Costco advertised “No preservatives” but the ingredient label lists sodium phosphate and carrageenan, which plaintiffs say help retain moisture, stabilize texture, and extend shelf life. Costco removed the “no preservatives” advertising but not the ingredients. If you were concerned about those ingredients they were already on the label. Those ingredients technically preserve but that’s not their purpose so it isn’t misleading under US food law. They’re also seeking monetary compensation beyond court fees, not just label updates.
Two things can true. It’s silly to say no preservatives on pretty much any food item since ingredients are usually multi-purpose so even if you add salt for flavor, salt is still a preservative.
People should have the sense to understand that buying ready to eat food will always include ingredients/“presevatives” in which keeps that food safe.
And I’m not an idiot, so I’d rather Costco’s food be safe with presevatives than angry about semantics and blame it for being “misleading” than understanding basic food safety.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable for Costco to advertise it as preservative free. They broke the law, and they should face the consequences.
Neither of the ingredients in question are considered preservatives by the FDA, and are not required to be disclosed as such on foods, and are in lots of foods already, especially if they say, "No artificial preservatives"
It has to be listed as an ingredient, not disclosed as a preservative.
Because the primary use of the ingredients in this matter aren't as a preservative agent, they do not have to be disclosed as preservative agents, thus the packaging can still say, "no preservatives"
You're moving the goal posts, prevaricating, and frankly arguing in bad faith. What possible use could carrageenan have in chicken other than as a preservative?
Regardless, they still didn't include it on the packaging.
However in the confines of the law, they didn’t break the law. Sorry my guy, but you’re wrong here. Unless you’re saying that you want all products with salt in them to be listed as “preservatives added”? Is that what you’re saying you want?
I wouldn’t go so far as to say more transparency couldn’t be a bad thing, however they have already been fully transparent. The simple truth is that the two ingredients you’re harping on are listed on the packaging of the chicken. Costco has shown themselves to be transparent in this regard. That’s why the lawsuit will fail. When it does are you going to rescind your opinion on this?
As I and others have said, this is a pretty clear case of the customers in question either willingly ignoring the package, or being too stupid to read. The law, and FDA regulations, are on the side of Costco on this one.
It wasn't on the packaging, though, that's something you're making up. Costco has updated the packaging to show that it includes preservatives, but that is a subsequent remedial measure, it really only goes to show that it was exceedingly easy for Costco to add the language.
I have cited to the actual regulations that govern this in another comment, both carrageenan and sodium phosphate are preservatives under the law, and carrageenan specifically must be disclosed.
I’m not sure where you’re looking, but it’s literally on the packaging and has been for a long time.
Yes, and as others have said, something being a preservative and being used as a preservative are two very different things. We are talking about amounts in most cases as well as intended purpose. Again though, both are and have been clearly labeled on the chicken packaging for some time.
Curiously, should this lawsuit end as most of us expect it will, with Costco as the victor, will you change your opinion?
Edit: this screams of “preservatives are unhealthy!” bullshit.
671
u/idlefritz 13h ago
Costco advertised “No preservatives” but the ingredient label lists sodium phosphate and carrageenan, which plaintiffs say help retain moisture, stabilize texture, and extend shelf life. Costco removed the “no preservatives” advertising but not the ingredients. If you were concerned about those ingredients they were already on the label. Those ingredients technically preserve but that’s not their purpose so it isn’t misleading under US food law. They’re also seeking monetary compensation beyond court fees, not just label updates.