More expensive doesn't always equal better quality

Some people always believe if it costs more then it's obviously better quality, some goods are actually over priced on purpose to increase sales as the marketing team know the 'target customer' is likely to think it equates to better quality, this is used a lot in the shoe/fashion industry especially.

But foodwise... When doesn't a higher price tag = better quality?

Lamb is one prime example, in New Zealand sheep simply aren't 'shepherded' or pampered very much, if a sheep becomes lame it's left to die or killed and there's enough grass all year round for the sheep to graze on so farmers never need to buy feed, due to this 'hard rearing' breeds in New Zealand are extremely hardy, self sufficient and sought after. In the UK for example if a sheep becomes lame, a vet is called and the resulting bill paid, in dryer and warmer climates sheep feed will have to be bought, and less hardy breeds simply cost more to rear. That's why New Zealand lamb is so competitive pricewise globally, little to do with actual quality, all though it is actually very high quality lamb despite the low price tag.