In March we did something slightly childish. Using a personal address and a name nobody would recognise, we bought one used IBC tote from each of ten sellers — classified listings, regional suppliers, two national outfits and one marketplace storefront. Every listing described the container as clean, food grade, or both. We paid list price, took delivery, and graded each one against our own written standard.
We are not naming the sellers. The point is not to litigate ten transactions; it is to describe the condition of a market that most buyers navigate blind. And in fairness, two of the ten were genuinely excellent and one of those was cheaper than us.
How we graded them
The same seven-step sequence we run at intake: node inspection, corner post straightness, base rails, squareness, bottle clarity and odour, fittings and gasket condition, and marking legibility. Then a fill-and-hold leak test. Two graders scored each container independently without seeing the listing.
| # | Advertised | Price paid | Graded as | Prior contents supplied? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Food grade, cleaned | $245 | Food grade | Yes, in writing |
| 2 | Clean, Grade A | $180 | Grade B | Verbal only |
| 3 | Food grade | $220 | Grade B industrial | No |
| 4 | Rinsed, like new | $165 | Grade C | No |
| 5 | Clean, Grade A | $195 | Grade A | Yes, in writing |
| 6 | Washed | $140 | Grade B | Verbal only |
| 7 | Food grade, sanitised | $260 | Grade C — crazed bottle | No |
| 8 | Clean | $120 | Grade C | No |
| 9 | Grade A, ready to fill | $210 | Grade B | Verbal only |
| 10 | Washed, food safe | $235 | Grade B industrial | No |
What we actually learned
The phrase 'food grade' has nearly no information content
Five of the ten used it. One was defensible. Container 7 was advertised as food grade and sanitised, cost the most of any in the experiment, and arrived with a crazed bottle that failed the fill-and-hold test in under ten minutes. Whatever had been sanitised, it was not the structural integrity.
Food grade means three things holding together: FDA-compliant resin, an edible-only prior-contents history, and a documented wash. Nobody can assess the middle one from looking at a container — it is a record or it is nothing. Two sellers had the record. Three used the phrase without it.
Nobody leak tests
Not one of the ten mentioned a test, and when we asked, seven said some version of we check them over. Container 7 would have failed any hold test at all. It takes ten minutes and a hose. Its absence is the clearest signal that a seller is moving containers rather than grading them.
Price and quality were essentially uncorrelated
The two best containers cost $245 and $195. The worst cost $260. If you ranked the ten by price you would get almost no information about how they would rank by condition. In a market with no shared grading standard, price signals confidence rather than quality.
Six questions that would have caught eight of the ten
- What is your written definition of this grade? — would have flagged 2, 4, 6, 8, 9.
- What product did it previously hold, from the label? — would have flagged 3, 4, 7, 8, 10.
- Was it leak tested, and can I have the record? — would have caught 7 outright.
- Can I see a photograph of this actual container against its serial? — would have flagged 4 and 8.
- What is the manufacture date on the plate? — would have flagged 7, a 2011 bottle.
- What would make you downgrade this one? — answered well by exactly two sellers.
What happened to the ten containers
Five went through our wash line and were resold, honestly graded, at a small loss on what we paid. Three were rebottled. One became a rainwater harvester in Tom's mother-in-law's garden. Container 7 was granulated, which at least gave the story a tidy ending.
The experiment cost us about $1,970 and a fortnight of mild embarrassment on behalf of the trade. We would recommend any buyer spend a much smaller version of it — one container, one seller, graded carefully on arrival — before committing to a fleet.