Tag: Groceries

The Supermarket Lottery

~ Dave Hasney ~ Leave a comment

Fair Value, Honest Claims—Less Spin, More Supper!

Surely I’m not alone in getting pissed off with the weekly shop: less in the trolley, plenty of theatre in the marketing. But what are we getting for our money? The Supermarket Lottery explores affordability, prices and customer experience—and what they reveal, or leave unanswered, about food quality. It also questions that peculiar British obligation to applaud whatever comes home.

Crisis, what crisis?

Before judging the supermarket, consider the shopper’s budget. Cost-of-living headlines can sound like a national team-building exercise: we’re all in it together, though some have rather more financial breathing room. The pressure is real but uneven. The Office for National Statistics (2026b) examined UK household costs by income, housing tenure and retirement status—a useful reminder that the average household is not the one standing beside you at the checkout.

In the year to September 2026, UK food and non-alcoholic beverage prices rose 1.3% (Office for National Statistics, 2026a), while US “food at home” prices rose 1.8% (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026). Different baskets, weights and population coverage limit comparison: these rates do not show which country is cheaper or can better afford food. Slower inflation is not a price cut, whatever the fanfare.

Polling supports my view that living costs threaten political credibility: receipts make awkward campaign leaflets. AP-NORC’s 8–12 October 2026 survey found that 79% of US voters disapproved of Trump’s handling of living costs (AP-NORC, 2026). Britain was hardly applauding: in YouGov’s 4–5 January 2026 survey, 85% said the government managed living costs badly (Smith, 2026). Different dates, questions and populations rule out a direct ranking. These findings concern living costs, not groceries alone, and prove neither that food bills caused disapproval nor that they determined votes. The political verdict is one thing; getting supper on the table is another. Neither a poll nor a headline can convey the full strain of making ends meet.

More to grumble about than price

For UK households on modest incomes, finding enough money for the weekly shop can be a struggle. I may joke, but my concern is genuine: pensioners and benefit recipients need practical help, not added difficulties. The poverty figures below describe the wider picture, not either group separately or the full weight of individual hardship. I’ve faced such hardship, seen it first-hand and helped others through it. None of it is pleasant.

In its UK Poverty report, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2026) put overall poverty at 21% in 2023/24, broadly unchanged over the longer term. Its more striking finding was the depth of hardship: 6.8 million people lived in very deep poverty, the highest total recorded since the series began in 1994/95, with incomes no greater than two-thirds of the poverty line.

In March 2026, Trussell (2026) reported that its food-bank community supplied over 2.6 million emergency food parcels in 2025—12% fewer than in 2024, but 45% more than in 2019. Donations still fell short of demand, forcing many food banks to buy stock. These totals count parcels, not people. Even so, how is hardship on this scale acceptable in a supposedly modern, supposedly wealthy and civilised society?

There are three questions in this trolley: can people afford enough food, what does a comparable basket cost, and how good is the food? The evidence answers different questions. Poverty and parcel figures describe hardship; price comparisons measure cost. Neither establishes a perceived decline in supermarket quality. That requires comparable product tests or quality ratings over time—not merely bigger bills and louder grumbles.

Caveat emptor is a shopping habit, not a test of who deserves decent food. Make the checks your budget and circumstances permit; comparison cannot replace having enough money for essentials. Sellers, as well as shoppers, have a part in securing fair value, dependable quality and honest information.

Enough food often comes first, but decent quality is hardly a lavish demand. What lands in the trolley should be worth its price. Disappointment is bad enough without paying extra for it.

Dietary advice or disguised advertising?

It seems to me that many people struggle to cook healthy meals from scratch. Useful dietary advice is welcome; lumping together those who don’t, can’t or won’t cook is less helpful. A sales pitch, however, should be recognised as one. With healthy-living advice in the palm of our hands, social media can feel like an endless sermon: eat better, avoid ultra-processed food and look as relaxed as someone who has never dreaded a gas bill. But when does guidance become advertising? Place a food advert beside the lecture and ask: nutritional advice, or a commercial break with a ring light?

The UK guide from ASA and CAP (2026), developed with the CMA, sets out when influencers must label content as advertising and how to make that clear. Identifying a sales pitch should not require detective training.

In November 2023, the US FTC warned the American Beverage Association, Canadian Sugar Institute and 12 health influencers about inadequate sponsorship disclosures in posts promoting aspartame or sugar-containing products (Federal Trade Commission, 2023). I use an American example because I believe prevailing US business practices contribute to many UK consumer problems—not because this case proves that wider argument. The warning concerned transparency, not findings that nutritional claims were false.

For healthy-eating advice, start with reliable sources such as the Eat Well guidance from the NHS (n.d.), rather than relying on social-media forums and feeds. Advice imported from America deserves the same scrutiny as advice closer to home: neither an accent nor a ring light is a nutrition qualification. Question the claims before swallowing them whole—especially when the lecture comes with something to sell. As the saying goes, “when America sneezes, Britain catches a cold.”

The same scrutiny applies beyond dietary advice. “Shop local” sounds comforting—but what are we actually being promised?

“Shop local”—easier said than done

“Local” can mean nearby shops, British ingredients or local owners—not the same promise. British heritage does not guarantee British ownership: Walkers crisps have belonged to New York-based PepsiCo since 1989 (United Press International, 1989; Wikipedia contributors, n.d.); Cadbury, founded in England in 1824, belongs to Chicago-based Mondelēz (Mondelēz International, n.d.-a; Mondelēz International, n.d.-b). Yorkshire-rooted Morrisons and Asda offer another contrast: US private-equity firm Clayton, Dubilier & Rice (CD&R) bought Morrisons in 2021 (CD&R, n.d.), while UK-based TDR Capital became Asda’s majority owner after buying Zuber Issa’s shares in November 2024 (TDR Capital, 2024). I believe commercial priorities outrank genuine customer satisfaction regardless of nationality, but ownership alone does not prove it. Nor does ownership determine sourcing: Walkers reports potatoes from 88 British farms (Walkers, n.d.). Perhaps the cupboard needs an Ancestry.com check of its corporate family tree.

Convenience branches can charge more than larger stores in the same chain. In September 2024, Which? found 42 groceries cost 21% more on average at Morrisons Daily than at larger Morrisons stores (Which?, 2024). This compared supermarket branches, not independent grocers or local produce; it neither proves local shopping is always dearer nor links the premium to American ownership. A shorter journey, then, can mean a longer bill.

October 2026: Which?’s 87-grocery comparison recorded monthly average costs of £154.34 at Aldi, £157.17 at Lidl with Lidl Plus prices and £215.87 at Waitrose (Which?, 2026a). This was a tested list, not a typical weekly household shop; comparing chains does not update the 2024 convenience-branch premium. More on UK supermarkets shortly.

At independent grocers, artisan producers, farm shops and supermarkets alike, remember “caveat emptor”: buyer beware. Weigh the product against its price, not the sign, and ask for evidence behind the promise. “Local”, “artisan” and familiar supermarket names prompt questions, not verdicts on value. “Artisan” guarantees neither quality nor a reason to remortgage—unless keeping up with the Joneses is the point!

Customers before carrier bags

Fair profits are reasonable; relegating customers’ value, quality and wellbeing to reduced-to-clear concerns is not. Nobody should feel below shareholders and barely above carrier bags. That is my customer-first principle, not a proven finding. The evidence here questions prices and advertising transparency; establishing shareholder primacy, declining food quality or worsening customer wellbeing would require much more evidence and effort.

We are customers, not merely contributors to the next dividend. A British weekly shop should offer fair value, dependable quality and honesty—without a magnifying glass, a finance degree or strong tea to soften the depleted bank balance. Mustn’t grumble? Perhaps we should—but first, where do shoppers spend, and how do they rate the experience?

The supermarket sprint

Where customers spend

RankSupermarketSpending share
1Tesco26.3%
2Sainsbury’s14.1%
3Asda10.4%
4Aldi9.6%
5Morrisons8.3%
6Lidl7.9%
7Co-op4.7%
8Marks & Spencer4.6%
9Waitrose3.7%
10Iceland2.3%

This table lists NielsenIQ Total Till spending shares for Great Britain in the 12 weeks to 3 October 2026 (Dremin, 2026). These include general merchandise and tobacco, not just food. Follow the money—then ask whether it buys good value.

Note: Spending share measures where the money goes, not the proportion of people doing their weekly shop at each chain.

How customers rate the shop

RankSupermarketCustomer score
1stMarks & Spencer78%
= 2ndAldi76%
= 2ndTesco76%
4thLidl75%
5thWaitrose74%

This next table lists the leading five in-store customer scores, as reported by Sky News (2026). The underlying Which? survey, published in February 2026, asked over 3,500 people to rate their in-store experiences during the previous 12 months (Which?, 2026b). These scores combined satisfaction with a willingness to recommend to others, and describe the overall shopping experience, not food quality.

Note: These scores concern in-store shopping, not online orders. Spending share shows where the money goes; customer score reflects how the visit went.

What spending, satisfaction and prices tell us

The largest Total Till spending share does not guarantee applause in the biscuit aisle. Tesco tops the ten-chain list for spending share (26.3%), yet ties with Aldi for second on customer score (76%). M&S leads satisfaction (78%) but ranks eighth for spending, at 4.6% (Dremin, 2026; Which?, 2026b). These measures cover different things and reporting periods, so they are not interchangeable. Neither makes your trolley a candidate for prime minister.

Aldi helps ward off checkout-induced fainting: Which? (2026a) found it cheapest for 87 groceries in its October 2026 comparison. In its February 2026 survey, Which? (2026b) found Aldi and Lidl tied for the best value rating, at four out of five stars. Only Aldi received the in-store Which? Recommended Provider badge, pairing value with a 76% customer score, joint second. Its weaker appearance, service and quality ratings do not prove shoppers deliberately sacrificed those features for savings. Strong value credentials, then—not a “best for everyone” crown.

Brand allegiance, quality and value

There is always a friend inspecting your carrier bag: “You shop there?” Or a loyalist declaring: “M&S or Waitrose only—you can’t beat their quality!” Other allegiances are available. But does the name answer the question? “Brand snobbery” may mix experience, inherited expectations and a touch of social climbing.

The question travels from bag to packet: are we assessing the contents, or taking comfort in the name?

A familiar brand may feel like an old friend, but read the packet anyway. UK food-labelling guidance requires accurate, non-misleading information (Food Standards Agency, 2026), while nutrition and health claims must meet specific rules (GOV.UK, n.d.). Labels matter, though they may promise less than we imagine—when we bother reading them. One nutrient claim is not a reference for the whole product, however respectable the biscuits look.

An isolated nutrition claim and a traffic-light label need not guide readers in the same way. A study published online in 2023 involving 525 UK respondents found that “low-fat” and “zero-sugar” claims reduced calorie estimates, especially for foods classified as unhealthy (Wang and Begho, 2024). In SRUC’s summary, Begho (2023) reports that just over 30% said a front-of-pack nutrition or health claim made them less inclined to check nutritional information. A different test—a British randomised online experiment published in 2021, analysing 4,504 participants—found that traffic-light labels improved healthiness rankings compared with no label (Packer et al., 2021). These studies measured reported checking habits, calorie estimates and healthiness judgements—not purchases, loyalty or value. No need to put the packet on trial; just don’t let one claim speak for everything inside.

Skip the detective’s hat and make three checks. Price: compare similar products using the same unit of weight or volume, not just the packet price; the biggest pack is not necessarily the best value (Competition and Markets Authority, 2015). Claim: check what the sourcing statement actually says rather than filling in the gaps yourself. Contents: read the ingredients and nutrition information, then judge whether the product suits your needs. A lower unit price answers the cost question, not the quality question. The front-of-pack badge can open the conversation without ending it. Caveat emptor—buyer beware, but spare the custard creams a cross-examination.

Buyer beware does not mean buyer without rights. In England, Citizens Advice (n.d.) explains that goods must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described; a problem may entitle you to a refund, repair or replacement. Keep proof of purchase, photograph the problem where useful and contact the seller promptly—especially with perishable food. Describe the defect or mismatch, not simply a dislike of the product. Damage caused by misuse, or a fault known about before purchase, is different. For the other UK nations, consult the relevant national advice linked from Citizens Advice. A careful shopper can still expect the seller to put things right when the applicable rules require it.

Shopping online

The label is one thing; the way we buy is another. Before treating the online basket as the answer to the weekly shop, we need to separate its popularity from the value and quality it offers. Growth figures address the first question, not all three.

“Everyone buys groceries online now, especially since Covid!” A bold claim. Online shopping may spare us the wayward trolley, but before abandoning the aisles, let’s see what the figures actually show.

In its release of 13 October 2026, NielsenIQ (2026) reported over £2 billion in online grocery sales in the four weeks to 3 October, with year-on-year growth of 9.9% by value and 6.2% by units. Rapid delivery represented 10.5% of online grocery sales, and its customer base grew 21% year on year. That indicates sales growth and more rapid-delivery customers—not that most households shop for groceries online.

To establish whether most households buy groceries online, we need the proportion doing so within a defined period. These figures do not provide it. Sales growth measures spending or units, whereas shopper reach measures users: existing customers can buy more without anyone new joining. Rapid delivery’s share of online sales is also not online shopping’s share of all grocery spending. Nor do these figures demonstrate continuous growth since Covid-19, explain shopping motives or establish that the listed chains offer identical services. That said, the subject is probably worthy of a deeper dive, at some point.

Back to the shopping list

For online groceries, check before ordering and again on arrival. Read the description, ingredients, nutrition information and price, then match the delivered products and their labels to your order.

In-store or online, convenience changes how we shop—not our entitlement to fair value, dependable quality and honest information.

Who should carry the responsibility?

Shoppers can compare prices and check claims, but vigilance cannot conjure an adequate food budget. Making decent food affordable is a responsibility shared by sellers and society. Retailers should give fair prices, dependable quality and honesty as much care as branding; buying supper should not require homework followed by a thank-you note.

A trolley full of promises

The weekly shop resembles a game show: contestants supply the money, and the consolation prize is supper. Yet affordability, value and quality are different questions. Poverty figures describe hardship, basket comparisons measure cost and customer scores describe the visit. None certifies every packet. Popularity does not guarantee a bargain, and a bargain is not a certificate of culinary excellence.

British heritage, local charm, artisan mystique and dietary wisdom with a commercial break attached: reassurance comes by the trolley-load. Treat these as invitations to look closer, not reasons to surrender judgement. Compare like with like, read the claim and judge the contents. Buyer beware—not buyer obliged to applaud.

Let the name on the bag carry the groceries, not the argument. Affordable, decent food and honest information should be ordinary expectations, not lottery prizes. Less spin, more supper—if we wanted to pay for a performance, we’d buy theatre tickets, not tomatoes!

References