SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Tuesday February 28 2017, @10:23AM
from the results-are-not-as-foul-as-expected dept.
from the results-are-not-as-foul-as-expected dept.
According to the CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation], researchers at Trent University sampled both the oven roasted chicken filets and the chicken strips that Subway uses on its sandwiches in Canada. After testing six small samples of the filets and three small samples of the strips, the researchers ran a DNA test.
The results showed that the filets contained just 53.6 percent chicken DNA. The strips were found to contain just 42.8 percent chicken DNA.
CBC reports that the rest of the DNA found in the chicken was soy — used either for either seasoning or filler.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
University Study Says Subway Chicken Strips Could Contain Less Than 50 Percent Chicken DNA
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 76 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
It's not reality that's important, but how you perceive things.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday February 28 2017, @02:28PM (6 children)
The employee always puts the same few slices of meat and cheese no matter where you go.
While I'm in no way defending Subway, this is standard fast-food practice. Do you complain about the standard size of the 1.6-ounce patties (which shrink even more during cooking) on a McDonald's hamburger too? Yes, Subway has standard meat and cheese portions, but they're pretty clear on this, and I'm not sure it's "cheating the customer out of money" to offer a standard, yet small, portion of food. We might look at it as excessive profiteering, but even a quick glance at Subway's nutritional facts [subway.com] make it clear they're basically serving you bread and veggies -- just subtract the bread choice calories from the standard sandwich calories, and there's no a lot left over.
Again, I'm not a fan of Subway. But I also don't think it's "cheating the customer out of money" if you're clear with customers about what they're going to get. On the other hand, I *would* criticize Subway and the other fast food restaurants for misrepresenting their products in advertising photos. Have you EVER seen a actual sandwich from McDonald's or Burger King or Wendy's or any other fast food chain that actually resembled photos used in commercials?
What's interesting about the current story though is that it seems Subway IS worse than other fast food places in how much they may save in costs with "fake" meat.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday February 28 2017, @02:38PM (1 child)
I should have been more clear, that is exactly my point.
Type "subway sandwich" into a search engine and look for images. You will notice they are all stuffed with meats to give the appearance of a big sandwich. But in reality, you get the same three slices of meat and cheese from every store and the final sandwich looks nothing like the photos. That is misleading and ripping off the customer. No customer is going to perform calorie match to see how much meat they are getting. They only see a stuffed sandwich and think "mmmmm that looks so good!" Then they get a thin soggy layer of fake meat.
And I bet there is more meat and cheese on a quarter pounder than an entire subway foot long.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @03:13PM
I eat subway sandwiches all the time because I can get them loaded up with veggies.
You are only half-right about the meat. Yes, they use the same misleadingly staged photos as all other food vendors. But no they don't skimp on the meat in real life. Its not presented as nicely because they are minimum wage employees, not ad agencies food stagers. But I've never had a complaint about getting too little meat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @03:52PM
Are they still selling "not quite" foot long sandwiches?
(Score: 4, Informative) by vux984 on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:56PM (1 child)
Have you EVER seen a actual sandwich from McDonald's or Burger King or Wendy's or any other fast food chain that actually resembled photos used in commercials?
Actually; yeah. My first couple jobs were Fast Food, Wendy's for a couple years (from fry cook to management) through highschool and my BSc and Subway very briefly. And to be honest, most of the burgers *could* look like the photos until it was wrapped.
The only real discrepency at Wendy's was the lettuce -- the photos always showed the greenest outer leafiest edges, while in practice those wilted right way, and were tossed in the trash and you were usually served a piece a little paler and stiffer from inside the lettuce, which kept much longer. And sometimes the lettuce we had to work with ... its lettuce not processed cheese ... no two pieces are quite the same. The quality of the tomatoes is also a bit more variable -- and while the photos always took that biggest slice from the 'middle of a perfectly ripe tomato' the reality was that most tomatoes weren't perfect, and not everyone could have the middle slice. We weren't throwing away the top and bottom 3rds of every tomato just because they weren't as big as the middle.
Even so, at a well managed store (this was key -- the quality depended highly on management) with trained staff, the majority of the food looked a lot like the photos ... until it was wrapped. That always resulted in them looking a bit squashed after unwrapping. The cheese melting on the corners would turn into a mess, and any any bit of visible ketchup or mayo would all get smeared around on the wrapper and back to the bun. (This is why, unlike the photos, you really don't want the sauces visible -- in the photos they add some ketchup or sauce just 'oozing' out on purpose... in practice that's a mess when you wrap it; and the actual assembly 'training' avoids visible drops sauce like that.
Anyhow, we often had customers that demanded photogenic food to make the same point you are making, and we'd just serve it unwrapped. They were invariably surprised at how close they got. Like seeing a model in person, in her own 'on-the-town' makeup and clothes without airbrushing every imperfection. Not impossibly perfect, but still very recognizable and attractive.
If you go to wendy's and you get a burger that's covered in grease and ketchup when you unwrap it the meat wasn't drained properly, or the sandwhich maker didn't put the right amount of ketchup on it etc. As for the perfect rectangular patties... that's very doable; and a good grill operator can turn those out no problem. The key there is proper timing and technique when you are turning and pressing.
As for subway, the main difference between the photos and actual sandwhiches is that the pre-portioned meat is laid on the sandwiches first and laid flat -- because its fast and easy. If you want it like the photo, its just a matter of doing the meat last, and manually doing loose folds. And again, serve it unwrapped so it's not squashed. Photogenic subway subs was not hard to do.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday February 28 2017, @07:46PM
I like going to A&W: if you are gluten intolerant and lactose intolerant like me, just ask for a teen burger, no bun and no cheese
The 'restaurants' i go to will lay a fecking salad of lettuce and tomato and onion on your burger and put it on a plate for you with stanless-steel knife and fork: i get my burger, my fries and a nice cold (frosted) glass of A&W root beer (free refill) and my burger has a load of lettuce and tomato and fixings on the side and is wrapped in lettuce as well.
No gluten, no dairy and no fattening burger, but a whole ship load of lettuce, tomato and onion.
NICE!
And they are used to it now. They used to look at you like you had two heads, but now it's normal.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday February 28 2017, @08:19PM
No, it's cheating the customer. Just one more reason why we should all rise up and kill every single MBA on the planet. Destroying the planet outright, and progressively feeding us *less* and *less* actual food that we *THOUGHT* we were paying for. This is just inequality furthering itself. Before, you could work a job and obtain actual food for your family and secure a future for them. Now, it's just slave wages and you're feeding your children nasty fillers while being 48 hours away from homelessness, one job lost away from medical care, and living on the edge.
How the fuck is this any different than putting YUM nutritious and healthy sawdust in the hamburgers? Or China finding merchants feeding their comrades meat buns made mostly out of cardboard (wet nasty shit with rat feces) and a little pork grease with some pork bits?
There was a study that compared the genetics across demographics and found that poor minorities had dramatically shorter telomeres than their healthier upper and middle upper class citizens living in the same country. Not some lamentation that the rich really do have it better, but actual concrete proof that not only do they live on our backs, but IT HURTS US WHILE THEY DO IT. Why do those evil worthless fuckers get to live a long healthy life, and not some wage slave?
So let's call this what it is: The MBAs need more money for themselves and the only way to squeeze more out at this point is to cheat us. It's not like everyone can eat steak in the future. That will be reserved for the Owning Classes.
If this was for a good reason, it would be fucking advertised and not hidden. It's hidden like this precisely because the executives (may they all die brutally and burn in hell) know exactly what they're doing. They're treating us like cattle not deserving of the human dignity they reserve only for themselves.
If we had any luck today, about 1% of the planet would drop dead.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.