Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 252 posts

Re: DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

#41

Post by angry_octet »

mickronome wrote: post #17
minaguib wrote: post #6

What exactly are people expecting when they order these things ? Are they unable to tell the texture is plasticky and highly processed, unlike normal "stringy" chicken meat you prepare at home ?

I recently bought my first chicken sandwich in a very long time from subway, and apart from being quite apalling with barely any semblance to chicken, I literally could not eat the chicken because it stuck like glue to my braces and my palate. One of the worst food experiences in quite some time, and while I've realised lately that I'm quite a bit more 'sensitive' to bad food, I still have a hard time believing that…

It's 'subway chicken' not chicken. Same with McDonald's, the burgers are objectively horrible when compared to anything made with care, but we get used to the taste. I think it's actually the fries that make it work.

Re: DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

#42

Post by coldtea »

WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #28

Subway has become the supplier of subs at the lowest cost. What this means is that bean counters dictate what the subs contain. It's never top line products and they add fillers where ever they can without killing the flavor 100%. It's not a surprise that they use soy. It's just unfortunate that they have to get to this point. I don't know if it's universal but my local subway has reduced the diameter of the bread ro…

>Subway has become the supplier of subs at the lowest cost. What this means is that bean counters dictate what the subs contain.

Well, corporate bean counters would have sold heroin to children if it was profitable and they could get away with it.

That's the thing, though: Subway should not be able to get away with it. As long as it calls the product it sells "chicken", it should be chicken, and anything else should end with huge fines and/or closing down of the chain (e.g. with a "three strikes" type of thing).

Re: DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

#43

Post by WillPostForFood »

salesguy222 wrote: post #38
WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #28

Subway has become the supplier of subs at the lowest cost. What this means is that bean counters dictate what the subs contain. It's never top line products and they add fillers where ever they can without killing the flavor 100%. It's not a surprise that they use soy. It's just unfortunate that they have to get to this point. I don't know if it's universal but my local subway has reduced the diameter of the bread ro…

It's not unfortunate when you think of all the chickens that are needlessly slaughtered to appeal to people's unhealthy dietary laziness ^.^

They'd have to kill twice as many if it was 100% chicken.

Re: DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

#44

Post by andrewprock »

Preemo wrote: post #30

I'm amazed so many people are fine with the other ingredient being soy; I could go on for hours as to why that's among the worst things to be substituted with. -95% of soy in the US is GMO, lacking any genetic variance and little make-up of microorganisms (good bacteria.) -It's also a horrible source of fats, and more in particular the omega-6 to 3 ratio is incredibly hostile to basic function on the cellular level.…

What would your preferred chicken substitute be?

None of the bullets you list seems like a credible reason to not use soy. GMOs are perfectly healthy, as are carbohydrates. Lacking fat isn't a big deal either.

I suppose you might suggest there are healthier alternatives, but chief among those alternatives would be to not eat at a fast food joint.

Re: DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

#45

Post by sersi »

Just an anecdote. I used to love chicken as a kid but lived in the countryside and my parents used to buy free range chicken at the next door farmer.

I then came to the US to study 10 years ago, ate a chicken sandwich in a subway, got sick and since then I can't eat any kind of chicken without being disgusted. So, yes, it doesn't surprise me.

Re: DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

#46

Post by jplasmeier »

curun1r wrote: post #37
TheCoreh wrote: post #4

> The majority of the remaining DNA? Soy. The headline got me sorta terrified, imagining what sort of repugnant, monstrous creature was being grinded and mixed into my Subway sandwich. Good to know at least it's just soy.

Yeah...I don't see too much to be outraged about here. If you want to be upset about adding soy to the chicken you eat, be upset about the soy they add to the chicken before they kill it. Soy isn't part of the natural diet for chickens, so feeding it to them means also feeding them antibiotics. If anything, lowering the percentage of chicken that's raised in that way would make it healthier.

> Soy isn't part of the natural diet for chickens, so feeding it to them means also feeding them antibiotics.

Do you have any more info on this? I was under the impression that giving chickens antibiotics was illegal and so feckless that it isn't even worth breaking the law for. I could be wrong as well, honestly.

Re: DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

#47

Post by arrogantrobot »

Preemo wrote: post #30

I'm amazed so many people are fine with the other ingredient being soy; I could go on for hours as to why that's among the worst things to be substituted with. -95% of soy in the US is GMO, lacking any genetic variance and little make-up of microorganisms (good bacteria.) -It's also a horrible source of fats, and more in particular the omega-6 to 3 ratio is incredibly hostile to basic function on the cellular level.…

What are you implying about the GMO nature of soy? Does that make it worse than non-GMO soy? Also, what do you mean "lacking any genetic variance"?

Re: DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

#48

Post by karthikb »

angry_octet wrote: post #33
learc83 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If it's 50%, that's a serious level of carbs An ounce of tofu has about 0.5g of carbs. I don't think it's going to add more than a few grams for an entire sandwich.

You win the NASA award for mixing metric and imperial in the most nonsensical way.

Most food labeling in the US is done this way. Gross measures (total volume, weight, etc) are in imperial while the nutrition facts are in metric. So milk will say, serving size 12 Oz, protein XX g.

Re: DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

#49

Post by samb1729 »

angry_octet wrote: post #33
learc83 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If it's 50%, that's a serious level of carbs An ounce of tofu has about 0.5g of carbs. I don't think it's going to add more than a few grams for an entire sandwich.

You win the NASA award for mixing metric and imperial in the most nonsensical way.

In this case is a sandwich an imperial unit?

Re: DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

#50

Post by djsumdog »

Joakal wrote: post #39
AndyNemmity wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not good for low-carb/keto eaters. Soy has carbs, chicken doesn't. There has been some discussion regarding subway and carbs in the chicken, because their nutrition shows far fewer than some app trackers do. If it's 50%, that's a serious level of carbs, and makes Subway not an option.

Subway prides themselves on having low or no fat in sandwiches as a great way to lose weight. The catch is that the carbs are there. ie, bread. Sneaky.

Yea I switched to a keto diet a few years back and it's made a world of difference. Bread is really terrible for you, especially in the quantities we eat in the western world.

A subway sandwich is terrible for you with its bread to filling ratio, and now we see their chicken salads may not be as healthy as we thought as well.

Post reply on HN