On 7/4/2014 10:15 AM, Mayayana wrote:

Even if the source is known, it would make sense that their
product is higher quality than the store brand. If a company
also sells retail then their reputation depends on their product, but
not on the stock they sell through a store brand. There can also
be other minor issues, not immediately apparent. For instance,
Whole Foods brand organic diced tomatoes are cheaper than the
name brand on the next shelf. They both say organic. But the
name brand (Muir Glen) also says there's no BPA in the can liner.
The WF brand does not. WF is a giant corporation that bought
out smaller stores to build a massive chain. they're a middleman,
not a food producer. So they don't care about issues like BPA in
can liners unless the customer cares -- even when the content is
organic!
So there's two cans of tomatoes. They might even both be
Muir Glen tomatoes. But one has BPA in the can liner. And it's
pretty safe to assume that if Muir Glen is selling tomatoes to
WF they're not sending them the best ones. That's why the
store brand is cheaper, after all.

You are making assumptions with no backup. Just because the can does
not state anything about BPA you cannot say it has it. May or may not
and if it does not, their lawyers would have a lot of fun with you.

Your assumption that they are not sending "the best ones" is wrong also.
I've had involvement in the private label industry in the past. Most
often, it is identical. No better, no worse, exactly the same. There
are exceptions both ways though.

I was in a soda bottling plant a couple of months ago and watched a
change over of labels while the same flavoring syrup continued to flow.
OTOH, they also produced a premium flavor for another brand that sold
for more than their own.