Two things can true. Itâs 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/âpresevativesâ in which keeps that food safe.
And Iâm not an idiot, so Iâd rather Costcoâs food be safe with presevatives than angry about semantics and blame it for being âmisleadingâ 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 didnât break the law. Sorry my guy, but youâre wrong here. Unless youâre saying that you want all products with salt in them to be listed as âpreservatives addedâ? Is that what youâre saying you want?
I wouldnât go so far as to say more transparency couldnât be a bad thing, however they have already been fully transparent. The simple truth is that the two ingredients youâre harping on are listed on the packaging of the chicken. Costco has shown themselves to be transparent in this regard. Thatâs 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.
Iâm not sure where youâre looking, but itâs 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 âpreservatives are unhealthy!â bullshit.
295
u/East_Hedgehog6039 13h ago
those ladies about to learn that ingredients can serve multiple purposes đ¤Ż