But, if you can afford to donate brand name food, and believe there is a difference in taste or quality, and you don't because you don't think the people using the pantry deserves it, that's mean.
Basically, there is an attitude I have seen where someone will say "well, I don't eat this junk, but I'll buy it for the poor people, because they should be happy with whatever I am willing to throw their way." I'm not saying anyone on this thread feels that way. Heck, I haven't even read most of the thread. I just know I've seen this attitude, and I think it's mean.
Okay, I can get on board with that. To me, it's not "I wouldn't eat this but it's good enough for the likes of you." It's "This may not be the absolute best, but it's not bad, and more people will benefit."
Example: I buy Prego spaghetti sauce. But for the food pantry, I buy sauce in a can (Hunts?). It's cheaper, it's not in glass, and it's perfectly fine. However, if I thought all canned/jarred sauce was fit only for livestock, it would be mean for me, personally, to donate it.
And the other way around, what if I personally used Rao's sauce, which costs twice as much as Prego? Would it be mean for me to donate two jars of Prego instead of one jar of Rao's? I don't think so. Even if I didn't personally care for Prego, it's good enough for millions of people, rich or poor. And more people would benefit.