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?
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?
just like lots of other things
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."
They did two independent studies and both had the same result. I would say it is the labs that should be sued if anything.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
People have a right to know what they are eating.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
the soy protein is probably healthier food than chicken meat.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
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/
If the studies are correct, you can't sue a news reporter for reporting factually correct news.
How so? CBC is being sued for telling the truth?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
If it's true, it's not defamatory, by definition.
CBC claims there is around 50% of real chicken not that it is 50% soy. Remaining 50% are various fillers including soy.
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.
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...
Yea, I ordered a chicken sandwich made of soy. I allergic to soy, so ya, its a big deal.
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?
Subway will win the lawsuit. https://arstechnica.com/scienc...
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.
So if you eat beef does that mean your cells contain bovine DNA? I'm not a biologist, but that sounds laughable.
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.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Adding ethylene glycol to white wine improves its taste, but I doubt that you really want to drink it.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
They tested several chains and they were all >90% chicken. Subway was the only anomaly.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
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.
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"
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
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.)
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
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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.
Table-ized A.I.
Ohh I thought bacon was supposed to be transparent.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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.
Are you saying that my soy is in fact 50% chicken?
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.
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.
Maybe the other fast food places use chicken meat from cannibal chickens.
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.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
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.
-Styopa
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, by how much does it improve the taste, exactly?
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.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
And Subway doesn't have the right to operate a business without conforming to regulations.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
What the submitter thinks is completely irrelevant. If I want comments, I'll read the comments.
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.
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.
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?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
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.
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.
Suck on science, Subway.
misinterpreted incorrectly
Oh good, they accidentally got it right!
Or did they?!?
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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).
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
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.
Also - defamation is not the same law as libel and slander - though the latter two are often the means by which the former happens.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
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?!?
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!
That would make sense. I'm having a hard time understanding how solid, non-ground chunks of chicken can be anything but chicken.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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.
...is that my coworkers are 99% chimpanzee.
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.
...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.
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.
My comment wasn't really a hypothetical:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Apps!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
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.
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?
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.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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.
Subway promotes themselves as the fresher choice, I would expect their food to be higher quality.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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.
"Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff."
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.
Jared, how could you let this happen?
But what matters is whether CBC lied or not.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
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.
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
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).
Agreed.
Even if they are still too stupid to discern what is good or bad for them.
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
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.