DNA Test Shows Subway's 'Chicken' Only Contains 50 Percent Chicken (arstechnica.com) 244
According to an investigation by Canadian media outlet, CBC, the chicken in Subway Restaurants' chicken sandwiches may only contain around 50 percent chicken -- the rest of it is soy, spices and preservatives. The investigation involved DNA testing chicken sandwiches collected from five popular fast food restaurants. While the rest of the sandwiches contained mostly chicken, Subway's oven-roasted chicken and the chicken strips in its Sweet Onion Chicken Teriyaki sandwich clocked in with just 53.6 percent and 42.8 percent chicken, respectively. Ars Technica reports: Among all the chicken sampled, there was a total of about 50 ingredients other than chicken identified. The chicken samples had an average of 16 ingredients. Some of the ingredients are expected, such as salt and other seasonings. But many were commercial preservatives and fillers. One commonality was that they all had high levels of salt. Subway responded to the CBC in a statement: "SUBWAY Canada cannot confirm the veracity of the results of the lab testing you had conducted. However, we are concerned by the alleged findings you had conducted." You can read the full statement here.
Read the response... (Score:5, Informative)
The companies in question - Wendy's, Subway, McDonalds, Tim Horton's - responded HERE [www.cbc.ca].
Their responses sound reasonable, so either they are lying or the "DNA tests" are not accurate.
Read the response in detail & between the line (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, read the response, but like all communications from large companies, you have to read it critically
For example, from the end of Subway's response:
We will look into this again with our supplier to ensure that the chicken is meeting the high standard we set for all of our menu items and ingredients.
Translate this into normal english and it is "We do not adequately QA our supply chain & our lowest-bid supplier is giving us a chicken/soy blend. We only care about this because we just got caught out"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have cut up a lot of chickens. Never seen any chicken parts that look remotely like Subways. Clearly extruded food, like a chicken 'nugget'.
McDonald's and Wendy's claim to be serving 'chicken breasts'. I don't eat McShits, but the Chicken at Wendy's does look like an actual chicken breast, just a very small one.
Re: (Score:2)
The chicken at Wendy's is real chicken. The reason it's not 100% is if you have the breading on it (crispy style), the seasonings, etc. You just can't mix up chicken with soy in a blender and have the outcome resemble chicken with the same texture. I don't think it's that small either at Wendy's, too much of it hangs out the side of the buns.
Re:Read the response in detail & between the l (Score:5, Funny)
We recognize that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so our imitation chicken is leading us all into a new, more courageous* future, where we will be 100%, BRAVE, not CHICKEN!
"courageous" is the intellectual property of Apple Inc. "chicken" includes, but is not limited to, dog, cat, yeast, nuclear waste, chicken feathers, beaks, claws, recycled newspaper (for that genuine cardboard-y takeout taste).May include nuts. May not include chicken..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most restaurants that sell sandwiches are primarily trying to sell you a very large hunk of bread with as little protein as possible. It's not just sub shops, it's anywhere.
I went low carb for a couple of years and one of the shocking things was ordering sandwiches and even hamburgers and finding out that there was very little meat inside. I often had to order two sandwich items to get enough food to not feel extremely hungry.
One of the few places where I don't feel like I'm just being fed bread is Potbel
Re: (Score:2)
Low carbing is a real education in what food is really made of.
I don't know about the US but at least in the UK the labelling is fairly sane, as far as I know.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it me, or does it seem like you are getting mostly bread and paying more for it? Don't get me wrong. The other sub making sandwich companies are many times worse than Subway, those guys empty your wallet and fail to fill your stomach. With their "fancy name, or appearance" sub sandwiches.
I eat subway maybe once a week and load up on all of the vegetables. The $6 footlong deal with carved turkey and all the veggies is two meals. I consider it a decent deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Turkey is fine if you coat it in breadcrumbs or batter and fry it in butter, but then so is almost anything else, including courgettes and Mars Bars.
Re: (Score:3)
Their QA is probably working just fine. They probably actually SPECIFIED the formula that was uncovered by the DNA tests, in order to cut costs.
Re:Read the response in detail & between the l (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I'm personally relieved. I wouldn't want anything that was made with some percentage of unreal chicken.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. I love the one that admits they use 1% soy and still flexes the "made from 100% chicken" line, which is technically true of anything containing even a scrap of real chicken, and it's clear from the context they're relying on this technical interpretation.
It's the same thing that lets McDonalds say their burgers are made from "100% beef", well yes, in the sense that a cow's arsehole is beef.
Re:Read the response... (Score:5, Interesting)
All but Subway were over 80% chicken. That's what you would expect, they are quite open about adding seasoning and yeast etc. No problem at all.
Subway's result needs explanation. It can't be accounted for by any ligitimate preservation or seasoning.
Re:Read the response... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I'm just the odd one out, but I really don't care if it's a mix of chicken and soy as long as it tastes good. Soy is not in any way unhealthy, and has plenty of protein.
Re:Read the response... (Score:4, Insightful)
Subway chicken tastes like festering ass. Just for reference.
About 2 years ago they were advertising 'new improved chicken'. I asked to see it, didn't buy any. Obvious extruded food.
Re:Read the response... (Score:4, Funny)
It all gets extruded in the end (or out the end) anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, I want to extrude it myself, once. Pre-extruded "chicken", however tasty, is still a disturbing notion.
Plenty of these franken-foods must be cooked in their frozen form, or they quite literally turn to mush when thawed.
Re: Read the response... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I care in that it would be great if they were honest in their marketing, "Look we both know this isn't really chicken but we promise there are only extra inert fillers. There aren't ingredients in here that are really bad for you that build up in your body over time, really"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Subway has done a lot to distance themselves from fast food and have chosen to represent themselves as a healthier choice. The whole Jared losing weight by eating only at Subway thing. I don't really consider them a fast food restaurant, they are a sandwich shop.
That's like McDonalds advertising "fruit bags" as an option for their Happy Meals to show how healthy they are. There must presumably be one original fruitbag in McDonalds HQ somewhere that they took the menu photo of, but I've never seen one in the wild.
If you try asking for one, they're always "sold out". Their audacity is breathtaking.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure. But then sell me a chicken-soy blend sandwich. Don't sell me soy and tell me it's chicken.
This is pretty elementary; 'truth in advertising' stuff. If you sell me a single malt scotch should be a single malt scotch. If its its a blended scotch label it that way. Johnny Walker Blue label is excellent scotch. The fact that its a blend doesn't bother me in the least.
But if I found out my favorite single malt balvenie was actually blended and not disclosed, the fact that they lied about what it was would b
Re: (Score:2)
Unless it's a 'single-cask' release, all scotches are blended - what make a single malt a single malt is that all the whisky comes from a single distillery.
Re:Read the response... (Score:5, Insightful)
The author of the above post did not state they had a preference for single malt, you made that up. The author in fact goes out of their way to say they enjoy both blended and single malts.
What the author of the above post is saying here, basically, is that they dont like being lied to which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the fact that with blended and single malt there are going to be different prices. That would also play into anyone being upset with being sold blended as single malt.
Though that doesn't play as much of a role in a chicken sandwich since you aren't buying just the chicken but the combined product. Still, I don't want someone telling me they use 100% chicken if it's 50% filler.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What the author of the above post is saying here, basically, is that they dont like being lied to which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Right, no one likes that. But that's besides that point that someone lies to you and that reveals some inconsistency in your preferences, it seems like a good time to re-evaluate.
For instance, if someone gives me Budweiser but tells me it's PBR and I drink and enjoy it, then two things are concurrently true:
The second
Re: (Score:2)
Right, no one likes that. But that's besides that point that someone lies to you and that reveals some inconsistency in your preferences, it seems like a good time to re-evaluate.
Even so aren't you privileging the taste of the stuff above all other considerations? What if my preference was to be a single-malt drinker? If Lagavulin turns out to be blended, the fact that it tastes so good won't assuage the injury, since it is my sense of self not merely my sense of taste has been affronted. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
So you didnt read the part where the above author said that they like blends and single malts both just fine and then you missed it again when I said it didnt you?
Re: (Score:3)
if someone gives me Budweiser but tells me it's PBR and I drink and enjoy it, then two things are concurrently true:
You forgot
3. It proves I have no functioning tastebuds.
Re: Read the response... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but they don't.
Footlong Oven Roasted Chicken = 6.75. This is big enough for two meals.
Chick Fil A Grilled chicken Sandwich only - $4.25. This uses real meat, but you'd need to buy two to last you the two meals the sub lasts you, so $8.50.
So no, you're not paying more. The sub will fill you up exactly the same for 20% less cash. You also get vastly more veggie options than "just" lettuce tomato abd pickles.
Also, people complain about "no flavor," but that's why they have a dozen different sauc
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
For the ill informed "Raw soybeans, including the immature green form, are toxic to all monogastric animals."(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean) and "A monogastric organism has a simple single-chambered stomach, compared with a ruminant organism, like a cow, goat, or sheep, which has a four-chambered complex stomach."(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogastric), and never to forget "The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America estimates soy is among the eight most common food allergens for pediatric and
Re: (Score:2)
Raw soybeans are toxic. Cooked soybeans are fine. For most people, soybean products are healthy food.
There is soy in many, many things, including many sauces and processed foods, so people with soy allergies are not going to be eating at fast food restaurants.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm just the odd one out, but I really don't care if it's a mix of chicken and soy as long as it tastes good. Soy is not in any way unhealthy, and has plenty of protein.
The point is that if it's not actual slices chicken meat, you're basically eating ground up chickens which includes beaks, kneecaps (or whatever they're called on chickens) and a fuckton of artificial ingredients, most of which probably cause cancer and/or make your testicles fall off.
Re: (Score:2)
All but Subway were over 80% chicken. That's what you would expect, they are quite open about adding seasoning and yeast etc. No problem at all...
I'm sorry, but given the breakdown of the nutritional numbers and value, there is no fucking way in hell a dietary specialist would label McFood "no problem at all".
I wouldn't "expect" anything from a fast food vendor other than a corporation peddling lies and ingredients designed to create addiction.
Subway just happens to be the "healthy" liar who got caught this time.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, McShit isn't exactly good for you. What I mean is that their claim that it is chicken is fine. It doesn't have to be 100% chicken and nothing else, seasoning and preservatives are expected.
All their health claims are dubious, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Read the response... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Subway was the only one with a worrying result, the rest were reasonable bearing in mind the preparation of the chicken, as the article states ("An unadulterated piece of chicken from the store should come in at 100 per cent chicken DNA. Seasoning, marinating or processing meat would bring that number down, so fast food samples seasoned for taste wouldn't be expected to hit that 100 per cent target.", and "They were all DNA tested and the score was then averaged for each sandwich. Most of the scores were "
assays, rubber chicken (Score:2)
Of course, the analytical costs on the second part would be higher.
If the report is true, it might give new meaning and range to the phrase, "rubber chicken"
New Subway spokesweasel... (Score:2, Funny)
New Subway spokesweasel Kellyanne Conway says that Subway is just offering "alternative chicken".
The yare weaseling (Score:2)
Re:Read the response...or WATCH THE SHOW (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
not all of that is cells. A large amount is water.
Except that water doesn't have soybean DNA. So that doesn't explain the problem.
Many of the very best meat dishes in the world at the very best restaurants are not 100% meat.
Then they shouldn't call it "100% meat". The problem is not blending meat with soy. The problem is that they are lying about it.
Re: (Score:2)
That aside, it is fairly rare to eat meat as is. Like of take a cut of meat, put it over heat, and then eat it. Usually we like to season it. Guess what? That changes the total composition.
If I season a steak with salt and pepper then cook it, the end product is probably 99% beef, that's close enough for me. No way is it going to be only 80%.
kill the salt, kill the sugar (Score:5, Insightful)
It is impossible to get any processed food that is not laden with salt and sugar. It contributes to high blood pressure and diabetes. Do the food companies care? Or will shipping "product" take precedence over their customers' health?
Re:kill the salt, kill the sugar (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well to be fair salt and sugar "sell" because that's what people want to buy. Companies don't stay in business long selling what people dont want to buy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As salt and sugar are more expensive than other fillers, clearly it is put in because people want it (well, possibly not consciously).
Re: (Score:2)
Well to be fair salt and sugar "sell" because that's what people want to buy. Companies don't stay in business long selling what people dont want to buy.
If companies were lacing their food with heroin or cocaine to get people hooked, there would be an outcry (except on slashdot, of course, where drugs are always a Good Thing). Unnecessary sugar and salt are just a milder version of the same tactic.
Re:kill the salt, kill the sugar (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, salt can make your blood pressure go up, but it would be weird if it didn't. Increase the amount of sodium intake and some of that is absorbed by you cells which then take on more water to maintain a balance in concentration. This makes them swell (which is why if someone is severely dehydrated you can kill them if you give them water too rapidly) and naturally add pressure against blood vessels and increase blood pressure.
Re:kill the salt, kill the sugar (Score:5, Insightful)
A similar myth is that fatty foods lead to clogged arteries. I won't bother to go fetch links but let's just say my room mate was drunk and literally screaming this at me at 2AM once, over and over like a child, and the only way to talk him down was to promise I'd go research it at reputable websites and bring him "the proof". Yes you can refute this myth at such as CDC, Mayo Clinic, etc.
If anything, most arteries problems are caused by high sodium. Salts osmose water out out cells, causing "hardening", leading to arterial damage, attracting clotting factor, which builds up and is compounded with some forms of cholesterol in some people (but can still be bad enough on its own), which leads to clogged (clotted) arteries. Then you run into this terrible catch-22 with vitamin K where K is needed to repair the arterial damage but K also goes into producing clotting factor. So the doctors tell you to cut K completely out of your diet, eat liver-killing blood thinners, and shift the problem to yet another part of your body while also synthesizing a condition of hemophilia.
If anything, people worried about clots should cut any high intake of salt out (but not entirely out), not fat out of their diet. Blood pressure completely aside.
And something else fun to learn is that there is a gut flora that produces something called TMAO that can compound and/or cause any artery problems you might have. The great news? The gut flora produces TMAO from l-carnitine. So take your doctor seriously if they recommend cutting red meat intake entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Those evil corporations force feeding everyone!
Good work to eliminate 'personal choice'.
If people didn't choose sugar/salt/fat then it would be very unprofitable to supply it.
Re: (Score:2)
It is impossible to get any processed food that is not laden with salt and sugar. It contributes to high blood pressure and diabetes. Do the food companies care? Or will shipping "product" take precedence over their customers' health?
Nothing takes precedent over profit.
Not even legality, which is often worth the gamble due to pathetic punishments.
Spin it properly (Score:5, Funny)
Piffle! That's a totally wrong spin! According to TFA, most of the other 50% is soy — the famously humane and environment-friendly replacement for meat.
Restaurants should proudly admit to being ahead of their customers on both counts — and wow to make their sandwiches 90% meat-free by 2050, or something like that.
Re:Spin it properly (Score:5, Insightful)
Piffle! That's a totally wrong spin! According to TFA, most of the other 50% is soy — the famously humane and environment-friendly replacement for meat.
If Subway wants to serve 50/50 soy/chicken "meat" they are welcome to. They have to stop calling it chicken, though.
If I'm paying for chicken, I expect to get chicken, regardless of healthiness/environmental factors.
Re:Spin it properly (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Spin it properly (Score:5, Funny)
Alternative Chicken
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you turned a discussion thread about subway meat quality into a conservative rant.
Good for you, that's super.
Re: (Score:2)
So what, why do you care who marries who?
What actual difference does it make?
Words change meaning all the time, why pick on just one?
If you want to reduce gay sex, I would say marriage is an excellent way to do so.
Of course, youre probaby just a religious homophobe, or one of those in the closet cowards.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they're supposed to post nutrition information, and you should generally go by that. If the sandwich patty is supposed to be 50% soy, and it say the plain sandwich has so many grams of carbs, that should be that.
However, if the test results don't match what the company expects, some franchisee may be off the reservation.
Re: (Score:2)
New-Yorker detected (Score:2)
It is the law, but only in New York City. Not even the State, AFAIK.
Delicious Soy Yum Yum (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The CBC had a show on this, with taste testers. And everyone on the show could tell how low quality and horrible the 50% chicken was.
It also explains why some folks get sick (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno. I thought chicken at subway was awful long before this... haven't ordered it in years... tasteless and the wrong textureless... like a genric brand chicken nugget ... and far from say the comparatively delicious wendy's or a&w chicken which taste like proper chicken.
Re: (Score:2)
No, people with taste buds generally agree Subway chicken tastes awful. Nice try, veggie boy.
Normal (Score:3)
They obviously used alternative chickens, duh!
half a million dollars in attorney’s fees. $ (Score:2)
half a million dollars in attorney’s fees. $1 off coupon for the rest of us.
Welcome to the meat industry! (Score:5, Informative)
I enjoy meat myself - but accept that the meat industry is historically filled with some of the worst intentions on the face of the planet. There's a reason that one of the big counters to libertarian philosophy is historical regulation of the meat industry... if they can get away with it, you'd better believe that the industry is going to break just about every rule, custom, ethical guideline and concept of decent human interaction possible.
Meat, it ain't pretty, it's rarely pure (the fish industry is nigh-hilarious with how it labels things), but it's still an important part of our filthy culture.
Cutting a 50% mix of soy into chicken isn't shocking compared to most things - and actually matches what I remember of that particular flavor whenever I decided to try chicken again at Subway. Now that I've gotten better at cooking for myself, I find a $6 footlong to be actually a fairly expensive sandwich.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go make a nice couple of egg/bacon/veggie sandwiches. I'm sure it's not completely ethical, and likely contains some genetic engineering (ooh, scary), but for the price, it's a marvel of modern industry and flavor!
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2)
I think that greatly depends on the kind of Libertarian. I have most certainly seen some Libertarians argue against regulation, claiming it "distorts the market". I guess it depends on how far you think regulation should go. I, for one, don't believe tainted or dangerously toxic products should be sold at all, and support any government regime that prevents their sale, but some believe that personal choice should override that. So there are a lot of shades of gray even in Libertarianism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well to me soy counts as a toxic product. I'm allergic to it and eating a minute amount gives me stomach cramps and causes me to have diarrhea that lasts for two days.
You too, eh? I had to stop eating a whole lot of stuff because it had too much TVP in it, let alone actual tofu.
Re: (Score:2)
The usual libertarian-suggested response to fraud is lawsuits however, not having the FDA/USDA/etc preemptively inspecting everything to make sure that no poor schmuck has to sue Subway over the content of their meat in the first place.
As a left-libertarian myself, my preferred response would be somewhere in between. I'm against licensure of any kind because prior restraint is antithetical to liberty, but any wronged party should be able to easily (as in, at no cost and little paperwork) call upon the full
Re: (Score:2)
More than the existing requirements for preemptive certification of everything already do? My proposal is basically to make what we already have in place optional, but opting out of it exposes you (the business) to legal risk, putting economic pressure toward doing things as we do them now, without quite mandating them and thus curtailing liberty a little less.
Chicken++ (Score:2)
They just need to market it better.
Affirmative action hire? (Score:4, Informative)
"However, we are concerned by the alleged findings you had conducted."
Is that even a sentence? The findings are not alleged, they are real. You get to say a guy was allegedly killed with an alleged bullet. You can say the alleged killer is Whatsisname because that hasn't been proven. However if a lab signs off on a DNA analysis I can say it's real all I want - if it turns out that it's not then the LAB is in trouble, not me, because the lab certified the results.
And you don't "conduct findings". Wow, I'm worried that Subway let the junior PR person handle this.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a belittling insult dripping with contempt that most likely comes from the top instead of junior PR. Yes it is poor English but that's part of the tactic - look at Rumsfeld for thousands of examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Water content? (Score:2)
Amazing! (Score:2)
Don't you see what's really happening here? SUBWAY has managed hybridize chickens with soy and other plants for spices! Now I know that I am living in the future! ;)
So what is the other 50%? (Score:2)
So what is the other 50%?
The article seems ambiguous on this point at best.
I find it hard to believe that the whole other 50% was just salt and spices, not least because of how bland Subway chicken actually is.
Re: (Score:2)
So what is the other 50%?
Soylent Green. It's got those brain vitamins that humans crave for . . .
Canadian media outlet, CBC... (Score:5, Informative)
CBC is not a "media outlet". It is Canada's national broadcaster. And it does a damned good job on its news and public affairs, routinely shaming the US networks with its national and international coverage.
Subway vs KFC (Score:2)
Wait what? (Score:2)
There's supposed to be chicken in there?
Last time I checked (Score:3)
LOL, really? (Score:2)
"DNA Test Shows Subway's 'Chicken' Only Contains 50 Percent Chicken"
I'm surprised it contained any chicken at all, frankly.
Not so bad (Score:2)
It's part of the race to the bottom (Score:2)
After all they didn't surpass the expansion rate of McDonald's
Well, as long as the non-chicken animal content .. (Score:2)
Re:The Donald just tweeted... (Score:5, Funny)
FAKE NEWS!
Of course it's fake news. It's about fake chicken!!!.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, the fact that a chemical is used in both bread and yoga mats says precisely zero about how healthy or toxic it is.
While that's true, it is an unnecessary chemical which might occasionally be harmful [npr.org] and sometimes companies mess up measuring or mixing and someone gets a whole load of an ingredient, it doesn't get converted in the production process, etc. So while odds are nobody has actually been harmed by it, it's still dumb to use it.