I have to say, I found it hard to believe that anyone found this to be news. That the people assessment of quality is bound up in not just how a piece of wine or food tastes, but in how much it costs. It's why you can get oohs and aaahs when you tell some people that you buy your flour for your pasta at Sabatos (good, posh, expensive food shop) and you get an insincere "oh, that's nice" when you tell them you got the same flour at the bulk food store around the corner for about a 3rd of the price. With wine at least, the other side of the coin is that what the experts say is a good wine is not what the punter is going to think is good. Experts tend to have access to the rare and expensive wines, to which their palates become accustomed. The average punter though, has a palate accustomed to the wines that they can afford, give us something rare and unusual and we're just as likely to go ick as we are to exclaim as to it's magnificence. Which puts a bit of a kibosh on the whole good wine/bad wine thing. Once you get over a certain threshold of quality, it's not good or bad, it's dependant on what the individual is accustomed to and likes. Price tends to become an indicator of who can afford what rather than an indicator of quality. The same, I imagine, goes for food.