I am perplexed by this perspective. Could you, or thenewgreen, please help me understand it?

Any restricted diet will be more expensive than simply eating whatever food is cheapest.

When I can't find any leftovers, my lazy meal is a can of corn, a can of black beans, and a can of chick peas mixed together with some hot sauce. It costs about three bucks. The ingredients last forever in the closet, even if the power goes out. They will survive a long bike ride in the heat of summer, even if I drop them or leave them outside overnight. They require no appliances to prepare, just a can opener and a spoon and two minutes. Substitute canned tomatoes, carrots, green beans or mushrooms according to taste.

It's not ideal dining. But do you have a meat-based recipe that can match this in terms of cost, convenience, or nutrition?

I know there are food deserts where Trader Joe's does not venture. In those neighborhoods of liquor stores and pawn shops, can people find ground beef or a frozen bird but not bread, peanut butter, rice or potatoes?

There's only one realistic place for the inner city poor to buy meat, and it's not Morton's Steakhouse. Even if we don't care about animal welfare, should we celebrate a vast industrial meat infrastructure which enables the fast food industry to provide cheap, convenient, and unhealthy food to the poor? (Uh, maybe?)

The poor shopper who cares about animal welfare need not always choose between eating and good conscience. I believe we can learn from sources that use extremely annoying tactics to promote a self-righteous message, so here is PETA's list of vegetarian fast food options:

http://www.peta.org/living/food/chain-restaurants/

In contrast to canned plants, sofritas are pretty good.