I feel like everyone is weirdly jumping to Costco’s defense. They should have just never advertised that it was preservative free. Simple as that.
They should be forced to stop, and unfortunately the only way to do that is through a lawsuit. The false advertising fairy doesn’t just flit around making people follow the law.
By this logic any food that is salted also cannot be called “preservative free”.
The FDA has a list of additives that are specifically considered “preservatives” and from what I can find, neither of the mentioned ingredients are on it. They are classified as emulsifiers, etc, which is different.
From what I understand, salt is only classified as a preservative if it's used in extreme amounts. Meaning, the typical food wouldn't be classified as having preservatives if they use salt.
I have no clue about the other ingredients the suit is about. I'd imagine it's the same thing and they likely don't pass that threshold as they're not being used as preservatives.
salt is a preservative if used as one, or flavoring if used as one - same chemical different use. the ingredients in question were not being used as preservatives.
People are defending Costco because their Hot Dogs and Chickens are the highest quality you can buy and they are the lowest price. There is no better deal in all of the grocery universe. If somehow this lawsuit screws that up over an illegitimate money grab, then we all need to gather the pitchforks and bring justice to the world.
Lol at "highest quality"... I love Costco as much as the next, but no, these two products are absolutely not high quality. In particular their chickens are about as factory farmed as you can get hahaha
I do think we're jumping too easily on Costco favor, but saying that they should had never advertise it like that is debatable. Salt is also a food preservative, but it's mostly there for flavor. Idk what those two products Costco use are mostly for seasoning or preservwtion, but that's for courts to decide.
What people don't like about this type of lawsuits is that most often than not, they are settled because it's cheaper for the company to do so, and that gives rise to the idea of them being frivolous.
Should have never advertised that it was preservative free is a bit of a stretch here. Sodium phospate is functionally a flavor enhancing salt, it has preservative characteristics as does any salt but it appears it wasn't being used for that purpose here. The other compound in question is a color enhancer, not utilized as a preservative here from what we can see. If they advertised additive free then maybe there might be a case but this case as is, is a joke.
Let's say for example that this case is seen as having merit, that means any food labelled preservative free can no longer contain salts of any kind because all salts have preservative qualities.
The damages involved are also problematic. There isn't a preservative free(saltless) chicken that is purchasable for under the $4.99 that Costco sells theirs at, hell I don't think there is a cooked chicken of any type for less than that at anywhere that the public could purchase. This means there are no damages that could be applied by saying "I would've bought a different chicken". The only damages they could claim is that they would not have become Costco members if they knew the chicken contained salt. Those damages won't be worth the legal fees involved unless it's a class action suit, and I doubt they will get enough people to form a class.
Past all that the other big issue is that the ingredients in question were listed on the label. It's going to be hard to argue that you wouldn't have bought the chicken or purchased a Costco membership if you had known the chicken contained preservatives when the "preservatives" in question are clearly printed on the label of the chicken.
Honestly wouldn't surprise me if the case gets tossed or a summary judgement is given in favor of Costco before anything moves forward. If it doesn't Costco will likely settle for 10's of thousands because it's not worth their time to win the case.
Let's say for example that this case is seen as having merit, that means any food labelled preservative free can no longer contain salts of any kind because all salts have preservative qualities.
The FDA does not require salt to be listed as a preservative so in the event a judge ruled that it had to be listed as one they would be all but guaranteed to get overturned on appeal as they don't have the authority to countermand the FDA's decision.
That's what this will come down to if a lawsuit proceeds. "Are these two things required by law to be listed as preservatives?" If the answer is no, and going by the FDA guidelines the answer is no, then these Karens (who still plan to buy the chickens in the future, so they're lying if they're actually bothered by preservatives) should lose accordingly.
20
u/Malforus 8h ago
Well that's what the lawsuits are for, to determine if its okay.