MSE News: 'Value' supermarket brands as good as standard – study

wageslave

I buy a fair bit of Tescos basics range simply because they tend to be lower in calories than anything else on the shelf, including the so-called low fat products.

Check the next time you're shopping.

nitr02007

I'm glad so many people subsidise my "value" shopping by buying the expensive branded stuff.

I can't understand the snobbery over value items - tbh. As long as you enter into it with your eyes open and are willing to critically compare ingredient lists there are bargains to be had.
Value doesn't always mean bad just as expensive doesn't always means good.

Li0nhead

ElkyElky wrote: »

I guess they didn't compare Heinz beans and Tesco value beans when they were writing the article. It's like a heavily watered down version of Heinz, only with less tomato added and more synthetic substances.

No they did not.....Heres the first couple of paragraphs from the article:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/shopping/2010/08/value-supermarket-brands-as-good-as-standard
"Some supermarket 'value' products are virtually identical to their more expensive standard brand equivalents, a study has found.

A trading standards survey discovered that, despite clever packaging tricks that make standard supermarket-own brands seem more appealing, there were no nutritional differences compared to basic brands in almost half those products sampled."

So they are comparing Say Tesco Baked beans with Tesco Value baked beans. Not Heinz or other main brands.

geordie_joe

TurkishDelight wrote: »

I think reading this thread that I now know why so many are in debt on this site.

I doubt it.

TurkishDelight wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with much of the value products.

We all know that there's nothing wrong with MUCH of the value stuff, what we are disputing is the fact that the article tries to imply that there's nothing wrong with ALL of it.

TurkishDelight wrote: »

If you insist on looking down your nose at them without even trying for yourself then that's just pure snobbery.

We aren't looking down our noses at value stuff, just saying that not all of it is as good as branded stuff.

TurkishDelight wrote: »

I'd rather spend my pennies on things I like rather than spend more on something that tastes the same but has a bit of pretty labelling.

But would you spend your money on something you didn't like, just because it was value stuff and the article says it is as good as branded stuff?

Or all you saying that all value stuff tastes the same as the equivalent branded item?

Ben84

I buy quite a few Sainsbury's basics items each week. However, mostly the simple non-processed things like bags of flour or Camembert cheese, plus fruit and vegetables. I'm not sure what the ready made or processed stuff is like, I've never tried it, but for most simple things the basics stuff is just as good. You just have to try it, see what is good and then take advantage of the bargains where you can. There are big savings to be made easily in this.

rickbonar

Soubrette wrote: »

I think you are conflating several issues Thrilla

Some people don't mind eating junk and some people don't care if they are eating corporate food. The article is not about these issues.

Using your whiskas example - say I loved the taste of whiskas compared to the taste of tuna chunks. The only thing stopping them buying it is that I think the tuna chunks are more nutritional than the whiskas. Turns out no - they are exactly the same, I prefers the cheaper whiskas so whiskas salad here I come

That's all the article is about - if you can't taste a difference between a value or ordinary brand (or if you prefer the value taste for some products) then some value brands are nutritionally as good as the ordinary brand so unless something other than taste drives you - you might as well buy value.

Personally I'd have preferred some qualification in the headlines - some value brands as good as ordinary brands but I guess that is a journalism thing:mad:

Hey the tuna chunks are cheaper than whiskas! and I think your cat would prefer the chunks too.

The_Thrilla

rickbonar wrote: »

Hey the tuna chunks are cheaper than whiskas! and I think your cat would prefer the chunks too.

I'll tell you something else. Once the cat has a taste for the tuna chunks, she'll never touch the Whiskas again.

kerri_gt

The_Thrilla wrote: »

I'll tell you something else. Once the cat has a taste for the tuna chunks, she'll never touch the Whiskas again.

Although too much tuna isn't good for cats - particually if it is in brine due to the salt levels, which the value/basics/smart price usually is.

Hippeechiq

The_Thrilla wrote: »

Next thing they'll have own brand spliffs.

Now that was funny :T

fosterb

I've seen quite a few posts where peoples one off own brand experience has put them off trying different own brand products. There is a huge difference between different own brand stuff, sometimes the very cheapest own brand stuff tastes exactly the same as the branded product, but some own brand stuff is horrible. You have to try each thing for yourself before writing it off.