Subway Sues Canada Network Over Claim Its Chicken Is 50 Percent Soy (yahoo.com)

jenningsthecat writes: As reported here back in February, the CBC, (Canada's national broadcaster), revealed DNA test results which indicated the chicken used in Subway Restaurants' sandwiches only contained about 50% chicken. Now, Subway is suing the public broadcaster for $210 million, because "its reputation and brand have taken a hit as a result of the CBC reports." The suit claims that "false statements [...] were published and republished, maliciously and without just cause or excuse, to a global audience, which has resulted in pecuniary loss to the plaintiffs."

Personally, my working assumption here is that the CBC report is substantially correct. It will be interesting to see how the case plays out -- but should this have happened at all? Regulatory agencies here in Canada seem to be pretty good when it comes to inspecting meat processing facilities. Should they also be testing the prepared foods served by major restaurant chains to ensure that claims regarding food content are true and accurate?

Comments

Soy tastes like chicken

[turkeydance]

just like lots of other things

Re:Soy tastes like chicken

[hey!]

Actually, that makes it weird. You see, the default animal taste is chicken. But any forager or naturalist will tell you the default plant taste is asparagus.

If you eat rattlesnake, it "tastes like chicken" because it's lean and most of the distinctive flavor of a meat is in the fat (and bone -- it's always better to cook a steak or a pork chop bone in). If it's not fatty or bony or gamey or bloody, what you've got left is chicken flavor.

It's a mystery to me though why so many plants taste like asparagus. I've heard the 17 year cicada tastes like asparagus though so that's a kingdom-bender too.

Re:Soy tastes like chicken

[Anonymous Coward]

Soy tastes like caster beans. That is: poison

Re:Soy tastes like chicken

[OrangeTide]

Edible mushrooms and poisonous mushrooms pretty much taste the same.

Re:Soy tastes like chicken

[haruchai]

Which one of the walking dead told you that?

Re:Soy tastes like chicken

[Aighearach]

cicadas are slightly bitter.

Plants taste like asparagus because most food plants have been bred to have lower levels of acids that the plant generates to keep you from eating it. The reason is that the less extra work the plant does, the bigger it grows. When the farmers select for larger size, they're also selecting for less flavor, and the most bitter flavors are the first to go.

Asparagus is one of the minority of foods that caters to the natural cravings for some of those chemicals.

I do a lot of foraging, dozens of types of mushrooms, about a dozen berries, but only a few vegetables... but none of them taste anything like asparagus! OTOH, if I hadn't eaten in a few days and had to down some Siberian Miner's Lettuce it might actually taste half that good (it grows worldwide in temperate zones, but only in Siberia are people hungry enough that it is a vegetable)

Re:Soy tastes like chicken

[Aighearach]

Mostly that is only true of the few deadly mushrooms that contain amanitans, mostly in the genus Amanita.

The vast majority of poisonous mushrooms also taste nasty.

The one mushroom I ate that was edible, but tastes like it should be poisonous was blue-capped polypore (Albatrellus flettii). It had a weird metallic flavor. I think my exact words were, "Oh wow, I'm amazed this is actually edible!" I pity the poor soul who eats that one enough times to get a liking for it. ;)

For mushrooms in the genus Russula it is normal to taste the edge of the cap as part of the identification process; the poisons in a number of species produce a burning sensation on the tongue. The lack of this sensation is an important part of the identification process for the numerous edible Russulas.

A common urban mushroom on the west coast USA is the Yellow Stainer (Agaricus xanthodermus). It is poisonous to most people, producing moderate gastrointestinal distress, however not all people are affected. Interestingly, it also tastes really nasty to people who are affected! People unable to smell the nasty phenol-like odor can usually also stomach them just fine.

But it is definitely true that the Death Cap (Amanita phalloides) gets positive reviews for their flavor.

Re:Soy tastes like chicken

[serbanp]

Regarding nasty taste of "edible" fungii, I can't figure out the supposed king of the mushrooms, the truffle. It has to be an acquired taste...

Re: Soy tastes like chicken

[Anonymous Coward]

or does asparagus tast like those other things. if things tast a like perhaps they are similar but that which you are relating may not really be true yet it is but can be used interchangebly with the others depending on your reference.

Re:Soy tastes like chicken

[tehcyder]

But it is definitely true that the Death Cap (Amanita phalloides) gets positive reviews for their flavor.

"Yummy! 5 out of 5 would use ag-aaarrrggghhh"

Re:Soy tastes like chicken

[dunkelfalke]

Poison pax is - even though people should know better - still widely consumed in Eastern Europe.

Re:Soy tastes like chicken

[hey!]

I always suspected the "taste like asparagus" thing was function of plant saponins. Saponins evolved as anti-feedants but many animals have evolved to tolerate or even benefit from low levels of saponins.

Re:Soy tastes like chicken

[Aighearach]

It is funny to me because I've eaten so many wild mushrooms, and there are two popular kinds of truffles here, but it is the thing I never pick.

Mostly because they grow too deep. You'd need dogs. People mostly pick them in the forests near farms. I like to go out into the mountains. Everywhere I go in the forest there are cougar and bear, in addition to chipmunks and squirrels. Bringing a dog out there is a major disturbance, and can be unsafe.

But the King of Mushrooms is definitely the King Bolete, aka porcini, cep, steinpilz. Much more approachable than a truffle. Though I do buy some imported frozen flatbread from Italy with truffle sauce that is quite good.

Right now a related mushroom is in season, Boletus rex-veris the "King of Spring."

Re:Soy tastes like chicken

[OrangeTide]

Every few years someone ruins their internal organs making stew with the wrong mushrooms. One of the worst in my mind was in a California nursing home in 2012. Someone working at the nursing home found some mushrooms, picked them and cooked them up for the residents. I'm not sure the taste is going to be all that noticeable, and in this case it wasn't noticeable enough to raise suspicions in time.

Re:Soy tastes like chicken

[Agripa]

Only because the machines could not remember what chicken tastes like.

Re: Really? WHY?!

[Anonymous Coward]

It really is more like a poorly funded BBC.

Re:Really? WHY?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really.

CBC does a lot of even-handed coverage, even of US politics. The problem with CBC however is that it's often viewed as "too liberal" by conservatives, and "too boring" by liberals (US definition) because CBC News tends to focus on Ontario and little else.

http://thecanadaguide.com/basics/news-and-media/

"The CBC was created by the government of Prime Minister Mackenzie King (1874-1950) in 1936, at a time when radio and television were relatively new and the federal government was eager to ensure Canadians would be exposed to a lot of Canadian content. In recent decades, however, the CBC has become steadily more unpopular and controversial since what it offers is no longer particularly unique. Most of its shows are not widely watched, and some Canadians — particularly those of a conservative bent — characterize it as a waste of tax dollars. CBC fans, however, argue the network actually produces higher quality programming than other stations precisely because it relies on government funding and doesn’t have to pander to a mass audience. Opinions on the CBC can spawn pretty polarizing debates in modern Canada."

Re: Really? WHY?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah and it's entirely funded by taxpayer money. So subway is essentially suing the people who they are selling allegedly half soy chicken. That'll earn them brownie points with the public.

Two studies

[fluffernutter]

They did two independent studies and both had the same result. I would say it is the labs that should be sued if anything.

Re:Two studies

[Anonymous Coward]

The labs only reported what percent of the DNA was from soy or chicken, it's the producers and reporter that made the unscientific conclusion that soy and chicken contain equal portions of DNA.

Re:Two studies

[alvinrod]

I think the problem is that they only tested from a single restaurant if memory serves correct. If you're seeing really strange results, you'd probably want to get samples from a few other restaurants to see if it's the chain or an isolated incident.

Hell, depending on the city and location, some Subways could just sell soy instead of chicken it would be even more popular.

Re:Two studies

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so you have have several choices of whom to sue:

- A small testing lab(s) with unknown/limited revenue
- A giant broadcaster(s) with millions of dollars of income

It would probably be easier to sue the lab. However, even if you win, your chances of collecting anything are close to zero after the owners declare bankruptcy. It's likely more difficult to sue a broadcaster and their small army of lawyers. But if you win, you get to pay off your yacht in the marina.

Re:Two studies

[ark1]

This. A single supplier may have been delivering lower quality.

Re:Two studies

[fluffernutter]

That's a bit weak. Unless it can be proven that the one restaurant tampered with the meat and added soy, the statement "Subway chicken sandwiches may only be 50% chicken" is still true.

Re:Two studies

[Luthair]

Typically chain stores have these sorts of things prepared at central locations and trucked out to the stores. Its unlikely to be a single store.

Re: Two studies

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sufficiently familiar with Canadian law and the intricate details of the case, but it is quite conceivable that Subway wouldn't have standing to sue the lab that it doesn't have a business relationship with and which never made any public statements on the results of their tests. Sueing the broadcaster is a much more sound legal strategy

Re:Two studies

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are going to make such a statement as fact as a broadcaster then you really need to be sure it is fact or they will indeed to be liable for suing. What they could say is, subway shop at address X may only be 50% chicken.

Re:Two studies

[Anonymous Coward]

not quite, they tend to be hubs for most larger chains, it isn't practical to send them all over the country daily so individual cities or regions will have hubs that prepare a lot of the items from ingredients hence a quite a few chains vary in quality depending on the city you are in. still makes it quite possible to be a small area with the issue rather than subway in general.

Re: Two studies

[Anonymous Coward]

From reporting on Ars, it sounds as if the lab did nothing wrong. They used a test intended for qualitative analysis and reported that they found soy protein. And in fact they found it with very high confidence: 50% of the identifiable DNA was from soy. That's not surprising. Subway publicly states that they add about 1% of seasoning/additives which are largely derived from soy.

The CBC then turned around and incorrectly interpreted this high-confidence qualitative result as if it was quantitative. That's not really what the test does at all.

There are other types of tests that are suitable for quantitative analysis. And big surprise, if you commission those tests, they return about 1% soy in the sample. Exactly as expected by what Subway has been saying all along.

Re:Two studies

[ark1]

Actually if they indeed used the word "MAY" implies other samples may not be the same. Having even one sample meet the 50% threshold validates the statement. You know like ISP advertising "UP TO" 100mb/s internet but only a handful of locations can reach that speed.

Re: Two studies

[fluffernutter]

Yet if they did indeed test other restaurants and they had 85% chicken by the same test, it still means Subway has poor quality chicken and maybe should consider not selling it as such.

Re:Two studies

[sims 2]

Yeah AT&T tried to pull that on us after we upgraded to 12Mbps and we were only getting 8mbps.
Turns out while they don't guarantee internet speeds if the modem won't even sync at the rated up to speeds they have to send someone out to fix it.

You can use soy sauce and stuff to season the chicken but that should be a relatively minor percentage.

Re: Two studies

[Imrik]

If the other restaurants do not use soy as a seasoning, there will be much less identifiable soy DNA in the sample. The DNA in the raw meat will generally be somewhat degraded by time and processing while the DNA in a marinade or the like will be relatively intact.

Re:Two studies

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The greedy lawyers are the ones making trouble, suing other people left and right. No one but them need to get sued and punished.

Re:Two studies

[mvdwege]

The whole point of fast-food chains is that they sell a uniform product through all their chains. If this was an aberration, then Subway has to prove that. In the meantime, due to public expectations, the result should stand.

Re: Two studies

[Anonymous Coward]

Some food processing companies inject the chicken meat with water, flavouring and other chemicals to make sure the meat retains that juicyiness. The only side effect is that chicken wings will swell to double the size and give off blue smoke when put in a grill.

Re:Two studies

[arglebargle_xiv]

They did two independent studies and both had the same result.

There's also a litte-known third study, done several years earlier, that confirms the results.

Re:Two studies

[Killall -9 Bash]

Look at the "meat" in question, next time you're at subway. Every one of the "chicken" pieces is the same size, same shape, and has the same "grill" marks on it. Oven roasted chicken? More like toaster-oven-warmed chicken flavored food product.

Re:Two studies

[fluffernutter]

It is obvious that it is processed. But that doesn't give them the right to sneak in fillers.

Re: Two studies

[fluffernutter]

I guess that will come out in court then. That's a pretty big oversight, but a point that should have been brought up by the lab since they were supposed to be testing the chicken, not the seasoning in the chicken. Lawsuit should be against the lab, in fact CBC should probably be suing them as well.

Re:Two studies

[bongey]

Find this one is better example of the study.

Do we really need sandwich police?

[OldMugwump]

Geez. It's a sandwich, not a nuclear reactor. If you like the way it tastes, great. If you don't, don't buy another one. I think we can let the sandwich eaters of Canada handle this on their own.

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[fluffernutter]

People have a right to know what they are eating.

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, I ordered a chicken sandwich made of soy. I allergic to soy, so ya, its a big deal.

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[Anonymous Coward]

if it was 50% soy, it would only make it better for you & the environment.

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[Anonymous Coward]

People have a right to know what they are eating.

Not when they are scientificly illiterate morons like you.

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, people have a right to ask what they are eating, not to know -- you can never have a right to know, as knowing is something done entirely within one's own mind. Rights are agreements, not rhetorical devices signifying what "should" be.

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[whoever57]

It's a sandwich, not a nuclear reactor. If you like the way it tastes, great.

Adding ethylene glycol to white wine improves its taste, but I doubt that you really want to drink it.

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[Anonymous Coward]

only a moron would order takeaway food from ANYWHERE with an allergy to soy, it is a base ingredient in so many processed foods that that would be suicide.

Re: Do we really need sandwich police?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really are allergic to soy, you should be more careful to begin with. Subway publicly warns that they season their meats in a marinade that is largely derived from soy. An allergic reaction is pretty much guaranteed...

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[hey!]

Well, things sold rally ought to be what they're represented as. If someone sells you a 14 kt gold ring, it ought to be exactly that, not gold-plated silver, even if the plating job is really good. Now I, as a smart consumer, might decide that a gold ring with a good enough plating job is good enough because it will be indistinguishable over the lifetime of the intended user, but it's my choice, not the vendor's.

Now foods especially should be what they say they are. Now I agree, there is no reason at all for most people to prefer sandwich with pure chicken filler to a sandwich. In fact there's some reasonable basis for preferring soy, e.g. environmental impact and animal welfare. But it should say soy on the ingredients. There are people with severe enough soy allergies to cause anaphylaxis. Soy also interacts with certain medications. People affected by this kind of thing check labels because soy is so ubiquitous, so those labels ought to be accurate.

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[Tablizer]

But soy can cause allergic reactions and gas in some people. Saying it's a chicken sandwich when it's really a soy sandwich is selling something different than what's listed.

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meaningless semantic hair-splitting.

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[sexconker]

Well, by how much does it improve the taste, exactly?

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[OrangeTide]

And Subway doesn't have the right to operate a business without conforming to regulations.

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[drinkypoo]

People have a right to know what they are eating.

I wish they did, but they really don't. They should, though.

I, for one, would like to see all products' ingredients labeled with country of origin. What year is it? Can't we have just-in-time printing of product labels yet? At least the ingredient list?

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not when they are scientificly illiterate morons like you"

Scientificly?? That's a bigly speeelink misteak, you dumbfuck

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's even more than that if they are allergic.

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[Anonymous Coward]

What good does that do... you and the average rest of the USA still go shovel that shit in your face more than once a week anyways.
Worse you've foisted that shit on the rest of the world now too.

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[bluegutang]

I don't know if people have a right to know what they are eating.

I do know that if you tell people you're selling them chicken, but you're actually selling them soy, you're defrauding them and you deserve to be prosecuted.

Re: Do we really need sandwich police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Subway just need to make an app to pair up hungry people with non employee free agent sandwich makers who prepared too many of the exact custom sandwich with the hungry but not poor smart phone owner is in the mood for.

Re: Do we really need sandwich police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not my fault if you think a good painted ring is made of 14k gold when I specifically told you it was (something I got in trade for) fourteen carrot(s).

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[tehcyder]

It's a sandwich, not a nuclear reactor. If you like the way it tastes, great.

Adding ethylene glycol to white wine improves its taste, but I doubt that you really want to drink it.

If adding antifreeze to your wine improves its taste, you should maybe consider changing your brand of wine.

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[GNious]

People have a right to know what they are eating.

I wish they did, but they really don't. They should, though.

Just curious: Canada doesn't have any laws, at all, on food labelling, or fraudulent sales?!?

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[Anonymous Coward]

A previous report on Subway said their bread contained some ingredient used in shoe rubber and yoga mats. But only in North American versions of their bread. Sounds unnecessarily dramatic but Subway announced they intended to change. Never heard if they actually did.

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[whoever57]

My comment wasn't really a hypothetical:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Do we really need sandwich police?

[OrangeTide]

Apps!

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[OldMugwump]

I've no objection to cheated sandwich buyers being able to sue for damages. Even in class actions. But I don't think we need proactive sandwich police checking out sandwiches in advance.

Re:Do we really need sandwich police?

[martinfb]

Agreed.
Even if they are still too stupid to discern what is good or bad for them.

Ironically

[presidenteloco]

the soy protein is probably healthier food than chicken meat.

Re:Ironically

[rtb61]

Read this http://link.springer.com/artic... and then say you are jumping for joy at the thought of consuming soy protein isolate and soy protein concentrate, hmm, i can imagine the taste and goodness of the high temperature acid bath. Soy protein isolate not a food any more, just the cheapest possible molecular chain you can get away with calling it food. If there was cheaper worse shit they could get away with calling food, they would. Personally I read that article and it sent a shudder down my spine and made me nauseas to think of some of the crap I have eaten. Here read about your 'food?' for a change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... If you think that shit is healthier than chicken, you are an idiot.

Re: Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

"Processed using chemicals" does not equal "bad for you." I suppose you won't eat GMOs either?
As long as your body can effectively process it into useful components that don't cause you harm, it's healthy. It's actually probably more healthy than "natural" foods because all the extra crap your body normally discards as feces or in urine isn't there.

You sound like the type of person who would unironically lobby to get dihydrogen monoxide removed from our water supply.

Re: Ironically

[Holi]

I don't know, neither alcohol nor acid bath sounds all that healthy to me.

Re: Ironically

[ShanghaiBill]

Everything you eat passes through an acid bath: Your stomach.

Re: Ironically

[BoogieChile]

Personally, some of my favourite snack foods have been bathed in acid or even caustic soda, sometimes for several months, even.

Re: Ironically

[Rei_is_a_dumbass]

Everything you eat turns into shit, too, that doesn't mean eating shit is a great idea.

If you're a dumbass vegan, everything you eat was grown in shit.

Re: Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

Most foods are a bit acidic, including natural fruits and vegetables. Your body is more than capable of handling it.

Re: Ironically

[nitehawk214]

But drinking a beer while eating sauerbraten sounds delicious.

Re: Ironically

[nitehawk214]

http://www.foodnetwork.com/rec...

Re: Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually not that healthy, other sources of protein (pea, brown rice) are way healthier, even when protein which isn't very healthy is still 10 times better than soy. But soy is probably healthier than the nasty caged chicken parts they use.

Re: Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

Edit: Whey* not when.

Re: Ironically

[sexconker]

"Processed using chemicals" does not equal "bad for you." I suppose you won't eat GMOs either?
As long as your body can effectively process it into useful components that don't cause you harm, it's healthy. It's actually probably more healthy than "natural" foods because all the extra crap your body normally discards as feces or in urine isn't there.

You sound like the type of person who would unironically lobby to get dihydrogen monoxide removed from our water supply.

People are idiots and thing "processed" foods are bad, even though the exact opposite is true. Cooking food is "processing" it. Also, water is a chemical.

However, modern soy, such as in tofu, is essentially an industrial byproduct and is not only full of estrogens, but also a lot of shit beyond the soy protein that you don't want to eat. rtb61 is correct - soy is shit. (I don't know about the specifics he linked to as I'm not going to click it and read it.)

Now, if you're talking about classically prepared (almost always fermented) soy, then you're just dealing with the estrogen as the main problem. In the typical quantities you'd use soy prepared this way, you're not going to have an issue.

But the soy "milk", soy infant formula, soy fake meat, etc. being foisted on people as healthy is absolutely terrible for you, especially when you're young.

Re: Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

You're saying the same thing he is then, "intermediate stages are irrelevant"

Re:Ironically

[OrangeTide]

Imagine a high temperature acid bath, let's say pH of 3 and at around 37 C.

Re:Ironically

[quantaman]

Read this http://link.springer.com/artic... and then say you are jumping for joy at the thought of consuming soy protein isolate and soy protein concentrate, hmm, i can imagine the taste and goodness of the high temperature acid bath. Soy protein isolate not a food any more, just the cheapest possible molecular chain you can get away with calling it food. If there was cheaper worse shit they could get away with calling food, they would. Personally I read that article and it sent a shudder down my spine and made me nauseas to think of some of the crap I have eaten. Here read about your 'food?' for a change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... If you think that shit is healthier than chicken, you are an idiot.

The Springer article was paywalled but didn't seem to mention anything about health (or taste).

The "Health Effects" section in the Wikipedia article starts like this:

A meta-analysis concluded soy protein is correlated with significant decreases in serum cholesterol, low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations.[41] High density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol did not change. Although there is only preclinical evidence for a possible mechanism, the meta-analysis report stated that soy phytoestrogens – the isoflavones, genistein and daidzein – may be involved in reducing serum cholesterol levels.[41]

In general "processed==bad" and "natural==good" isn't a bad rule-of-thumb to use for healthy eating.

But the moment you have proper evidence that a particular processed food is good, or a natural one bad, forget the default rule and use the evidence instead.

Re: Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation Required. Something is not terrible just because you say it is.

Re: Ironically

[h33t l4x0r]

I was going to say what's the big deal, but now it sounds like we're saying Subway gives you bitch tits.

Re: Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

Soy is loaded with anti-nutrients

Oeople who consume large amounts of soy milk and tofu as their primary protein sources risk severe mineral deficiencies. The results of calcium, magnesium, iron, and zinc deficiency are well known. Diets high in phytic acid can be sufficient by themselves to cause rickets.

Also:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1822466

Re: Ironically

[Aighearach]

No you moron, you have to actually read and comprehend the information. If you just heard your friend talking about soy, that has zero value. Stop repeating that shit.

The real health concerns that live next door to the horseshit you posted about estrogen[sic] applies to non-fermented soy. As in, not tofu. The fermentation process converts all that shit. The part you're saying is still a concern in tofu, is not a concern at all with tofu. That has been studied extensively at this point. Other fermented soy is also fine, such as soy sauce.

There were in fact news items talking about health problems in some brands of "soy fake meat" and other products, but it wasn't because it was made from industrial byproducts; rather, they use harsh chemicals in the processing. But only certain brands were found to have any sort of problem. The news was not that "soy fake meat" is terrible for you, the news was that certain brands of "soy fake meat" have traces of a chemical at levels the government says is safe but not everybody agrees.

Personally, I eat Tofurky brand soy "sausages" and they were not found to have any sort of industrial trace chemicals at all. Which makes sense, it is a traditionally prepared product. Traditionally priced, too...

There are two health concerns with soy: 1) daily consumption of unfermented soy as a staple food might lower IQ by as much as half a point, and related concerns and 2) some brands of cheap highly-processed fake meat contains trace chemicals at levels considered safe by the government, but that are controversial among doctors. However, the same can be said of every cheap processed food item in the supermarket!

Re: Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

they're not. good thing protein is neither alcohol nor acid but is.. protein. any more bright observations fucktard?

Re:Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

Know what else is processed? Medicine. Know what else is natural? Hemlock.

Re: Ironically

[sexconker]

You're the moron. The vast majority of soy products and soy-containing products are NOT produced with traditional fermentation and DO have all the problems I mentioned. I fucking explained this in my post. I guess you didn't read it. If you think this is limited to certain brands you're a fool. Soy that doesn't have issues (other than the estrogens) represent a small, small segment on the market. Basically natto and miso and SOME types of soy sauce.

The vast, vast majority of the market, such as the tofu blocks and soy "milk" and just about everything else are NOT produced via traditional methods and are fucking terrible for you.

Re: Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

thats vegetarians in general whether they do a lot of tofu or not. most i have known have and need vitamin supplements protean is a big one. its not natural nor is it healthy by itself we are omnivores.

Re: Ironically

[Maritz]

Look up food babe. You'd love her. She shamelessly self-promotes by looking for ingredients that sound a bit science-y and then scaremongering them.

Re: Ironically

[mean pun]

Oh wow, you've used both the word 'moron' and 'fucking' (twice!), so that settles it then. Nevertheless, could you please provide us foolish sceptics with a reference to your source of all this wisdom?

Re: Ironically

[silentcoder]

The big deal is lying to your customers about what you're selling them. That is a crime - specifically - fraud. If you bulk up your chicken with soy - that's your free right as far as I'm concerned. If you do it and say you didn't - you've become a criminal.

Re:Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

Your May be involved wiki article is hillarious.

How about they used simular products found in industrial products to help thier bread rise.

How about this Chicken is NOT chicken.

How about thier primary spokes person, jared, was never fat, was a huge(((Liar))), and was actually a (((pedophile.)))

You should really look at what this suit is trying to do, its an attack on a news station that is struggling to make bills as its base shrinks.

So, Subway, (((Owned))) and (((Operated))) to destroy your health while they make money.

I wonder which other industries do this??? Most of the fast food chains for sure, look at the chemicals they inject in cows to make them fat, that chemical goes into you.

Chik-Fil-A, doesn't, but they get attacked every day for not being in the (((GROUP))).

Re:Ironically

[silentcoder]

The problem with taking this as your default position is that it pretends evolution never happened. There is a REASON why natural is, as a standard rule of thumb, more likely to be good for you - four billion years of evolution - and throughout all this time our bodies have been adapting to benefit from the resources available to them in their environment (a process that began long before our ancestors even had limbs). That is- natural isn't good because IT is natural, natural tends to be more likely to be good because WE are natural. We have adapted to what exists in nature. We've not evolved for what comes out of factories because it hasn't existed for long enough for us to do so.

Now, as the parent correctly pointed out, the rule of thumb is not universal and it's a fallacy to pretend it is. There are natural things which will kill you, there are completely processed things which are actually quite good for you. The rule of thumb should only be used in the absence of available scientific evidence. Where evidence exists - use the evidence instead.

Re:Ironically

[zifn4b]

the soy protein is probably healthier food than chicken meat.

It depends on where the chicken came from. Obligatory Portlandia.

Re: Ironically

[sound vision]

Just because its not absorbed in the intestinal walls doesn't make it "extra crap". Well, maybe literally, but it's useful crap. Fiber, for example, pulls out a lot of the debris (=toxins) that would otherwise stay stuck to the walls of your gut. But regarding soy protein in particular, I do recall that it causes some type of hormonal imbalance. For something like drug manufacturing, it makes sense to take the approach of chemically isolating the relevant compound and removing anything else. Nutrition can't be applied that way, it needs almost the opposite approach - making sure that you eat a wide enough variety of things that, included somewhere among them, will be the required amounts of everything your body needs. It's also my belief that nutritional science hasn't yet progressed to the point where we can manufacture something from whole cloth (Soylent) and be confident that we aren't missing some critical, poorly a understood part of a natural diet.

Re: Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously he will not, and I for one can't blame him. If he did, you wouldn't be strong in your faith that all processed foods are evil. Why would he test someone's faith like that?

If you require evidence, you just aren't believing hard enough.

Re:Ironically

[msauve]

The problem with your position is that it pretends that humans haven't processed food and enjoyed well documented health benefits from doing so, for millenia. Cooking, freezing, drying, curing, fermenting and other processing which kills bad things and preserves foods.

Re:Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

the soy protein is probably healthier food than chicken meat.

It's healthier for the chicken.

Re:Ironically

[parkinglot777]

Read this http://link.springer.com/artic... and then say you are jumping for joy at the thought of consuming soy protein isolate and soy protein concentrate, hmm, i can imagine the taste and goodness of the high temperature acid bath. Soy protein isolate not a food any more, just the cheapest possible molecular chain you can get away with calling it food. If there was cheaper worse shit they could get away with calling food, they would. Personally I read that article and it sent a shudder down my spine and made me nauseas to think of some of the crap I have eaten. Here read about your 'food?' for a change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... If you think that shit is healthier than chicken, you are an idiot.

A better (and free download) link for the article which is not behind the pay wall is here.

Re:Ironically

[silentcoder]

You're ignoring that a great many of those past processes DID in fact significantly shorter human lifespans- it's just that there were so many OTHER things shortening it that we rarely lived long enough to find that out.

Re: Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, proteins are literally clumps of amino ACIDS.

Re:Ironically

[parkinglot777]

The Springer article was paywalled but didn't seem to mention anything about health (or taste).

Here is the link to the free article. As you said, the study doesn't seem to indicate negative effects of soy.

Overall, although the SPI and acid- and alcohol-washed SPC produced from EE meals had lower protein contents than their counterparts from white flakes, certain functional proper-ties, such as emulsification capacity and dispersibility of acid-washed SPC, and emulsification capacity of SPI made from EE meals, were similar to, or higher than, those from white flakes. This indicates that certain soy protein products with good functional properties can be made from protein meals processed by extruding-expelling.

This research was financially supported by Iowa Soybean Promotion Board.

Re:Ironically

[msauve]

Substantiate your claim. The health benefit from not dying due to lack of food during the winter far outweighs getting hard arteries from eating cured meat over a lifetime.

Re:Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

In general "processed==bad" and "natural==good" isn't a bad rule-of-thumb to use for healthy eating.

Actually it is a terrible rule of thumb. Cooked meat is healthier than raw by sufficient margin to override the utility of that claim all on it's own.

Re:Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

You are assuming all soy protein is created equal and that the results from that study apply equally to all of them regardless of their processing methods or final structure. Further you assume the studies are correct, which given the problems biological sciences have shown in replicating their study results is questionable.

Re: Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

EVERYTHING is either acid or basic no matter what other names it may have. Your Shampoo, your protein your computer....

Re: Ironically

[Strider-]

People are idiots and thing "processed" foods are bad, even though the exact opposite is true. Cooking food is "processing" it. Also, water is a chemical.

It's more of an issue due to the imprecise nature of the English language. Of course almost all food is processed to some degree, be it mechanically or thermally. What most people are referring to when they say "processed foods" are those that have had their fat, sugar, and salt content played with to the degree that they achieve the "bliss point." It's that high concentration of salt and sugars that is most bad for us.

Re: Ironically

[tbannist]

Look up food babe. You'd love her. She shamelessly self-promotes by looking for ingredients that sound a bit science-y and then scaremongering them.

Oh, I love her. That's how I found out that microwaves turn food evil, just like saying the words "Hitler" or "Satan" near your food does...

Re:Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

There is hexane and acetone contamination in many soy food products (not required to list as an ingredient, no FDA upper limit imposed). Probably not enough to kill you, but still, a little unappetizing. Much like those rat droppings in hot dogs, or how they pick which ice cream becomes chocolate.

Re: Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

technically correct nerd is technically wrong. acidic and acid are not the same thing. as in there are acidic, Neutral, and Basic amino acids. when people say Acid, they mean a liquid that dissolves shit. Not a piece of meat. you'd need to not be an annoying useless social reject to understand this. or be a social reject who is actually smart. you got the shaft on both of those. loser.

Re: Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeaah no. Showing off 9th grade chemistry and some shit you've read online I see. No, large things like a computer or protein is not an Acid nor a Base. Acids and Bases are molecules and elements. Large things have many acidic, basic, and neutral parts. You're like a kid at the racetrack telling the driver he should fill up 95 because it's "better performance." Stupid and annoying like a kid too - nothing useful or interesting to say, but want everyone to pay attention to him so he does and says retarded shit. Go away. Adults are talking.

Re: Ironically

[Aighearach]

Not all processes are evil, only the ones that chemically alter the food or that fail to return all the parts to the meal.

For example: whole wheat flour is processed in a way that retains the full edible portion of the grain, so it is processed in a healthy way. White flour has important nutrient content removed, and if it is intended as a staple food then it is evil. In small amounts, it is safe for most people. In large amounts, eating processed mono-carbs increases the risk for a variety of diseases.

If you don't understand that the human body is evolved to ingest certain specific chemicals in the amounts and forms present in our natural food sources, then there is probably no way to convince you. "Evidence" or appeals to authority should not preclude logical analysis, though all too frequently they do.

Vegetable oils change form after they've been heated too long, such as in a commercial fryer. It is not healthy to eat food cooked that way. However, the same food can be cooked at home in fresh oil and be totally safe. Chemistry matters, process matters.

Re: Ironically

[Aighearach]

The vast, vast majority of the market, such as the tofu blocks and soy "milk" and just about everything else are NOT produced via traditional methods and are fucking terrible for you.

As somebody that eats tofu, I can tell you that on the west coast you'd have a hard time finding a tofu for sale in the store that is not made with traditional methods.

It is made like yogurt, it is easy to do with low overhead and limited labor costs. Most of the overhead is the temperature-controlled warehouse space for aging.

There is basically no innovation in this product, and no latent demand for it.

The non-traditional processing that is of concern in some products is the separation of the protein. That isn't done in tofu. That is done in imitation meat products. Basically, the cheap products use "textured vegetable protean" as a texture ingredient, which is soy protean separated in a chemical process that is consistent and predictable, but leaves some residue. So the super-store type grocery store will mostly have imitation meat products that have some controversial residues. But the brands in a health food store generally are not made with TVP, instead they grind the roasted beans to the ideal texture and combine them with fresh ingredients. These brands can also be found in the "hippie/yuppie/liberaal" section of some supermarkets.

Re:Ironically

[silentcoder]

Absolutely it does - and I said nothing to contradict that.
But since starving in winter is no longer a significant threat - that math is no longer valid.

Re:Ironically

[msauve]

...and, you've said nothing to support your claim, either. Nowadays we have even more methods of processing - freeze drying, refrigeration, canning, etc. So it's much more common to pull a steak out of the freezer than to pull some salt-pork from the root cellar. You've provided nothing to support your claim that "natural" is somehow better.

Re: Ironically

[Brockmire]

Don't be dense. Most people don't consider applying heat as the last step before eating as processing. They call that cooking. Processed meat would be more along the lines of spam or bologna. What part of the animal are those cut from?

Re:Ironically

[silentcoder]

Evolution has been around for 4 billion years, even the most rudimentary processing for just a few thousand - that alone makes natural better in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Re:Ironically

[msauve]

That's just an argument for artificial mechanisms. Here's your "evidence to the contrary": human manipulation of genes (e.g. crop selection, animal domestication and husbandry) has advanced evolution faster and with more productive consequence than nature alone ever did.

Re:Ironically

[silentcoder]

That's an argument in favour of GMOs - which I already support, not evidence in contradiction of anything I said - and even then it's not even true - it has created specific variations humans wanted, that is not nor is in anyway even vaguely similar to any definition of "advanced".

Re:Ironically

[beastofburdon]

I see you are one of the fools that still thinks that fat is bad for you. Here's a reality check for you, that shit was debunked decades ago. That good ol' 7 countries study started as 27 countries until the majority of the data directly contradicted the narrative it was intended create. Then they dropped all the data that didn't fit the predetermined outcome of the study. Funny how that shit works isn't it.

Re: Ironically

[beastofburdon]

Well, he is right on all accounts, about the soy and you being a fucking moron. Do some damn research before you make claims that something is good for you next time.

Also, if the research was done by the company who sells the item in question it is not trustworthy.
If the research is funded by the company that sells the item, it is not trustworthy.

Re: Ironically

[beastofburdon]

Bullshit, you just don't know what you are buying.

Irrelevant Studies

[Anonymous Coward]

The studies are completely irrelevant to the claim.

Re:Irrelevant Studies

[viperidaenz]

If the studies are correct, you can't sue a news reporter for reporting factually correct news.

Re:Irrelevant Studies

[fluffernutter]

How so? CBC is being sued for telling the truth?

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[chentiangemalc]

No Subway is arguing defamation, because they argue their Chicken is not soy. Chickens are frequently fed soybean meal so maybe they drew the wrong conclusions from DNA tests...

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you eat beef does that mean your cells contain bovine DNA? I'm not a biologist, but that sounds laughable.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[fluffernutter]

I guess it comes down to whether the labs understood this and CBC misinterpreted, or if the labs did not understand this. If the labs did not understand this than the lawsuit should be against the labs. I'm not sure if it sounds right to me that a chicken could become half the food it is eating, so there is definitely something wrong there.

Re:Irrelevant Studies

[Anonymous Coward]

You can sue anyone for anything at any time. Whether it has merit is a whole other story. This is just subway trying to save face by accusation.

Re:Irrelevant Studies

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you can. You're just not likely to win.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only defamation if it's a lie. If the studies are accurate, then they are completely relevant to the lawsuit.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we sue faggots for being faggots?

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[vux984]

Chickens are frequently fed soybean meal so maybe they drew the wrong conclusions from DNA tests...

Yet the chicken meat at Wendy's, McDonalds, A&W... etc were all 85%+ chicken DNA. Only the chicken meat from subway was 50% chicken DNA.

The lab also was so surprised by the Subway results, that they did the test over again with completely new samples BEFORE publishing... and got the same results.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Anonymous Coward]

If Soy was used as filler, then it will show soy. If the Chicken was fed Soy, then there will be trace amounts of it.

The entire problem is that what was being passed off as Chicken appears to be adulterated before being supplied to Subway. Two separate tests could possibly have come from the same supplier, but one thing that CBC Marketplace is horrible at doing? Anything outside of Ontario. Like I'm sure if they tested chicken in BC or New Brunswick, they'd have different results.

Here's a random info bit for you. If you buy canned soda in BC, the lids of the cans are a silver-colored aluminum. If you buy them in Quebec, they are a brass-colored. Now why would they do that? That's because they are different bottlers. One year Safeway had a sale on these Soda's with the wrong colored cans (in BC the brass colored cans are typically used for beer) and I noted that the bottler was different and came from Quebec instead of locally. Now going back to the Subway chicken story... do you think all the chicken used by Subway in North America comes from one farm? No. It's likely local farms. Chipotle here in Vancouver uses "conventionally raised chicken" and has been doing so for at least 2 years, because there's no supplier for organic chicken that they'd prefer to use. Likewise A&W makes a big deal about "no hormones" in their food.

So my guess is that whatever distributor Subway uses, got some adulterated chicken in their Ontario supply chain, and it wound up in most of the resturants in Ontario, or maybe the supplier itself chose to cheapen the chicken in Ontario.

Which comes to another note, Burger King here in Vancouver routinely has 1.99 for 10 chicken nuggets. This is well below the cost of going to KFC or McDonalds. However if you actually examine these nuggets, they are thinner (by almost half) of McDonalds nuggets.

Again, it's a supplier thing. So was CBC Marketplace wrong? Probably not. Did they misinterpret the results? Maybe. We will never really know unless another independent test is done in the same region, as well as one done in BC and in the US (which rarely has the same supply chain.)

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Anonymous Coward]

That is true in the US where the truth is always a defense against defamation, but it wasn't always case (John Peter Zenger - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peter_Zenger). To understand laws on defamation for the US and Canada you have to look at English common law, it in itself did not provide for the truth as a defense.

In America the truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander charges. It's actually not as common as you think worldwide. Sweden for example allows charges for defamation regardless of the veracity of the statement.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Anonymous Coward]

you can't blame the labs for doing what they are supposed to do. CBC fucked up by actually not using labs that specialise in food science which means they had results that probably quite correct but misinterpreted incorrectly. You don't do a DNA test to determine percentage of chicken.

Re:Irrelevant Studies

[ShanghaiBill]

If the studies are correct, you can't sue a news reporter for reporting factually correct news.

In America, truth is an absolute defense against libel. In the UK it is not, and you can be found guilty if someone's feelings were hurt. I don't know about Canada.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes we can. Consider yourself on notice.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[fluffernutter]

Except CBC didn't say the chicken was 50% soy. They said there was 50% soy DNA, compared to other restaurants they tested which had almost 100% chicken DNA. Still a valid point and rather disturbing that Burger King has better quality chicken than Subway.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Imrik]

Maybe the other fast food places use chicken meat from cannibal chickens.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Imrik]

More likely the soy is from the teriyaki sauce or similar that subway puts on their chicken. The DNA from the soy is far more intact and so makes up a much larger percent of the identifiable DNA than its portion of the source material.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Anonymous Coward]

Chicken with 200% chicken DNA!

Re:Irrelevant Studies

[TRRosen]

In America, truth is an absolute defense against libel.

It absolutely is not. There are no absolutes in law. And the truth is only what the courts rule it is.

It doesn't really matter because the testing done can in no way back up the claims made. DNA is damaged by heat so varied amounts of cooking will yield varied amounts of residual DNA. If subway cooks their chicken longer or hotter or any soy products are treated differently it will change the DNA profile. This in no way established the amount of chicken present.

Re:Irrelevant Studies

[sexconker]

Perhaps against the specific charge of libel, but you can still be sued and forced to pay up for telling the truth. Though no one can legally stop you from speaking, they can get after you for damages for any direct harm you cause. If you go around telling children that their dads are really some guy in prison and not the cuck that tucks them in at night, or you spend your days outing Apple users as straight, they can sue you for the distress you've caused even though it's all true.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[OrangeTide]

The entire problem is that what was being passed off as Chicken appears to be adulterated before being supplied to Subway.

Some adulterates aren't so bad. I wouldn't like chicken if there was zero salt added.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[SeaFox]

Chickens are frequently fed soybean meal so maybe they drew the wrong conclusions from DNA tests...

Yeah, I don't think that's how the digestive system works.
You're taking that saying "you are what you eat" a little too literally.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Anonymous Coward]

As individuals we are weak like twigs, but together we are strong, like a mighty faggot!

https://youtu.be/Zp8_FzJO458

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Anonymous Coward]

And lower the amount of chicken they have to sell? yeah right.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Aighearach]

Right, it sounds laughable because you used your biases to fill in assumed facts, instead of collecting actual facts.

The accusation is that the tests done in no way would have determined the amount of chicken or soy. This wasn't a legit type of DNA test.

The fact is that the results of the test do not match what was reported, at all, and what was reported is the same nonsense that people like you then repeat. And the low-information, semi-literate nature of the situation makes it impossible for Subway to fully mitigate the damage, which is why the liars who misrepresented the study are being asked to foot the bill for their lies.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Aighearach]

misinterpreted incorrectly

Oh good, they accidentally got it right!

Or did they?!?

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Mashiki]

The supply chain here in Ontario is a pretty lean business. There's really only a few companies that process raw chicken into a "shipped" component. The rest are business that process whole chicken then ship to companies for processing into whatever component they want. I.e. you see a chain like this: Farmer -> processor(whole bird) who defeathers/removes internal organs/head/feet/etc -> Whole bird shipped to secondary processor who sort whole bird orders and part-only orders -> supply chain -> pre-consumer processor for fast food/already cooked/restaurant use(companies like Sysco, RED, Flanagan, etc) -> store front.

Should be noted that flanagan, Sysco and so on also do processing for fast food companies, hospitals, prisons, cafeterias and so on. So that beef burger you're buying at say burger king, or McD's? Those local "pita pit" you find in SW-Ontario? Also through Sysco, they get direct delivery. Unlike BK/McD's who would ship from a central warehouse unless they're too far out, in which case it would also be a direct delivery from that part of the chain. Likely came through the same company at least at one point. Supply chain lines are very clean here, where the test was done. There's the possibility of a supply chain screw-up because some customers like hospitals order 50/50 mixes and so on.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Anonymous Coward]

It's reverse homoeopathy. After a generations the chickens are 100% soy.

Re:Irrelevant Studies

[sudon't]

You can sue anyone for anything at any time. Whether it has merit is a whole other story. This is just subway trying to save face by accusation.

They're trying to save face? I thought they were going for the Streisand Effect. Not that I even eat at Subway, except in the most dire emergencies, but I'd never heard this story before.

Re:Irrelevant Studies

[tehcyder]

If the studies are correct, you can't sue a news reporter for reporting factually correct news.

In America, truth is an absolute defense against libel. In the UK it is not, and you can be found guilty if someone's feelings were hurt. I don't know about Canada.

This is nonsense.

The problem with UK libel law is that truth is a defence, but the burden of proof is on the defendant.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[tehcyder]

rather disturbing that Burger King has better quality chicken than Subway.

Why? They're both fast food outlets, it's not like Subway is some sort of Michelin Starred restaurant and Burger King is a dodgy bloke selling kebabs in a layby off the M6.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[silentcoder]

Also - defamation is not the same law as libel and slander - though the latter two are often the means by which the former happens.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[bluefoxlucid]

That would make sense. I'm having a hard time understanding how solid, non-ground chunks of chicken can be anything but chicken.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't misinterpret properly.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Anonymous Coward]

More likely the soy is from the teriyaki sauce or similar that subway puts on their chicken. The DNA from the soy is far more intact and so makes up a much larger percent of the identifiable DNA than its portion of the source material.

Exactly the same thing I first thought of when looking at the article. Have you ever seen Subway's chicken? It's got a slight orange coloration to it from marination before it's frozen. It's done for flavor because it's just heated up and placed in a sandwich. Compare this to places like Burger King or Wendy's. They don't want to marinate with soy sauce because they're going to fry the chicken in oil with breading. So of course the composition of the chicken is different. If the CBC was comparing marinated chicken to non-marinated chicken and drawing damaging conclusions in a public article from that, Subway has every right to bring a lawsuit.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Anonymous Coward]

Chickens *are* cannibalistic, actually.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I already know that that is from The Simpsons, I have no need to click the potential trap.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[tbannist]

What's weird is if this isn't a legitimate way to test the Chicken, why did they get the expected results from the other 4 restaurant chains that were tested? They used two independent labs to verify the results, and both times the results indicated significantly less chicken in the subway "meat". According to this article about the testing they tested 3 samples taken from 2 sample sandwiches of each of the products tested (3 from other companies and 2 subway sandwiches). The subway meat was such a large outlier that they initially thought there was a problem with the testing so they tested 5 additional samples of each of the subway products but got the same results.

In any case, the testing certainly seems to show that there is something significantly different about the chicken procured from Subway that was tested by the labs.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Aighearach]

It isn't a food lab.

It is a non-food lab, at a school. Food labs say it is chicken. It definitely has additives. But they are a small amount. There is some soy in it. The ingredients have been published. But the test that was done won't tell you how much soy there was. And I'm sure the graduate students in charge of the lab are well trained, however, they are not trained in food testing.

And none of the normal work of a forensic wildlife lab would involve finding out the relative amounts of different ingredients; instead they're experts in identifying the species represented in the sample.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[fluffernutter]

Subway promotes themselves as the fresher choice, I would expect their food to be higher quality.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because the subway one is the only one marinated in a soy based product. What would be interesting is if they tried a simple marinade of the other samples would they get the same fucked up results.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[gravewax]

DNA percentage is not a way to determine quality or percentage of chicken. remember the subway one is a marinated chicken and that marinate is soy based so you would expect more soy than something that hasn't been marinated in a soy product. This doesn't say anything about which is the better quality product.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[c10]

Jared, how could you let this happen?

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[fluffernutter]

But what matters is whether CBC lied or not.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[lsatenstein]

What's weird is if this isn't a legitimate way to test the Chicken, why did they get the expected results from the other 4 restaurant chains that were tested? They used two independent labs to verify the results, and both times the results indicated significantly less chicken in the subway "meat". According to this article about the testing they tested 3 samples taken from 2 sample sandwiches of each of the products tested (3 from other companies and 2 subway sandwiches). The subway meat was such a large outlier that they initially thought there was a problem with the testing so they tested 5 additional samples of each of the subway products but got the same results.

In any case, the testing certainly seems to show that there is something significantly different about the chicken procured from Subway that was tested by the labs.

No organization wants to defame another, or get sued for wrongful information. You can rest assured that they found that the chicken they had was factually 50%+ of soy. Was it Subway, or their contracted meat supplier who may have adulterated the ground chicken so that it would pass through a slicer without disintegrating.

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[cwsumner]

The tests didn't just show DNA from the cells, they showed DNA from any material in the tissue, or mixed with the tissue. And they did not show how much was from the cells. It could have come from the catsup in the sandwitch! 8-P

Re: Irrelevant Studies

[gravewax]

lied/mislead or implied. Any of those will see them up shit creek, seems given the statements from the first story unless the food labs are all wrong and these wildlife labs do better food analysis then they are well and truly up shit creek.

CBS caught with messy fingers again

[Anonymous Coward]

Tampering with samples will get you sued lib fake-newsers.

it's not 1/2 chicken, it is 52%

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not 1/2 chicken, it is 52%

Dubious

[Anonymous Coward]

I get how the statements about their chicken being 50% soy are defamatory, but they have to be shown to be false as well. Subway could surely produce chicken that's 100% chicken, but I wonder how they'll make the claim that the CBC's two independent lab evaluations are false?
Simple enough defense for the CBC here. The truth actually works as a defense in Canada. This sounds like a SLAPP to me.

Re:Dubious

[harperska]

If it's true, it's not defamatory, by definition.

Re:Dubious

[Anonymous Coward]

They were shown to be false. This all played out a few months ago - there was even coverage here. The testing methodology was shown to be basically bunk and other testers found something like 98% chicken. So yes, false claims.

Re:Dubious

[Aighearach]

Right, did you know that the labs selected weren't even food science labs? And that the reporters then interpreted the results on their own?

There is absolutely no reason to believe them. Subway had tests run at actual food science labs, and their chicken was found to be real chicken.

It "sounds" like SLAPP to you because you're listening with your biases instead of your ears.

Re:Dubious

[meerling]

Then there's also the possibility that Subway got duped on the chicken and are just a victim of an unscrupulous supplier.
It's happened to other chain foods before.
I'll never forget back in the 80s when a beef supplier was actually selling multiple burger chains beef that was actually kangaroo. We drove the people at the burger joints nuts by going in and ordering Roo-Burgers. You really found out which of them had a sense of humor. ;)

Re:Dubious

[meerling]

Letting reporters interpret any scientific results is an endeavor bound to cause numerous issues and fallacies.
(In my opinion, most of them couldn't even pass a journalism class anymore, much less a high school science class.)

Re: Dubious

[Anonymous Coward]

Says the guy who was never acquitted of those child rape and murders.

What, what's your objection? Are you saying you did get convicted on those charges at some point? Because I said nothing untrue.

Re: Dubious

[harperska]

I know you are trying to be clever, but the defamation lies not with the true statement (if I had committed those crimes, it would not be defamation because any negative public perception of me would be my fault for committing the crimes, not yours for reporting on it), but rather with the implied false statement (that I did in fact commit and get charged with those crimes in the first place).

Your working assumption makes an ass out of you...

[fractalrock]

Op, a bit of research (always helpful) would reveal that Subway has an excellent case against the CBC. https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/food-scientists-weigh-in-on-50-subway-chicken-test-its-100-weird/

Fuck Subway

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Subway. They ruined their own reputation by lying to their customers. They're just mad that they got caught.

I really don't care if they want to pad their meats with soy or whatever else, just mention it clearly upfront. Use the ingredients they say they are using, in the amounts they say they are using. Nothing more. Nothing less. That's all they need to do if they want to restore their reputation... well that and stop hiring pedophiles as spokesmen.

CAPTCHA: reinvent

Re:Fuck Subway

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, they rape children.

Wrong title

[ark1]

CBC claims there is around 50% of real chicken not that it is 50% soy. Remaining 50% are various fillers including soy.

Re:Wrong title

[Daemonik]

It doesn't matter. Regardless of what so called filler used, you can tell from the different texture when it's that high a proportion. The CBC "study" is worth less than toilet paper.

For one, they had the test done at a wildlife center, not a food laboratory. Second, plant and animal cells are different sizes and contain different amounts of DNA, CBC won't release their methodology for determining percentages from their samples.

Somebody's about to get a legal footlong over a judge's desk.

Re:Wrong title

[Anonymous Coward]

t doesn't matter. Regardless of what so called filler used, you can tell from the different texture when it's that high a proportion.

Have you ever had a Subway chicken sub? You can tell from the texture it is not 100% chicken. The diced bits in their teriyaki chicken seems more real than the perfectly rectangular "roast chicken" fillets, but for the latter I would be surprised if it was more than 50% chicken meat.

Re:Wrong title

[fluffernutter]

If you read the CBC articles, they are very careful to say that there is 50% soy DNA, so they are not misrepresenting the study. The point is to draw a comparison against other restaurants which were close to to 100% chicken DNA. They are making a relative comparison to other restaurants, not saying the 'chicken' is 50% soy.

Re:Wrong title

[Daemonik]

That 'soy DNA' could easily have come from the umami taste additive they use and the sample just had a particularly large amount in it. They didn't specify their sample sizes, could have just been a swab of the exterior of the meat.

They can make all the comparisons they want, if they refuse to publish their methodology then they know they done screwed up.

Fact is they wrote a poorly researched click-bait article and they're gonna have to pay.

Consider McDonalds

[Anonymous Coward]

McDonalds "meat" patties are 50% shit contributed from the night-shift crew! Soy is much better than shit.

Jajajajajajajajajajajaj

The court will decide if it's true

[raymorris]

It seems Subway is making two assertions:
A) The chicken does not contain any significant amount of soy.
B) The people who did the testing itself and the analysis of the tests were incompetent.

I haven't tested the chicken, and I don't know anything about the people who did the testing, so I don't know if either claim is true. If the TV station had two third-graders do the testing and analysis, they'll probably lose the law suit. If they were qualified, independent labs, and the TV station accurately represented the labs' conclusions, they'll win. We'll see what comes out at trial.

Re:The court will decide if it's true

[Anonymous Coward]

The fundamental problem is they were using DNA testing to determine percentage, which I don't understand how you would do. There are several different DNA tests, and depending on which one you use it could be almost totally useless for this purpose.

Re:The court will decide if it's true

[gravewax]

It is not so much that the ones doing the test were incompetent, they are probably quite competent at what they do, i.e. DNA testing, but this is not a method you should use to measure what percentage of soy is in the chicken. So the issue was CBC took got the wrong tests done.

Re:The court will decide if it's true

[Anonymous Coward]

Point of interest. 100% Soy "chicken" tastes like rubbery chicken due to the same spices being used. However eating it is like chewing on a piece of rubber. I've had Soy chicken nuggets twice before. The texture is much too different. However if you were maybe using it to adulterate those "chicken bricks" that subway has, then yes I could see 52% chicken being possible.

It's like the candy companies trying to remove cocoa butter from chocolate and still call it chocolate.

Re:The court will decide if it's true

[sexconker]

Have you ever eaten a subway chicken sandwich? No, not the chicken "breast" sandwich (that has an appreciable chunk of (purported) chicken that you'd able to judge the texture of), but something like the "Sweet Onion Chicken Teriyaki"? The chicken in it is tiny little strips that gets dreeeeeeenched in the sauce. By the time I get to unwrapping it, all texture is gone.

Re:The court will decide if it's true

[stephanruby]

B) The people who did the testing itself and the analysis of the tests were incompetent.

That's not exactly what they claim.

They claim that the people who did the testing itself and the analysis of the tests are competent, but that they're competent in a different type of DNA testing entirely.

There's a huge anti-soy movement

[Anonymous Coward]

I've run into a few anti-GMO, anti-FDA, natural only, anti-processed food persons that strongly believe that all soy products should be avoided because they contain estrogen like compounds. Most of these same people also have no idea what hormones do, just that it's science so they must be bad.

The fact that many of them are on the "Paleo" diet which is super heavy in meat, and that a great many meat animals are raised on some percentage of soybeans is amusing. The Iowa State University study that shows beef cattle that have a higher soybean diet have increased polyunsaturated fats and might be more "healthy" than non-soybean cattle is even more amusing.

Re:There's a huge anti-soy movement

[omnichad]

Phytoestrogens are a scientific fact. Just how much of an impact they have on the average diet is still up for debate:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

A lot of people on the "paleo" diet specifically seek out grass-fed beef, but it's awfully expensive in general.

Subway Math

[Captain Ramage]

So, a Subway footlong is 10 inches. The chicken in the chicken teriyaki is 50% chicken. A footlong costs $5. Assuming the chicken accounts for 40% of the cost of the footlong, and that I've had 15 chicken teriyaki footlongs in a year, how much of a refund does Subway owe me?

Re:Subway Math

[Anonymous Coward]

$75?

Re:Subway Math

[Imrik]

The chicken in the chicken teriyaki is close to 100% chicken. The teriyaki sauce on the chicken contains about as much identifiable soy DNA as the chicken contains identifiable chicken DNA.

Re:Subway Math

[meerling]

Isn't the usual results of a class action suit something along the lines of:

Lawyer - $18,000,000
Plaintiff - Coupon for $3 off a 5 foot party sub, only good on tuesdays before 3pm.

Matbe they should sue

[Anonymous Coward]

their SUPPLIERS!!!!

CBC is full of it.

[bongey]

Subway will win the lawsuit. https://arstechnica.com/scienc...

Re:CBC is full of it.

[Darinbob]

Agreed. But so many people just read the headline and believe it. A few more go to the article, which has been highly edited and compressed to catch eyeballs and earn ad revenue, and believe that. Only a very few people take to time to actually get the real original report, much less wonder how accurate the report really is.

Re:CBC is full of it.

[DarthVain]

Perhaps.

It is worth noting that unless they used wholly inconsistent methodology, even if it wasn't the best method for testing, how did Subway's results (which were repeated with the same results) so different than all the other fast food results? The headline might not have been as "correct" or as "nuanced" as it could have been, however when was the last time you saw ANY science related journalistic reporting that actually was, that didn't try to make a more sensationalist title than perhaps it deserves? Heck I'd say almost all of them, even on Slashdot (which is supposed to be technology focused).

It is very likely the CBC will pass the buck as a defense saying that they were only reporting the results as given to them, that they are not the experts, and if mistakes were made it was that of the lab that did the analysis.

At which point it becomes a back and forth as to if the lab should have done the analysis in the first place, the specifics of what was reported by the lab VS what was reported by the CBC, etc... So no not an open and close case I don't think.

As to the idea that the CBC somehow had a grudge or bias against Subway is laughable.

As someone who lives in Canada, I've noticed that Subway has posted a lot of posters and material at their stores refuting the CBC claim, so they obviously take it very seriously. As to damages and how much effect this might have on Subway's bottom line, I don't think anyone that is going for re-processed chicken at fast food restaurants are all that particular about what they eat in the first place. There will be some impact to be sure, but I would bet it isn't all that much. However Subway has a lot to gain by taking them to court, one for the PR, and two they can likely settle the case where CBC will retract/correct/clarify their statements in a positive way for Subway. Indeed it will probably prompt CBC to do the whole thing over again (lab/story), and should it work out for Subway a lot of positive news for them.

That said, I take the results from the independent labs in the story with a healthy grain of salt. As perhaps they are positioned better to make better analysis than the CBC methods, one of the whole points of the story was having the CBC randomly select product. From the sounds of the story (didn't say specifically) it looks like Subway sent samples to the lab, which very well may have been cherry picked or altered. The analogy I would use is from the crooked video card industry sending samples for review that might not be the same as what you might buy in a box in a store...

Re:CBC is full of it.

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple of things with that report.

1) The test from Subway is for a certain soy flour protein. The soy DNA test, if less accurate on proportions, is more broad an scope and would detect other soy proteins. It is possible that Subway uses a process which separates out the tested protein, or uses a different soy protein in their meat.

2) A personal anecdote, so not worth much, but anyway: they describe what a 50% soy-chicken would feel and taste like. I've definitely had some strange chicken from Subway that was like that here in Canada, very spongy and with less chicken taste than usual.

Perhaps there is a quality control issue somewhere in the chicken prep at Subway and CBC happened to catch an aberrant batch? More sinisterly, there is a huge financial incentive if you can get away with cutting down actual animal protein in a large chain like Subway.

Re:CBC is full of it.

[citylivin]

So subway contracted someone to do tests and *gasp* they published the ones in their favour? and because its on ars technia that somehow makes it reliable?

Hmmm who do i trust more, the impartial Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is partly funded by taxpayers and almost always does an amazing job, or an american multinational corporation whoes goal is profit.

CBC has more integrity than almost any other news organization, and certainly much more than any for profit company. If they were wrong, I am sure they will own up to it. But i bet they aren't wrong. They just started a fight with one of the biggest multinationals there is, who can throw literally millions at defending themselves of this. Giving people millions of dollars changes most peoples minds about most things. Including very much, scientists and labs.

Re:CBC is full of it.

[Tim Locke]

Even if Subway wins this lawsuit, they'll lose the war.

Re:CBC is full of it.

[bongey]

ars technica quote multiple food scientists at various universities , it wasn't a random ars technica writer. The problem with the way the CBC lab tests is that it used a DNA test to say what percent that chicken/soy etc. Problem is no one uses a DNA tests to calculate percent of content, they only use it to detect that the meat kind of meat. Example usage is detecting what kind of fish that is actually being served in a restaurant. Accurate test methods have a way of separating the meat into its different parts, ie dye methods or mechanical separating (example centrifuge) or spectrum analysis. DNA testing basically has too small of sampling to be accurate, ie you cannot do a large scale dna test of entire piece of meat, only very tiny portion that easily can be contaminated. Example they could sample a 100 different samples of individual piece of meat, but the problem is most likely even if half of those samples contained 1% soy, the test would come out with 50% soy content. Which isn't correct.

Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[caseih]

I read a while back that the tests the CBC had performed have been discredited. In other words, CBC's method of determining the percentage of chicken is not the usual way one goes about it. It's not that the test results are wrong, but rather the test is not the right test. At least that's what I read. Could be wrong, though.

Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[aXis100]

When I read the original article, I immediately thought it was odd that they assumed there was a 1:1 relationship between DNA and volume.

Testing for the percentage of proteins might have been better.

Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[fluffernutter]

From a more recent CBC article:

While many media outlets took the results to mean that the chicken is only half chicken, the reality of DNA testing is slightly more nuanced.

DNA tests don't reveal an exact percentage of the amount of chicken in the whole piece, but DNA experts have told Marketplace that the testing is a good indicator of the proportion of animal and plant DNA in the product.

Trent University's Wildlife Forensic DNA Laboratory stands by its test results.

Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[Anonymous Coward]

CBC's method of determining the percentage of chicken is not the usual way one goes about it.

So they used the honest way, not the industry standard way? The "usual way" is defined by the food processing industry, so of course it is biased to their advantage.

I remember 10 - 15 years ago, there was some study done in the UK into McDonalds' 100% Beef claim for their burger patties. The study found significant quanitities of other filler ingredients, and McDonalds' defence was that they used the industry standard definition - 100% of the meat content in their patties came from beef, therefore the 100% beef claim was not false.

Captcha: frauds

Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[gravewax]

I think Trent University's Wildlife Forensic DNA Lab is about to look like a bunch of a incompetent dicks then.

Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[fluffernutter]

Reading the article, CBC doesn't say the chicken is 50% soy at all. They merely draw a comparison across a lot of restaurants and point out that Subway has drastically more soy than anyone else. I think that it is still a very valid statement, if Burger King is lying to you less about the contents of their food than Subway is, unless you think the results of the study wouldn't be consistent from restaurant to restaurant.

"While most of the samples were found to contain close to 100 per cent chicken DNA, Subway sandwiches contained substantially less than the other chains. Tests showed an average of 53.6 per cent chicken DNA for the oven-roasted chicken and 42.8 per cent for the chicken strips."

Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[Imrik]

Yes, Subway has drastically more soy than anyone else, in their teriyaki chicken.

Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[Darinbob]

If your chicken patty really is 50% soy, you could tell just by looking, and if you didn't look you would know at the first bite because it wouldn't taste or feel like chicken. If someone really is trying to make fake meat that tastes and looks like meat then they wouldn't use soy to do it. Fake meat that actually fools people will be much more expensive than chicken anyway.

Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[Aighearach]

The tuna salad also has pickles and mayo, but for some reason it didn't make a headline.

Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[Anonymous Coward]

because it is a fucking marinated piece of chicken, of course it has drastically more than anyone elses roasted chicken. it is still miniscule. What this shows is the lab didn't understand how to measure properly as from all indications when the chicken was tested by actual food labs it came out as less than 1% soy

Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[Anonymous Coward]

The original article does say its's soy. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/marketplace-chicken-fast-food-1.3993967

"Those results were averaged: the oven roasted chicken scored 53.6 per cent chicken DNA, and the chicken strips were found to have just 42.8 per cent chicken DNA. The majority of the remaining DNA? Soy."

In the follow up article you linked they still are making some pretty misleading statements http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/subway-defends-its-chicken-after-cbc-marketplace-report-1.4005268

"Subway's oven-roasted chicken sandwich patty contains about 50 per cent chicken DNA, according to lab tests. (CBC)"

Then later if you keep reading it much later states

"DNA tests don't reveal an exact percentage of the amount of chicken in the whole piece, but DNA experts have told Marketplace that the testing is a good indicator of the proportion of animal and plant DNA in the product."

So... 50% of the DNA this wildlife lab was able to detect was Chicken, however everyone agrees that this percentage has almost nothing to do with the actual percentage of chicken in the sample.

Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[bluefoxlucid]

The "But" conjunction is special. It suggests to the listener that the prior statement had no meaning, and thus that it can be safely ignored.

The structure of that statement is to say that 50% Chicken DNA doesn't mean 50% Chicken meat, but the testing is a good measure of proportion.

Take that statement without the first part: "DNA Experts have told Marketplace that the testing is a good indicator of animal and plant DNA in the product." Sounds like it's a reasonable measure, right? Another nice trick: the last statements made--end of a paragraph, end of a sentence, and so forth--carry the most weight.

Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[bluefoxlucid]

The "usual" way is to measure actual protein content, which indicates a relative measure of proportional mass of biological material.

The way they used was to measure DNA content, which indicates content of in-tact DNA. DNA content of 1kg of uncooked, well-preserved, small-cell biological material will be higher than DNA content of 1kg of cooked, large-cell biological material.

Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[fluffernutter]

Ok but are they true or false? That's the only thing that matters.

Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[bluefoxlucid]

It's not the only thing that matters. You can sell an enormous lie to people without ever stating a factual inaccuracy by changing the way they interpret the information. Manipulating people so that you can shout loudly that 2+2=4 and have them hear that as meaning that you're giving them 2 apples and 2 pears and they're getting 7 fruits is a common and powerful rhetoric.

Basically, the statement semantically reads: "the discovery of 50% Chicken DNA is meaningless in terms of how much chicken is in the food" and "DNA testing generally gives you a reliable measure of how much DNA is in the food."

The reader will generally hear: "the discovery of 50% chicken DNA doesn't mean it's EXACTLY 50% chicken" and "chicken DNA is a measurement of about how much chicken is in there".

Those are two different statements. What's said and what's heard are different; and the structure of the sentence is to ensure that most people--even highly-intelligent people like the Slashdot crowd--generally hear the second set of information.

Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[fluffernutter]

Readers need to think for themselves.

Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[bluefoxlucid]

If it were that simple, we could sell the world on socialism and eliminate money, poverty, and crime by suggesting people give up their individual greed and desires and submit to the benefit of mankind as a whole.

Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[fluffernutter]

That would require people to not be greedy, which is a much taller order than expecting them to think for themselves.

Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[bluefoxlucid]

Not really. Human thought is directed by emotions as much as anything. Your personality and your basic behavior, preferences, decisions, the lot are all ruled by how strong various memories are. Your event memories wind together an emotional preference for certain outcomes, aversion to others, and indifference to most of the shit that happens; correlating things together has an impact, too, such that making a desirable outcome occur alongside a particular behavior causes you to engage in that behavior more-frequently. Greed is only another factor: you've learned that having things (and money) reduces adverse conditions and increases desirable conditions.

Using what people have learned by interacting with other people, by the common contexts of language, and by selecting words and phrases in patterns which emphasize some facets and de-emphasize others lets you change how people think. Largely, people think for themselves on a basis of information collected over a lifetime, and have sets of facts which are thusly distorted. They start gathering these facts before they have a frame of reference to analyze them.

That's why you get stupid shit like people believing readily-debunked myths such as that minimum wage increases cause additional spending and job creation or primarily takes money from the rich. No matter the argument, these things are learned-axioms that are used to quickly determine the argument is invalid--unless you carefully manipulate their emotional response to program in new facts that don't get vomited straight back out, but that cause their existing ideals to fail hard. It makes them uncomfortable pushing back, so they just accept this new information until someone makes a better argument.

Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[gravewax]

actually indirectly they do state exactly that where they claim the remaining non chicken product is mostly Soy in the original article.

Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't the article, that is the followup, in the original they do say it is soy.

No

[ArchieBunker]

They tested several chains and they were all >90% chicken. Subway was the only anomaly.

Cheapskates

[Anonymous Coward]

Subway are cheapskate

They put the meat and cheese on one layer thin - and they count *EVERY* single thing they put in like it's gold

I know the 400 lb. dude behind the counter that is making MY sandwich is not eating only once piece of cheese or meat

So why is he serving that to me???

Re:Cheapskates

[fluffernutter]

Ohh I thought bacon was supposed to be transparent.

Re:Cheapskates

[Aighearach]

If you continue moving your eyes over an additional couple dozen words on the menu you might discover that you can pay extra for double the meat.

You also might find out if you try it that if you ask nicely they'll give you extra cheese.

Report

[sonamchauhan]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/busines...

"We were able to determine the relative amounts of chicken via plant filler in these samples through PCR amplification"

Re:Report

[bongey]

PCR isn't suppose to help when you have a large same, PCR is used when you have a small sample. Using PCR amplification would just produce the same percent of DNA in the final test.

Fool Me Once

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount of times that I have had food poisoning from Subway, I was not surprised by that CBC report.

Re:Fool Me Once

[Agripa]

The amount of times that I have had food poisoning from Subway, I was not surprised by that CBC report.

You also? The trick I have learned is to look into the bins holding the cold cuts and avoid anything where it is almost empty. Or by preference just avoid Subway entirely.

Our chicken is not half water!

[hyades1]

How dare you suggest our chicken contains so much water! It's 50 percent chicken protein, 30 percent water, 5 percent meat glue, 5 percent insect parts, and 10 percent rat droppings. And we can prove it!

See you in court, you libelous bastards!

Jared Fondlebum

Director of Marketing

Subway

Re:Our chicken is not half water!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not water, that's Jared's prison-time ejaculate.

Soy tastes like chicken?

[n329619]

Are you saying that my soy is in fact 50% chicken?

Re:Your working assumption makes an ass out of you

[Anonymous Coward]

So to disprove 50% chicken percentage in their foods, they uses test to disprove 50% soy percentage? Something very fishy going on here..

Re: Really? WHY?!

[Imrik]

Taxpayers are frequently against things that they pay for, they may even cheer for suits like this. Usually without ever considering the fact that they will have to pay for it.

Dumbest thing Subway could do

[mfh]

Subway just shot itself in the foot here. This is a Barbara Streisand move that will only further expose Subway as a bad company with bad faith practices. Their sales will totally tank because of this and I would be surprised if they haven't already been hit really hard by their own stupidity. No empathy from me. They should have owned up to it and issued an apology and discontinued this bad product.

Re:Dumbest thing Subway could do

[Anonymous Coward]

Only dumb if they lose the case.

Re:Dumbest thing Subway could do

[bluefoxlucid]

What if their product is actually real chicken marinated in a soy-based sauce?

Er, of course it is?

[argStyopa]

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/...

Cooked chicken is about 60% water.
So no, it isn't more than about 40% "chicken" by weight.

But it still very well could be what we call "chicken" - ie the agglomeration of the muscle fiber, water, fats, etc.

Re:Er, of course it is?

[drinkypoo]

But it still very well could be what we call "chicken" - ie the agglomeration of the muscle fiber, water, fats, etc.

It's more like an agglutination, since it's chicken bits which are glued together with a very tiny amount of soy protein and then sliced hyper-regularly.

Done properly, no problem...

[XSportSeeker]

I don't see why regulatory agencies shouldn't be able to test products.... IF they are doing it properly though.

Because if Subway is right on this one, and it sounds like they are, they have all the rights to sue CBC for it, and this isn't only to the benefit of Subway, but also to the benefit of the public.
https://arstechnica.com/scienc...

Basically, if the ArsTechnica article is right, CBC used a bad method to jump into a conclusion and premeditated an article about it for some reason. That reason could be pure incompetence or perhaps something worse, but it certainly damaged the fast food chain reputation for no good reason.

Rebuilding that sort of reputation can be extremely costly, and the fast food chain could lose far more than 210 million for it. Unfounded rumors usually already cost far more than that for other fast food chains, a regulatory agency going out of it's way to publish something like that can be far more damaging.

We'll see how it goes.

Re:Done properly, no problem...

[stephanruby]

Basically, if the ArsTechnica article is right, CBC used a bad method to jump into a conclusion and premeditated an article about it for some reason. That reason could be pure incompetence or perhaps something worse, but it certainly damaged the fast food chain reputation for no good reason.

Yes, but isn't the main culprit the actual laboratory, so shouldn't the laboratory be the one that is liable assuming the CBC does a full and complete retraction? After all, it's not like the CBC has any expertise in this particular field and they did rely on the claimed expertise of another organization.

For instance, let's say there is another doping scandal in the Tour de France, should the CBC avoid publishing anything about such a scandal if only one laboratory was used to test the blood samples (even if the blood samples were tested multiple times by that lab)? That is kind of setting the bar high if you ask me.

That being said, I can see the CBC being liable if it continues to stand by its original story despite possible evidence to the contrary.

 

Re:Done properly, no problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

IF this happened to YOU, you would demand stores destroy all old stock, and new get upped chicken stock shipped out.
Then more tests using the new stock...
I assume the lawyers will demand discovery of suppliers AT THE TIME, and then suponea suppliers to work out the chicken meat ratio. Obviously soy got into the end product - so the supplier will have soy invoices.
It would be lovely if they had a few whole boxes.

It is reasonable to assume CBC has a few chicken subs in deep freeze the forensic lab is probably accurate, on the Canadian samples at those dates.

This will be fought on the truth, not the new formulation. They defense lawyers will ask this question - when did the formulation change. who approved it.

Re:Done properly, no problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, CBC may be in trouble but the ars article hardly proves it. For quantitative analysis, sampling make a huge difference. The testing done with samples taken by Subway means nothing at all. All that really matters is whether the reporting was negligent or malicious on the part of CBC.

    It does seem likely that CBC was negligent. Right now it appears that many people watch CI and think they are capable of interpreting lab results. If anything good comes from this, it will be that CBC loses big and other organizations improve their analysis of test results by heeding the advice of those with capability and knowledge in the pertinent disciplines.

Soy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Future food? Manufactured beef and grown.
Yeah! I was force to taste that manufactured beef.
Confused? Let me explain. I BBQ my Beef then later that day in the evening, the BBQ beef turned grey.
It turned/looked like manufactured beef. It didn't even taste like BBQ Beef.
I'll take Salmon any day of the week.

Re:Soy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you also doing drug trials?

Trim the summary

[rebelwarlock]

What the submitter thinks is completely irrelevant. If I want comments, I'll read the comments.

Re:Trim the summary

[Aighearach]

My goodness, child, please stop reading the summary. Think of the children! Their poor eyes! Your poor eyes!

Chicken Shit Sandwiches

[Roger W Moore]

Chickens are frequently fed soybean meal so maybe they drew the wrong conclusions from DNA tests.

The only way that could happen is if they put chicken shit in their sandwiches so lets all really hope that is not how the soy DNA got there.

what about the usa?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's been widely reported that all the meats in american subways are turkey based. colouring and processed for texture to make ham, pepperoni, salami.

how come subway usa hasn't sued over that revelation?

oh, and the same consumer advocate show did a different report on subway, where they found that the whole wheat bread was just white bread with caramel colouring added.

it's good enough food

[Anonymous Coward]

I am impressed with Subway's chicken if it is only 50% chicken, and 50% soy. Meat costs more than vegetables. I'd buy subway's cheap chicken product for my cheap sandwiches.

25%

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, processed foods must contain at least 25% of the main ingredient, before it can be labelled as such. eg. Fruit juice (fruit), chocolate (cocoa), ice cream (cream). There was shock when a news show revealed biscuit dips contained none of ingredients (bacon, chicken, etc) in the name.

The local supermarket sells sausages that I calculate contain more soy than mince and the neighbouring supermarket sells sausages that looks like mince but I think it's soy again plus food colouring.

Re:25%

[ruir]

It depends on the products actually. Here and in most european countries. 15% for drinks, 40% for hamburgers and meats, from the top of my head.

Re:Your working assumption makes an ass out of you

[tlhIngan]

True, the CBC investigation did things in an odd way.

However, the results from the other chicken fell into reasonable expected values (85-95% chicken). Thus, when Subway's fell well outside the expected value, something is up.

Now, granted, using the industry standard testing methods returns the right value, but you do wonder if there's something else going on - is someone gaming the system so it tests properly, or what's happening so that everyone else measures properly

Re: Really? WHY?!

[gordguide]

Yeah and it's entirely funded by taxpayer money. So subway is essentially suing the people who they are selling allegedly half soy chicken. That'll earn them brownie points with the public.

CBC is far from "entirely funded by taxpayer money." They do receive some public funds (most recent ... $C 675 million - $US 506 million) vs. total expenditures of $C 1.62 billion - $US 1.21billion. The difference ... about a billion dollars ... is earned income.

Prepared food should always be cheked

[Anonymous Coward]

Ancient Greeks said that merchants and thieves have one God (Hermes).

Is CBC right?

[Anonymous Coward]

A while back I think I read an ars article about this. The company did their own independent private tests, and didn't get the same findings. Maybe this is actually on CBC, or did Subway skew their own results?

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/food-scientists-weigh-in-on-50-subway-chicken-test-its-100-weird/

My 2 cents...

[newbie_fantod]

Suck on science, Subway.

Re:Your working assumption makes an ass out of you

[Aighearach]

So you're claiming that even where the methodology is faulty, if it differently faulty in an individual case then the person under study must be suspicious?

I don't think you really understand the "faulty" part in "faulty."

Sure, but there's a fucking good reason for that.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were to out you to our boss who is a fundie christian that you're a faggot, he'll fire you. I did that deliberately so I could get the job we were aiming for. That is deliberate harm done to you, even though (this is hypothetical, though you may be homosexual) calling you out was the truth.

But when it comes to things that don't harm you, then truth is a valid defence. If it harms you but could not have been expected to do so (for example, I never knew that there was a coworker who was a rabid homophobe who beat the shit out of you when I blabbed), then truth is yet again a valid defence.

What we don't have in the UK is much of a "damages for hurting my feelings", we only do what you actually financially lost. Unlike the USians who have millions in damages for being mean to someone as a valid method of court system abuse.

Should they also be testing the prepared foods ?

[silentcoder]

If they do that, McDonalds will have to rebrand themselves as a vegetarian restaurant - which would not require changing the recipe at all (they'd fall short of vegan though on account of treating their employees slightly worse than the average factory farm treats animals).

Sure way to get it off the press...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you sue the media outlet, it's sure way to get the information that subway products are 50% soy off the news spotlight...

Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Regulatory agencies here in Canada [...] Should they also be testing the prepared foods served by major restaurant chains [...] ?

That's why they're called regulatory agencies.

Of course, regulated people generally don't like it -- and specially the ones who want to lie. It follows they are a necessity.

Subway changed its chiken in Brazil

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no idea what is happening in Canada, etc. For all I know, Subway chicken there is made either of premium earth chicken, or from martian three-headed grues.

However, interestingly enough, Subway recently (late 2016/early 2017) changed the chicken it uses in Brazil on some of its subs (such as the teriyaki chicken sub, my favorite), and started claiming it was now using *real chicken*. Yeah, you read it right.

So, it might well be that the soy protein fraction on that "chicken" was quite high. Which under brazilian law actually means you are forbidden from calling it chicken (no, I am not making any claims about it being either good or bad to your health). Actually, you are also forced to add a specific pictogram ("T" inside an yellow-filled triangle with tick black borders) should any portion of the soy used be transgenic, and not doing so is a crime -- which would be a big problem for Subway to do, if required.

Meh, now that it really is what it is written in the tin [in Brazil at least], it tastes even better!

Subway argued 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

Then admitted it is not, and CBC claims it is not at all. At the end of the day we all learn that corporate whores eat fast food. Shocking.

Yup it looks like (fake) Chicken to me....

[Anonymous Coward]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/food-scientists-weigh-in-on-50-subway-chicken-test-its-100-weird

So this article from Arstechnica has the two reports done for Subway.. I'm not a expert in reading this scientific reports but this report gives me jacksh*. From what I gather it says Poultry is POS = Positive ok no kidding but how much?? if the base is 10% of course it would return a Positive... Soy (Soy Flour) ppm 5.3 may seem like very little BUT ! This is ONLY Soy Flour, what about all the other types of Soy or other fillers.
https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Maxxam-Chicken-Cutlette-Report6.pdf

Another report that gives you jacksh* about how much chicken there actually is:
https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Chicken-SOY-results-2017_Redacted5.pdf

These reports done for Subway don't show how much % is Chicken or % other 'fillers'

CBC Report
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3477610/DNA-Report-Chicken.pdf

Subway's Chicken

[DrXym]

Here is the ingredients for chicken strips from their own site:

CHICKEN STRIPS Boneless skinless chicken breast with rib meat, water, contains 2% or less soy protein concentrate, modified potato starch, sodium phosphate, potassium chloride, salt, maltodextrin, yeast extract, flavors, natural flavors, dextrose, caramelized sugar, paprika, vinegar solids, paprika extract, chicken broth. Contains soy.

So 50% does sound excessive but perhaps soy concentrate & potato starch expands when the water is added to it meaning its volume is significantly more than the 2% listed above as dry ingredients.

My working assumption...

[The Mysterious Dr. X]

...is that my coworkers are 99% chimpanzee.

What a world

[circularWaffle]

...That we live in. Someone calls a company out for cutting corners, who tells people they use high quality meats and it's not even real meat. What do they have to say? "We're gonna sue you! waaahhh! It affected our sales!!!!" I mean, anybody with any real sense and dignity would realize what they're doing wrong and correct it. Of course it affected your sales! That's your fault for using fake products! Bitch ass Subway, go screw yourself. I already knew your meat was sub-par just by eating it and decided to go elsewhere a LONG time ago.

Semantics...

[Anonymous Coward]

Subway's position is defensible in that the chicken in their roasted chicken sandwich is 100% chicken DNA. The soy binder in that save piece of chicken is 100% soy DNA. The various spices in that piece of chicken are 100% of their respective species of plant.

If I make scrambled eggs with 2 cups of eggs and 1/4 cup of cream, that doesn't mean the DNA of my eggs are 11% cow and 89% chicken.

I did my own test;

[Anonymous Coward]

It found that 50% of cbc reporting is full of shit DNA.

Re:Your working assumption makes an ass out of you

[tlhIngan]

So you're claiming that even where the methodology is faulty, if it differently faulty in an individual case then the person under study must be suspicious?

I don't think you really understand the "faulty" part in "faulty."

Was it faulty methodology, or just unconventional and different? As far as I know (I watched the show) it seemed like a reasonable test that is used for other purposes as well.

And yes, suspicion must be cast. Remember dieselgate? Just because VW cars passed under the standard test meant they passed under a different test. In fact, it was the fact that the test results of the different test didn't line up that caused people to wonder what was happening. And it turns out in the end that the results were being gamed - when the car detects it was being tested, it cheated.

Want another one? Melamine in milk. Chinese farmers were watering down the milk. But if you do that, they can tell because the milk protein concentration goes down as well. So they added melamine to the milk, which resulted in the measured milk protein to be back to normal.

It's entirely possible that Subway is innocent. But it's also just as likely they're cheating. They're well known to abuse their "we're a healthier alternative" to offer pretty lousy food. Heck, for a long time, their "brown bread" (or "whole wheat") actually was white bread colored brown (by the same CBC folks, too). They analyzed the ingredients, and enriched WHITE flour was the first on the list. They found additives like caramel, molasses and others were added to color the bread brown. (Yes, they added a few whole grains in there, after the fact). The reason people found out was diabetics were wondering why after eating a "whole wheat bread" sub from Subway, their blood glucose readings spiked dangerously high - turns out their "brown" bread was basically sugared white bread.

Reminds me of the "isn't really honey" controversy

[nuckfuts]

Remember a few years ago when testing revealed that more than three quarters of what is sold as honey in the US is not actually honey?

I Doubt It

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, do you think that the CBC isn't used to lawsuits? That any major news outlet isn't regularly threatened with lawsuits, both real and imaginary? That the CBC doesn't have fleets of lawyers on retainer for exactly this type of situation?

There are lots of US commentators with a major hate on for the Mainstream Media, and this fits their biases about MSM. Except, we all know who hates on the MSM and what their agenda is. Well your agenda doesn't fit the CBC performance profile. The CBC has a good reputation and decades of experience with this type of thing.

I don't know about the specific merits of this case, let's be clear about that. However if the CBC screwed up, there will be an apology and a settlement. I'm betting what we will actually find, though, is that Subway screwed up and they will be the ones going home with their tail between their legs. Not that I have an agenda against Subway, and not even considering that whole Gerad/child sex scandal. The CBC had their own personnel issues not long ago with Jian.

What I do know is this. There has been a huge issue with product dilutions/substitutions/mislabeling, and only in the last 5 years has the technology been widely deployed to detect it. Fish of one species is routinely marketed as fish of another species. And somehow, less valuable species always wind up marketed as more valuable species, never the other way around. Herbal products have routinely found to contain little or no content that the label says is there.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110204_seafoodmislabeling.html
http://www.fooddive.com/news/5-products-accused-of-mislabeling-issues/400694/
http://www.health.com/mind-body/investigation-reveals-many-supplements-sold-by-major-retailers-are-mislabeled

That is just with 2 minutes work with Google. The list is endless and I could go on but my point stands. Good companies are learning that sometimes they had a problem and didn't even know about it; as a result they are modifying their procedures and can do better by their customers. The bad ones, well they deny and try to sue their way out of trouble.

Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not surprised. Subway's chicken always tasted weird to me.

I'm Confused

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought only right-wing publications disseminate fake news.

Are you saying that CBC is a ring wing media outlet?