The claim seems like a total reach to me. The two ingredients in question are carrageenan, which I’m very familiar with and is definitely not a preservative, and sodium phosphate, which I just had to google, but also doesn’t appear to be a preservative.
I guess it depends on how you define “preservative”; if you stretch the meaning a bit it could work, since both ingredients appear to be used to hold moisture longer in the product thereby “preserving” its state, but I really don’t think that’s how the food industry or consumers in general understand the term. If so we could say the same about table salt…which, of course, is regularly employed as an actual preservative! But salt doesn’t have a scary chemical name so it must be okay
The litigants in this case are quite busy . . . besides Costco they’ve filed lawsuits against cars-dot-com, Adobe, Capital One, Lume Deodorant, Dr. Broner’s Toothpaste, and others within the last year or two.
And yes, water holding capabilities are part of the preservation “arsenal” of these compounds. If Costco would add them to their chicken I think saying it is without preservatives is a bit of a stretch
I don’t agree that carrageenan is a preservative in any sense in which I would use the term “preservative.” Which is to say, it doesn’t help prevent spoilage. Again, if you stretch the meaning of preservative then all sorts of things can be added to the list, carrageenan included. But that’s an awfully slippery slope. You’d have to include all forms of thickeners, emulsifiers, and moisture retention agents, up to and including common salt, and then basically nothing could ever be called “preservative free.”
The main effect of carrageenan in meat is by binding water and leading to moisture retention and thereby extending shelf life - that’s a preservative for me
some time back I read an article about a NYC lawyer.
he went up and down every street, looking for businesses that were not handicapped/wheelchair/ramp accessible.
he made his living suing those businesses - most ‘settled’ out-of-court.
the lawyer had zerocommazilch ‘public interest’ - he merely sued businesses he knew would settle and pay him a couple bucks.
… but does that mean that nothing with salt should be labeled as “preservative-free?” For the average consumer, I don’t think that’s exactly the intent.
101.22(a)(5)
The term chemical preservative means any chemical that, when added to food, tends to prevent or retard deterioration thereof, but does not include common salt, sugars, vinegars, spices, or oils extracted from spices, substances added to food by direct exposure thereof to wood smoke, or chemicals applied for their insecticidal or herbicidal properties.
The poor plaintiffs seem to seek a court order that they can buy more cheap Costco cooked chicken without worrying/hand-wringing that preservatives won’t diminish the deal of not cooking for themselves – likely a larger risk. Of course, high powered lawyer taking case on the come isn’t plaintiffs’ concern?
There used to be a guy here in Northern California who did quite well for himself doing that, too. I think he was a wheelchair user himself, but ISTR he never visited some of the businesses he sued. Part of his business model was to have staff members report to him if a business they visited had accessibility issues. I know of one restaurant that closed instead of either defending themselves or settling. I’m sure there were others.
