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."
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/
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...
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.
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"
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.
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.
Maybe the other fast food places use chicken meat from cannibal chickens.
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.
And Subway doesn't have the right to operate a business without conforming to regulations.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.