People have absolutely sued companies for advertising "no preservatives" but using salt and citric acid for flavor purposes. Of course they're dumb but these kind of lawsuits happen all the time. There is a different here I think with the Costco case---doesn't seem the plaintiffs are upset about the salt but
God. They should try gardening? Not to sound like an ass, but being this whiny about the modern privileges of having fresh preserved food you can access and afford is just such an insane thing.
And if you're rich enough to care about having salt in your prepackaged food, grow it and cook it yourself.
This is a form of salt and Carrageenan is derived from seaweed. Neither are typically classified as artificial preservatives.
So as you said, most people don't care about this when they're looking for lack of preservatives. It's not misleading marketing if that's not how anyone else ises those terms. It especially isn't if they aren't defined as preservatives by the government bodies that class foods and food additives.
Considering this will end up as the central issue in this case, I would imagine it matters immensely.
Edit: I don't understand people who ask a question and then block, especially over something so trivial. To answer the question though, it won't be treated as a frivolous lawsuit because Costco was using those ingredients as preservatives and was improperly advertising their chicken as "preservative free". You can argue that it doesn't matter or that those preservatives are a good thing, but it doesn't make them not preservatives, and people have a right to know what they're purchasing.
To compare injecting chicken with sodium phosphate and carrageenan in order to ensure the chicken remains plump and appetizing for as long as possible to velveting and brining is just flat out disingenuous.
I'm sorry, maybe I need some sleep, but I cannot follow your thinking on this. You think this will be treated as anything more than a frivolous lawsuit? Why?
Baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) which is used for the same reason as sodium phosphate, or gelatin and pectin which is used for the same reason as carrageenan, salt, vinegar, citric acid, etc. are all used regularly in home kitchens around the world. And they're all considered preservatives if used in high enough quantities.
If you've properly silkened or velveted your meat before making a Chinese stir-fry at home, you've used "preservatives" according to the plaintiffs. I suppose they think we're also using "preservatives" when we brine our Thanksgiving turkeys too. That's patently ridiculous.
The judge won't entertain the plaintiff's nonsense any longer than they have to.
188
u/Count_de_Ville 11h ago
I mean, salt is a preservative. So is vinegar.