> we'll all end up eating food that it is just nutritious enough to keep us from starving
That's not a problem with "big food" - the food is far too nutritious and abundant. Sugary cereals for children and big macs can't be described at "just keeping us from starving".
We want restricted (but complete) nutrition that is just enough to keep us from starving, so that we maintain our size and don't end up with an energy abundance that causes processes like fat storage and inflammation to run wild.
Even outside "big food", the virtue of trying to maximize "tasty" means that our home cooking is also driven by food addiction - "big food"'s laser focus on this makes them much more effective in making addictive foods at the lowest cost, in turn making the healthier options seem "bland".
Our bodies and food reward systems are not geared for this abundance of concentrated nutrition.
It's only "good" if the tastier versions of food don't come with even more nutrition that we cannot handle. Carrots in their natural form are for example not at all as large, sweet and nutritious as the orange things we have now. They were bitter and bland.