SoylentNews

University Study Says Subway Chicken Strips Could Contain Less Than 50 Percent Chicken DNA

posted by martyb on Tuesday February 28 2017, @10:23AM   
from the results-are-not-as-foul-as-expected dept.

DeathMonkey writes:

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.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/national/subway-chicken-strips-contain-less-than-50-percent-chicken-dna-study-says

---

Original Submission

• Re:TFS left out an important detail Re:TFS left out an important detail (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @04:30PM (2 children)

  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @04:30PM (#472841)

  You could replace "vegan" with "moron" and that sentence would have the same meaning.

  Parent

  Starting Score:	0		points
  Moderation		-1
  Flamebait=2, Insightful=1, Total=3
  Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier		0
  Total Score:		-1

• Re:TFS left out an important detail (Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:09PM

  by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:09PM (#472873)

  I did not know morons were generally picky eaters.

  Was not aware that vegans generally had mild metal retardation either, buy YMMV I suppose.

  Parent

• Re:TFS left out an important detail (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:15PM

  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:15PM (#472880)

  Well, that post has three sentences. However two of them don't contain the word "vegan" so they of course trivially have the same meaning with that replacement. So let's look at the only sentence that, indeed, contains the word "vegan":

  As a vegan, I'm well aware of Soy as a replacement for meat.

  This sentence does three things:

  • It informs the reader that the author is (or claims to be) a vegan.
  • It also implies that vegans typically are aware of soy as a replacement for meat.
  • And finally it states that the author is indeed aware of soy as a replacement for meat.

  So what happens if you replace "vegan" with "moron"?
  Well, the changed sentence would:

  • inform the reader that the author is (or claims to be) a moron. This is not equivalent, not even if, as you apparently think, every vegan were a moron, as clearly not every moron is a vegan.
  • imply that morons typically are aware of soy as a replacement for meat. Again, this is quite obviously not equivalent (and most probably not true either).
  • state that the author is indeed aware of soy as a replacement for meat. OK, I give you that this part of the meaning indeed stays unchanged.

  Conclusion: You are obviously the moron. Given your opinion about vegans, I also conclude that you are not a vegan. Therefore you are indeed a quite good example for the fact that not every moron is a vegan, and therefore that the first part of the meaning of that sentence is indeed changed by the replacement of "vegan" by "moron". Thus your very existence already proves your claim wrong.

  Parent