I don't follow this logic in discourse. First there is the problem that cheap food has lots of calories but no essential nutrients and it's all the fault of those evil companies. And when you point out food that is cheap and has lots of nutrients, people come saying there are not enough calories.
Hey, if you eat some of those cheap calories, but not too much. And then eat some of that cabbage and beans and whatever that has nutrients but not too much calories. I would call it "balanced diet". It's not rocket science, though it does take some brain function.
Cabbage of course isn't the only healthy and cheap vegetable or other foodstuff there is.
The problem with junk food is not just that it is lacking in essential nutrients. If that were the only problem, then Snickers bars and multivitamin supplements would be a healthy diet.
Junk food is unhealthy for a myriad of reasons, including the heavy use of sugars. Humans were not evolved to subsist on sugar and oil (and various corn-derived products), but that is a huge chunk of junk foods.
It is possible to eat fairly cheaply and still healthily, but it is not as cheap as eating unhealthily. It's also far more time consuming because cheaper healthy foods are uncooked and unprocessed, whereas cheaper unhealthy food are generally ready to eat.
When some food has lots of sugar, you can eat less sugar (avoid excess calories) AND save money simply by eating less. Some of that saved money could be used for getting even better nutrients.
Unhealthy food being cheap is no real explanation for obesity.
Hey, if you eat some of those cheap calories, but not too much. And then eat some of that cabbage and beans and whatever that has nutrients but not too much calories. I would call it "balanced diet". It's not rocket science, though it does take some brain function.
Cabbage of course isn't the only healthy and cheap vegetable or other foodstuff there is.