meal. They want a burger. From McDonalds.
If you really want to save money on food for a family, get a slow cooker and make large quantities of food at once. The article is correct when it states that food is more plentiful for the poor now than ever.