Slashdot Mirror


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?

8 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Really? WHY?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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."

  2. Your working assumption makes an ass out of you... by fractalrock · · Score: 5, Informative

    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/

  3. CBC is full of it. by bongey · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  4. Re: Irrelevant Studies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  5. Re:Ironically by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  6. Re: Irrelevant Studies by vux984 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Re: Irrelevant Studies by fluffernutter · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  8. Done properly, no problem... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.