A claim that there are no preservatives can be more persuasive than the ingredients list that is located a few inches down the package. It is that disparity between the big claim and the small print that a proposed class action is targeting Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken of Costco.
The case was brought to a federal court by two California shoppers accusing them of relying on the in-store and online marketing claims that the chicken has no preservatives, despite there being a back-of-pack ingredients list stating that the product has sodium phosphate and carrageenan. The complaint says that the claim influenced their buying behavior and that the similar signage was widespread to a point that it would influence other national customers.
Costco reacted by deleting the no preservatives wording on the signs and online presentations. The company said in a statement, To be consistent in the labeling on our rotisserie chicken and the labeling on our signs in our warehouses/on-line presentations, we have taken off the statement about preservatives in the signs, and on-line presentations, and Carrageenan and sodium phosphate are used to help maintain the moisture, texture, and consistency of our products during cooking, they are both approved by the food-safety authorities.
The controversy brings out a consumer fact: most individuals are quick cue shoppers. No preservatives is a direct personal-health short-cut even though preservative is not a one-class ingredient in real life. However, in a case such as this litigation, it is frequently asked how an average shopper perceives the assertion upon making the purchase, not whether some additive is defined in a single, small, technical way. There is a usually a reasonable consumer perspective used by the courts in determining whether a front-facing representation was likely to intentionally mislead an average buyer.
The complexity of ingredient list is that additives can be used in several purposes simultaneously. Sodium phosphate is widely utilized in meat and poultry in brines and marinades since it influences the structure of protein and aids in the retention of water that contributes to juiciness and consistency during storage and cooking. Hydrocolloid, such as carrageenan, which is a seaweed hydrocolloid, is also owed as a water binder and texture aid in fully cooked meat products. Those functions may resemble to shoppers who interpret the term as conserving nothing added to the ingredient, to maintain texture and moisture, although the ingredient is considered by manufacturer to be a processing aid.
Water is the basis of the entire discussion. The naturally high water content in meat and poultry, which is removed by regular cooking, is an example of cooked meat: chicken, which contains approximately 66 percent water raw, contains approximately 60 percent water cooked, according to an FDA consumer factsheet on the water in meat and poultry. Average loss is one such factor which causes processors to use ingredients that trap moisture during the heating process- a tactic which can enhance texture but which also puts pressure on the shopper who wants the ingredient claims to reflect what they perceive as simple food.
Another tension that label fights also have is whether the back panel stabilizes a strong front assertion. Another group of recent food-label cases indicates that courts occasionally consider disclosures, such as net weight, serving size or ingredient lists, as helpful evidence, but do not necessarily consider them a free pass when a salient statement gives an opposite overall impression.
To the consumer, neither the law nor legal strategy is the point; literacy. A clean-sounding promise by a package should be cross-checked best with the ingredient list and the name of the product, particularly when the food is already cooked or garnished with much salt and spice. In the case of brands, the message is as tangible as well: when the claim is brief and absolute, it needs to be reflected in what shoppers will reasonably expect it to entail, not what the company can prove ingredient-by-ingredient.
