not to make it a flame war between the two of us, but this is exactly what I was talking about. Your mom stayed home and didn't work while her kid(s) were little and told you that it was important. You subsequently turned out great, so you think that having your mom at home is important for 'reaching your genetic potential'.
Is any evidence for this? does 'maximum nurture' help people reach their 'genetic potential'?
My also non-evidence based opinion is that it doesn't. I think there is some minimum amount of nurture below which kids will probably wont do as well as they should or will have long term psychiatric fall out from, but I think it is a lot less than you think. I think that having good parenting is important for kids development, but kids can get enough of that even if they spend a decent sized chunk of each day in day care or with a nanny.
From my limited n, you can have parents that work a lot, spend some of your time growing up in day care and with nannys, and be a happy person who is very successful. I'm pretty sure that I met my 'genetic potential' as did the previously noted successful and happy people in my family.
Also I don't think it took your mom 40+ hours a week to cook for the family (though if she did I will admit to being a little jealous of your dinners).
I'd agree about processed food not being good for anybody, but in a two doctor (or equivalent) household you could afford to never eat processed food. Options include cooking on the weekend, buying cooked food (you can get a rotisserie chicken at any decent grocery store), having the nanny help with the cooking some nights, cooking meals that don't take that long to cook and having your kids eat later than most kids (my parents did all of the above), or to be honest you could even hire a chef. Processed food is about what you buy not how much time you have to prepare food.