Chicken Betrayal
Like so many others, I am a fan of the Costco rotisserie chicken. It has saved the day more than once on a busy weekend when we ran out of steam to cook dinner by Sunday night. Sadly, the $5 wonder that is this bird has found itself in some legal trouble. In a San Diego courtroom, two Californians allege that Costco’s famous Kirkland rotisserie chicken has been lying to us all along.
For years, shoppers have been lulled into a false sense of security by giant signs proclaiming “No Preservatives!” only to discover that the poultry contains sodium phosphate and carrageenan. These are additives that allegedly function as preservatives. For some, this revelation has felt like a betrayal. Would they feel the same aboult salt or lemon? They too could act as preservatives.
The plaintiffs argue that had they known this earlier, they might have paid less or avoided the questionable product altogether. I, for one, never paid much attention to claims about preservatives, assuming they’re included by default if I’m buying anything cooked in large batches at a store. There was also more direct evidence in how long the chicken survives in the fridge. Once that first dinner is done, the leftovers are never particularly appealing the next day. The thing is clearly meant to be eaten fresh and warm, not analyzed under a microscope to see why it remains unspoiled for weeks.
The Costco rotisserie chicken has been one of those rare constants, unchanged even in the complicated and interesting times we live in. It would be a shame if, as a result of this lawsuit, that sense of constancy were altered. One worries Costco might phase out the discredited chicken we’ve all grown used to and replace it with some more wholesome, more “honest” alternative that somehow just doesn’t meet the bar.
For years, shoppers have been lulled into a false sense of security by giant signs proclaiming “No Preservatives!” only to discover that the poultry contains sodium phosphate and carrageenan. These are additives that allegedly function as preservatives. For some, this revelation has felt like a betrayal. Would they feel the same aboult salt or lemon? They too could act as preservatives.
The plaintiffs argue that had they known this earlier, they might have paid less or avoided the questionable product altogether. I, for one, never paid much attention to claims about preservatives, assuming they’re included by default if I’m buying anything cooked in large batches at a store. There was also more direct evidence in how long the chicken survives in the fridge. Once that first dinner is done, the leftovers are never particularly appealing the next day. The thing is clearly meant to be eaten fresh and warm, not analyzed under a microscope to see why it remains unspoiled for weeks.
The Costco rotisserie chicken has been one of those rare constants, unchanged even in the complicated and interesting times we live in. It would be a shame if, as a result of this lawsuit, that sense of constancy were altered. One worries Costco might phase out the discredited chicken we’ve all grown used to and replace it with some more wholesome, more “honest” alternative that somehow just doesn’t meet the bar.
Filed under:
Food