> If the food has all the chemicals we need, what does it matter if it's "low quality" by the author's standard? If the food doesn't have all the chemicals we need and this isn't obvious, that's a failure of our nutrient tracking scheme.

Our 'nutrient tracking scheme' does not claim to be 100% complete, any more than any other science. I feel it's legitimate to discuss differences between 'naturally' healthy food, and food that is notably deficient being 'fortified' with our best guess as to what's missing.