The whole foods vs ultra-processed foods debate developed into a brief but interesting tit-for-tat discourse on LinkedIn earlier this week, much to the delight of its originator, Gina Logrande, from Arizona.

According to her profile, Gina is pursuing a Clinical Doctorate in Nutrition and already has other credentials in the field, so it’s fair to say she knows something about food. The primary point of her initial post was to explain that even people living on the nationally available Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) could still eat healthily without resorting to much less healthy ultra-processed foods.

To prove her point, she produced and published a table (see below) that explains the cost difference between meals built around whole foods and meal plans centering on boxed meals, sugary drinks and takeaways, etc.

WFPB followers checking out the table below will immediately pick up on the confusion I want to discuss. My point here is that far from being picky for the sheer sake of it, it’s clear that we have a problem.

Highlighting the confusion

Gina has probably done us all a big favour, really, because the chart she has produced seems proof positive why so many trained nutritionists are so confused about what a whole food actually is – although, as one of my previous articles pointed out, I may have a cognitive bias on this subject.

The whole foodies that follow WFL are very clear about what constitutes a whole food, and chicken, the first item on Gina’s list, most certainly doesn’t. Put simply, and as I was told in the beginning, it doesn’t qualify because you can’t eat all of it.

I must admit, however, I’ve never been completely satisfied with that explanation because where does that leave the apple? It grows on a tree. And you wouldn’t eat the whole tree, so what makes it a whole food any less than a chicken?

That argument left me years ago because I was told by that member of the species who lives closest to me that I was just being picky, and anyway, her original ancestor knew it was good food, and that’s why she picked it in the first place.

But let’s get back to the chicken. It’s possibly not true that you can’t eat all of it, especially when you consider what designer Sorawut Kittibanthorn was planning to do with feathers, as he explained to CNN five years ago.

Hmm, but what about the beak, those bright tiny eyes, and then the claws? Here’s the part where I really feel my confirmation bias coming through because suddenly, I’m getting a strong ‘aw yuck’ disturbance rising within, coupled with an urge to run to the smallest room in the house.

Chicken feather ‘meat’

Maybe Gina, too, would feel something similar because what Sorawut wanted to make back then would most likely be classified as highly processed today. Strangely, I’m not aware that the meat he planned to develop from chicken feathers ever became commonplace on restaurant menus on any side of the Atlantic nor anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere, for that matter.

Oh, but perhaps the Southern Hemisphere is a bad choice because the fact is we’ll eat almost anything down here if we’re sold the right back story. For instance, you would think that whole foodies like us (i.e. those of the WFL ilk) would happily welcome new ways of dealing with tangerine peel.

For centuries, the Chinese have touted the benefits of aged tangerine peel for its medicinal qualities, but they’ve yet to make their way into Western diets. Surprising, really, especially when you consider that only a month ago, the best of them were selling for over $9600 per 500 grams in Hong Kong.

One of the great ‘delicacies’ made from this prized possession, and which became available in Hong Kong just before Christmas, was a braised fish maw soup. It sold at $294 a plate, but it’s probably another bad choice when I reflect on it because it’s an unlikely buy for anyone on a SNAP budget anyway.

Don’t drift away here because there’s an important point coming up, and it all leads back to Gina’s post.

Fish maw soup

The thing that makes that fish maw soup popular is the story that goes with it. Those ‘in the know’ are overawed by the fact that the history of the dried peel itself dates back as far as the Southern Song dynasty (1127-1279) and recognise that the soup preparation itself is nothing less than laborious.

To make it, a whole lamb’s head and its hooves are stewed in chenpi, i.e. the dried tangerine peel, which has a sweet taste but a bitter aftertaste. Other ingredients include sugarcane, water chestnuts, and ginger until the meat is tender. It’s further stewed in a stock made with matured chicken, pork bone, red meat and more chenpi for over six hours. Additional ingredients will include shredded chicken, mushrooms, conpoy (made from the adductor muscles of dried scallops) and more pre-soaked chenpi. What a story!

The fact is, we humans will buy darn near anything (good or bad) if we’re convinced by the marketing diatribe that goes with it. Gina looks at it this way:

“The real issue is the loss of food literacy and cooking skills. Many people weren’t taught how to meal plan, batch cook, or use affordable whole ingredients in a way that’s efficient and enjoyable. That lack of knowledge, coupled with food industry messaging and the convenience trap, has created this false reality that ultra-processed foods are the only way to eat cheaply.”

She says if people could see the numbers side by side, broken down by meal portions rather than arbitrary grocery carts filled with name-brand organic products versus junk food, they might realise they’ve been played by those who stand to gain the most from keeping them sick.

Her comparison chart is based on a family of 4 and prices in Phoenix, Arizona. She says it illustrates that, with mindful planning and portion control, a whole foods-based diet is not only healthier but also more affordable than a diet centred around ultra-processed foods. Families can enjoy nutritious meals without exceeding their food budgets, even when utilising Federal assistance programs like SNAP.

A conversation starter

She noted that the table didn’t reflect every situation, “but it’s the start of a conversation,” she said. And it was, to which she received both brickbats and bouquets.

For our part, we welcome the conversation because it raises the question around the meaning of the term ‘whole’, but more importantly, it points out that whole foods, especially as the WFPB community defines them, are cheap and generally mostly available to anyone on a budget.

But take another look at Gina’s whole foods list. Now, deduct the cost of eggs, chicken, and milk (probably from a cow) and delete the olive oil. That’s the WFPB way.

Of course, the final answer wouldn’t result in a straight-line reduction of $38 because we would want to ensure a wide selection of plants, a few nuts, plus a supplemental pinch of vitamin B12. Our best guess is that a 10 to 15 per cent reduction on Gina’s $76.50 tally would not be unrealistic.

But does this mean that all those eating the stricter WFPB way, or in the more loosely fitting Vegan manner, are living on the cheap? Not at all, especially if they like adding a little chenpi to the veggie broth or enjoy regular fine dining at Eleven Madison Park in New York, where dishes can cost anywhere between $195 to $475 a plate.