Chemistry professor Joe Schwarcz explains how the Costco rotisserie chicken lawsuit is frivolous

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is an article by Vaidehi Mehta at FindLaw on February 2, 2026 titled Lawsuit over Costco’s preservative-free rotisserie chicken ruffles feathers. He said:

 

“Their legal arguments center on the idea that Costco’s ‘no preservatives’ promise is deceptive because it conflicts with how the product is actually formulated. They allege that sodium phosphate and carrageenan function as chemical preservatives (by buffering pH, chelating metal ions, reducing fat oxidation, preserving texture, and extending shelf life), so a reasonable consumer would not expect a product advertised as having ‘no preservatives’ to contain these ingredients.”

 

But when you look up the Wikipedia articles on sodium phosphate and carrageenan you will find neither is described as being a preservative.

 

Joe Schwarcz is a chemistry professor and runs the McGill Center for Science and Society. His latest article collection book from 2025 is titled Better Not Burn Your Toast: The Science of Food and Health. Another article by Joe Schwarcz at the McGill Office for Science and Society on February 4, 2026 is titled The Frivolous Costco Chicken Lawsuit. He begins by explaining:

 

“Let’s start with the fact that sodium phosphate and carrageenan are not preservatives! Preservatives are substances added to food, other than salt, sugars, vinegar or spices, that prevent spoilage by curbing the growth of bacteria, molds or fungi.” 

Then he goes on to explain what sodium phosphate and carrageenan are and how they function. He ends by pointing out that the high sodium content from salting the chicken instead is a valid dietary concern.

An image of a rotisserie chicken was cropped from this one at Wikimedia Commons.