What is in Subway chicken?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/whats-act...195550090.html

Here's something that will ruin Subway chicken sandwiches forever: The
"chicken" they're serving is allegedly only 50 percent chicken,
according to a DNA test. Yes, someone gave a piece of Subway chicken a
DNA test, and it's like an episode of Maury with the chicken and the
Subway sandwich and Maury's like "you are not the father, sort of." I
love science!

The brain behind this Canadian study - which you probably wish you could
forget now, but you can't, sorry - is researcher Matt Harnden, from
Trent University's Wildlife Forensic DNA Laboratory. In addition to
testing the poultry at Subway, he tested the poultry from five other
fast food restaurants like McDonald's and Wendy's, which were found to
be between 86 and 90 percent chicken. FYI, according to the study, only
an unadulterated piece of chicken from a store should come in at 100
percent chicken DNA. Things like seasoning, marinating, or any type of
cooking - all part and parcel of the fast food business - brings that
number down. (So, basically, it's not expected that a piece of chicken
from a fast food restaurant would come in at 100 percent chicken.)

That being said, the result of Subways 50 percent chicken DNA was very
low compared to the other chains - so low, in fact, that researchers
tested it twice. Subway's oven-roasted chicken came out to be 53.6
percent chicken, and their chicken strips were found to have only 42.8
percent chicken. So, what's the rest of the DNA? Soy. The protein from
soybeans is often used as a replacement for animal protein.

Subway is not convinced, however. In a statement to Marketplace, the
chain said they're "concerned," and are disputing the lab's findings.

Oh, I dunno....there is nothing wrong with soy, as a protein, unless someone is allergic to it.
It is certainly a much better component of "chicken" than, say, plastic.....;-))
That said, I seldom eat a Subway sandwich. We have a small chain I like better, Milio's,
for subs.

N.

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 22:01:33 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>What is in Subway chicken?
>
>https://www.yahoo.com/news/whats-act...195550090.html
>
>Here's something that will ruin Subway chicken sandwiches forever: The
>"chicken" they're serving is allegedly only 50 percent chicken,
>according to a DNA test. Yes, someone gave a piece of Subway chicken a
>DNA test, and it's like an episode of Maury with the chicken and the
>Subway sandwich and Maury's like "you are not the father, sort of." I
>love science!
>
>The brain behind this Canadian study - which you probably wish you could
>forget now, but you can't, sorry - is researcher Matt Harnden, from
>Trent University's Wildlife Forensic DNA Laboratory. In addition to
>testing the poultry at Subway, he tested the poultry from five other
>fast food restaurants like McDonald's and Wendy's, which were found to
>be between 86 and 90 percent chicken. FYI, according to the study, only
>an unadulterated piece of chicken from a store should come in at 100
>percent chicken DNA. Things like seasoning, marinating, or any type of
>cooking - all part and parcel of the fast food business - brings that
>number down. (So, basically, it's not expected that a piece of chicken
>from a fast food restaurant would come in at 100 percent chicken.)
>
>That being said, the result of Subways 50 percent chicken DNA was very
>low compared to the other chains - so low, in fact, that researchers
>tested it twice. Subway's oven-roasted chicken came out to be 53.6
>percent chicken, and their chicken strips were found to have only 42.8
>percent chicken. So, what's the rest of the DNA? Soy. The protein from
>soybeans is often used as a replacement for animal protein.
>
>Subway is not convinced, however. In a statement to Marketplace, the
>chain said they're "concerned," and are disputing the lab's findings.

Interesting story.

People who eat at places like Subway and McDonalds obviously don't
have the best taste buds. So they are the easiest to fool with meat
replacements. I call upon Subway to become an even greater pioneer in
this field and only use soy chicken. Their customers get cheap
"chicken" rolls, Subway make a nice profit and the chickens are taken
out of the equation.

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 5:01:33 PM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> What is in Subway chicken?
>
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/whats-act...195550090.html
>
> Here's something that will ruin Subway chicken sandwiches forever: The
> "chicken" they're serving is allegedly only 50 percent chicken,
> according to a DNA test. Yes, someone gave a piece of Subway chicken a
> DNA test, and it's like an episode of Maury with the chicken and the
> Subway sandwich and Maury's like "you are not the father, sort of." I
> love science!
>
> The brain behind this Canadian study - which you probably wish you could
> forget now, but you can't, sorry - is researcher Matt Harnden, from
> Trent University's Wildlife Forensic DNA Laboratory. In addition to
> testing the poultry at Subway, he tested the poultry from five other
> fast food restaurants like McDonald's and Wendy's, which were found to
> be between 86 and 90 percent chicken. FYI, according to the study, only
> an unadulterated piece of chicken from a store should come in at 100
> percent chicken DNA. Things like seasoning, marinating, or any type of
> cooking - all part and parcel of the fast food business - brings that
> number down. (So, basically, it's not expected that a piece of chicken
> from a fast food restaurant would come in at 100 percent chicken.)
>
> That being said, the result of Subways 50 percent chicken DNA was very
> low compared to the other chains - so low, in fact, that researchers
> tested it twice. Subway's oven-roasted chicken came out to be 53.6
> percent chicken, and their chicken strips were found to have only 42.8
> percent chicken. So, what's the rest of the DNA? Soy. The protein from
> soybeans is often used as a replacement for animal protein.
>
> Subway is not convinced, however. In a statement to Marketplace, the
> chain said they're "concerned," and are disputing the lab's findings.

This is the meat from the future that we've all been waiting for!

On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:07:23 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 5:01:33 PM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> What is in Subway chicken?
>>
>> https://www.yahoo.com/news/whats-act...195550090.html
>>
>> Here's something that will ruin Subway chicken sandwiches forever: The
>> "chicken" they're serving is allegedly only 50 percent chicken,
>> according to a DNA test. Yes, someone gave a piece of Subway chicken a
>> DNA test, and it's like an episode of Maury with the chicken and the
>> Subway sandwich and Maury's like "you are not the father, sort of." I
>> love science!
>>
>> The brain behind this Canadian study - which you probably wish you could
>> forget now, but you can't, sorry - is researcher Matt Harnden, from
>> Trent University's Wildlife Forensic DNA Laboratory. In addition to
>> testing the poultry at Subway, he tested the poultry from five other
>> fast food restaurants like McDonald's and Wendy's, which were found to
>> be between 86 and 90 percent chicken. FYI, according to the study, only
>> an unadulterated piece of chicken from a store should come in at 100
>> percent chicken DNA. Things like seasoning, marinating, or any type of
>> cooking - all part and parcel of the fast food business - brings that
>> number down. (So, basically, it's not expected that a piece of chicken
>> from a fast food restaurant would come in at 100 percent chicken.)
>>
>> That being said, the result of Subways 50 percent chicken DNA was very
>> low compared to the other chains - so low, in fact, that researchers
>> tested it twice. Subway's oven-roasted chicken came out to be 53.6
>> percent chicken, and their chicken strips were found to have only 42.8
>> percent chicken. So, what's the rest of the DNA? Soy. The protein from
>> soybeans is often used as a replacement for animal protein.
>>
>> Subway is not convinced, however. In a statement to Marketplace, the
>> chain said they're "concerned," and are disputing the lab's findings.
>
>This is the meat from the future that we've all been waiting for!

Yes, it may not be happening for the noblest of reasons, but it's
happening!

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 22:01:33 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>What is in Subway chicken?
>
>https://www.yahoo.com/news/whats-act...195550090.html
>
>Here's something that will ruin Subway chicken sandwiches forever: The
>"chicken" they're serving is allegedly only 50 percent chicken,
>according to a DNA test. Yes, someone gave a piece of Subway chicken a
>DNA test, and it's like an episode of Maury with the chicken and the
>Subway sandwich and Maury's like "you are not the father, sort of." I
>love science!
>
>The brain behind this Canadian study - which you probably wish you could
>forget now, but you can't, sorry - is researcher Matt Harnden, from
>Trent University's Wildlife Forensic DNA Laboratory. In addition to
>testing the poultry at Subway, he tested the poultry from five other
>fast food restaurants like McDonald's and Wendy's, which were found to
>be between 86 and 90 percent chicken. FYI, according to the study, only
>an unadulterated piece of chicken from a store should come in at 100
>percent chicken DNA. Things like seasoning, marinating, or any type of
>cooking - all part and parcel of the fast food business - brings that
>number down. (So, basically, it's not expected that a piece of chicken
>from a fast food restaurant would come in at 100 percent chicken.)
>
>That being said, the result of Subways 50 percent chicken DNA was very
>low compared to the other chains - so low, in fact, that researchers
>tested it twice. Subway's oven-roasted chicken came out to be 53.6
>percent chicken, and their chicken strips were found to have only 42.8
>percent chicken. So, what's the rest of the DNA? Soy. The protein from
>soybeans is often used as a replacement for animal protein.
>
>Subway is not convinced, however. In a statement to Marketplace, the
>chain said they're "concerned," and are disputing the lab's findings.

This morning they are saying Subway has rejected the science but that
Marketplace has turned over all the DNA findings. I'll be surprised
if they are wrong, their programmes are very well researched.

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 19:40:20 -0800 (PST), Nancy2
> wrote:

>Oh, I dunno....there is nothing wrong with soy, as a protein, unless someone is allergic to it.
>It is certainly a much better component of "chicken" than, say, plastic.....;-))
>That said, I seldom eat a Subway sandwich. We have a small chain I like better, Milio's,
>for subs.
>
>N.

The people who pay the extra for Subway chicken sandwiches here are
annoyed to find they were paying that for soy.

wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 19:40:20 -0800 (PST), Nancy2
> > wrote:
>
> >Oh, I dunno....there is nothing wrong with soy, as a protein, unless someone is allergic to it.
> >It is certainly a much better component of "chicken" than, say, plastic.....;-))
> >That said, I seldom eat a Subway sandwich. We have a small chain I like better, Milio's,
> >for subs.
> >
> >N.
>
> The people who pay the extra for Subway chicken sandwiches here are
> annoyed to find they were paying that for soy.

Never tried them. My only comment on this subject is that I wouldn't
care what they are made from if they taste good and the company will
tell you up front what you are buying.

Healthy? That's a personal decision.
I so rarely eat fast food, I don't give a damn.
The little I eat is fine with me if it tastes good.

On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:44:22 -0500, Gary > wrote:

wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 19:40:20 -0800 (PST), Nancy2
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Oh, I dunno....there is nothing wrong with soy, as a protein, unless someone is allergic to it.
>> >It is certainly a much better component of "chicken" than, say, plastic.....;-))
>> >That said, I seldom eat a Subway sandwich. We have a small chain I like better, Milio's,
>> >for subs.
>> >
>> >N.
>>
>> The people who pay the extra for Subway chicken sandwiches here are
>> annoyed to find they were paying that for soy.
>
>Never tried them. My only comment on this subject is that I wouldn't
>care what they are made from if they taste good and the company will
>tell you up front what you are buying.
>
>Healthy? That's a personal decision.
>I so rarely eat fast food, I don't give a damn.
>The little I eat is fine with me if it tastes good.

I only went to Subway once and felt it was overpriced. The sandwich I
had was nice, but too costly for what it was. It is viewed here as
more 'healthy' fast food, so this came as a shock to some of the
regulars.

wrote:
>
> I only went to Subway once and felt it was overpriced. The sandwich I
> had was nice, but too costly for what it was.

I've only been to Subway 2-3 times. This was back a few years ago when
they were selling all their subs for $5.00. Choices of 3 breads (I
really liked one of them) then choice of ingredients.

Nice sub for $5 but they really did seem to be lacking with (something).
Kind of bland tasting? I forget now. Anyway, it wasn't something to
rave about at the time.
My local sub shop sells them for about the same price and they are to
die for. And yes John...it's an all-american sub. :-D

On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 10:55:36 -0500, Gary > wrote:

wrote:
>>
>> I only went to Subway once and felt it was overpriced. The sandwich I
>> had was nice, but too costly for what it was.
>
>I've only been to Subway 2-3 times. This was back a few years ago when
>they were selling all their subs for $5.00. Choices of 3 breads (I
>really liked one of them) then choice of ingredients.
>
>Nice sub for $5 but they really did seem to be lacking with (something).
>Kind of bland tasting? I forget now. Anyway, it wasn't something to
>rave about at the time.
>My local sub shop sells them for about the same price and they are to
>die for. And yes John...it's an all-american sub. :-D

You can't be sure they weren't from Chinese eggs though )

wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 10:55:36 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I only went to Subway once and felt it was overpriced. The sandwich I
> >> had was nice, but too costly for what it was.
> >
> >I've only been to Subway 2-3 times. This was back a few years ago when
> >they were selling all their subs for $5.00. Choices of 3 breads (I
> >really liked one of them) then choice of ingredients.
> >
> >Nice sub for $5 but they really did seem to be lacking with (something).
> >Kind of bland tasting? I forget now. Anyway, it wasn't something to
> >rave about at the time.
> >My local sub shop sells them for about the same price and they are to
> >die for. And yes John...it's an all-american sub. :-D
>
> You can't be sure they weren't from Chinese eggs though )

You might be correct. Subway subs were cheap tasting to me.
Maybe they are cheap chinese subs.
Maybe John can also buy out Subway and fix things. hehehe

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 9:01:33 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> What is in Subway chicken?
>
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/whats-act...195550090.html
>
> Here's something that will ruin Subway chicken sandwiches forever: The
> "chicken" they're serving is allegedly only 50 percent chicken,
> according to a DNA test. Yes, someone gave a piece of Subway chicken a
> DNA test, and it's like an episode of Maury with the chicken and the
> Subway sandwich and Maury's like "you are not the father, sort of." I
> love science!
>
> The brain behind this Canadian study - which you probably wish you could
> forget now, but you can't, sorry - is researcher Matt Harnden, from
> Trent University's Wildlife Forensic DNA Laboratory. In addition to
> testing the poultry at Subway, he tested the poultry from five other
> fast food restaurants like McDonald's and Wendy's, which were found to
> be between 86 and 90 percent chicken. FYI, according to the study, only
> an unadulterated piece of chicken from a store should come in at 100
> percent chicken DNA. Things like seasoning, marinating, or any type of
> cooking - all part and parcel of the fast food business - brings that
> number down. (So, basically, it's not expected that a piece of chicken
> from a fast food restaurant would come in at 100 percent chicken.)
>
> That being said, the result of Subways 50 percent chicken DNA was very
> low compared to the other chains - so low, in fact, that researchers
> tested it twice. Subway's oven-roasted chicken came out to be 53.6
> percent chicken, and their chicken strips were found to have only 42.8
> percent chicken. So, what's the rest of the DNA? Soy. The protein from
> soybeans is often used as a replacement for animal protein.
>
> Subway is not convinced, however. In a statement to Marketplace, the
> chain said they're "concerned," and are disputing the lab's findings.



Ed it was CBC Broadcasting, their marketplace program, and yes it's true.
It was 60% soy.

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 9:01:33 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> What is in Subway chicken?
>
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/whats-act...195550090.html
>
> Here's something that will ruin Subway chicken sandwiches forever: The
> "chicken" they're serving is allegedly only 50 percent chicken,
> according to a DNA test. Yes, someone gave a piece of Subway chicken a
> DNA test, and it's like an episode of Maury with the chicken and the
> Subway sandwich and Maury's like "you are not the father, sort of." I
> love science!
>
> The brain behind this Canadian study - which you probably wish you could
> forget now, but you can't, sorry - is researcher Matt Harnden, from
> Trent University's Wildlife Forensic DNA Laboratory. In addition to
> testing the poultry at Subway, he tested the poultry from five other
> fast food restaurants like McDonald's and Wendy's, which were found to
> be between 86 and 90 percent chicken. FYI, according to the study, only
> an unadulterated piece of chicken from a store should come in at 100
> percent chicken DNA. Things like seasoning, marinating, or any type of
> cooking - all part and parcel of the fast food business - brings that
> number down. (So, basically, it's not expected that a piece of chicken
> from a fast food restaurant would come in at 100 percent chicken.)
>
> That being said, the result of Subways 50 percent chicken DNA was very
> low compared to the other chains - so low, in fact, that researchers
> tested it twice. Subway's oven-roasted chicken came out to be 53.6
> percent chicken, and their chicken strips were found to have only 42.8
> percent chicken. So, what's the rest of the DNA? Soy. The protein from
> soybeans is often used as a replacement for animal protein.
>
> Subway is not convinced, however. In a statement to Marketplace, the
> chain said they're "concerned," and are disputing the lab's findings.

Well when you expect your sandwich to be 100% chicken and it's found to be 60% soy I'd be upset as well.

On 3/13/2017 7:04 PM, wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 9:01:33 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> What is in Subway chicken?
>>
>> https://www.yahoo.com/news/whats-act...195550090.html
>>
>> Here's something that will ruin Subway chicken sandwiches forever: The
>> "chicken" they're serving is allegedly only 50 percent chicken,
>> according to a DNA test. Yes, someone gave a piece of Subway chicken a
>> DNA test, and it's like an episode of Maury with the chicken and the
>> Subway sandwich and Maury's like "you are not the father, sort of." I
>> love science!
>>
>> The brain behind this Canadian study - which you probably wish you could
>> forget now, but you can't, sorry - is researcher Matt Harnden, from
>> Trent University's Wildlife Forensic DNA Laboratory. In addition to
>> testing the poultry at Subway, he tested the poultry from five other
>> fast food restaurants like McDonald's and Wendy's, which were found to
>> be between 86 and 90 percent chicken. FYI, according to the study, only
>> an unadulterated piece of chicken from a store should come in at 100
>> percent chicken DNA. Things like seasoning, marinating, or any type of
>> cooking - all part and parcel of the fast food business - brings that
>> number down. (So, basically, it's not expected that a piece of chicken
>> from a fast food restaurant would come in at 100 percent chicken.)
>>
>> That being said, the result of Subways 50 percent chicken DNA was very
>> low compared to the other chains - so low, in fact, that researchers
>> tested it twice. Subway's oven-roasted chicken came out to be 53.6
>> percent chicken, and their chicken strips were found to have only 42.8
>> percent chicken. So, what's the rest of the DNA? Soy. The protein from
>> soybeans is often used as a replacement for animal protein.
>>
>> Subway is not convinced, however. In a statement to Marketplace, the
>> chain said they're "concerned," and are disputing the lab's findings.
>
>
>
> Ed it was CBC Broadcasting, their marketplace program, and yes it's true.
> It was 60% soy.
>

I've added some soy to sausage mx with good results. It makes in
moister and lowers the fat percentage. I've only added maybe 5% or less.
60% is a rip off, IMO

I don't go to Subway for other reasons. Granddaughter worked there for
a day and did not make the cut. I have no problem with that, it was not
a good fit, but they told her it was training so no pay. BS, I went with
her and got her pay for the day.

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:37:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>I've added some soy to sausage mx with good results. It makes in
>moister and lowers the fat percentage. I've only added maybe 5% or less.
>60% is a rip off, IMO
>
>I don't go to Subway for other reasons. Granddaughter worked there for
>a day and did not make the cut. I have no problem with that, it was not
>a good fit, but they told her it was training so no pay. BS, I went with
>her and got her pay for the day.

So you're one of the people who forced them to put 60% soy in their
chicken burgers!

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...

> I don't go to Subway for other reasons. Granddaughter worked there for a
> day and did not make the cut. I have no problem with that, it was not a
> good fit, but they told her it was training so no pay. BS, I went with her
> and got her pay for the day.



Yeah, they can't do that no matter how hard they try. I had that happen to
me a couple of times, one actually a casino in Reno, and another restaurant.
This was a long time ago, but in the end, they both paid for the hours I
worked.

Cheri