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
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.
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/
Subway will win the lawsuit. https://arstechnica.com/scienc...
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.
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.
I stole this Sig
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.
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.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
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.