Subway’s bread deemed NOT bread due to its high sugar content
- Thread starter VIBE
- Start date
Young_Chitlin
Carajo 🇵🇪🧩
Jersey Mike's is now a regular lunchspot.. The italian sub is good af
Young_Chitlin
Carajo 🇵🇪🧩
What is the consensus on Panera?
NorthfolkBros
The King of Page 1
I love me some Subway but I always wonder why their tuna was so acidic
southsil4lil
We eat so many shrimp I got iodine poisoning
Firehouse, Schlotozkys, Jersey Mike's, Potbellys>>>>>
wadupdoe!313
OG
Man I'm tight they don't have potbellys in Georgia
Rubato
it only matters to us
Don’t like sandwiches that are 90% bread
Young_Chitlin
Carajo 🇵🇪🧩
You're right dude I had the steak and cheddar sandwich from them it was pretty much a big piece of bread with a few Carnitas in it LOL
Rubato
it only matters to us
Jason’s Deli do this too
U gotta hand it to subway the fact they can make a rubber mat taste that edible
Bobjones
Active Member
Whole wheat bread is where it's at. I dumped the sugary, fluffy wonder bread type shit type years ago.
Hazeleyez is right. These mass produced white breads are stripped of their nutrients so these companies fortify them to add vitamins and minerals back in. Fortification isn't the most ideal way to get your nutrients (they don't absorb quite as well as natural sources), hence why taking supps like multivitamins should be fall backs, not anything to rely concerning a balanced diet.
Hazeleyez is right. These mass produced white breads are stripped of their nutrients so these companies fortify them to add vitamins and minerals back in. Fortification isn't the most ideal way to get your nutrients (they don't absorb quite as well as natural sources), hence why taking supps like multivitamins should be fall backs, not anything to rely concerning a balanced diet.
Bobjones
Active Member
The first time I had subway was my last. Can't remember if it was chicken or meatballs, but its taste and texture was like plastic. They put up a deceptive marketing campaign to make their shit look natural and it's a hell of a lot easier for ppl to buy into it because it's not ur typical greasy, fried fast food joint.
willhustle
OG
Yoga mat.
Scandalust313
Unshakeable Unbreakable Victorious
(Reuters) - A new version of a lawsuit accusing Subway of deceiving the public about its tuna products said lab testing shows they contain animal proteins such as chicken, pork and cattle, and not the advertised "100% tuna."
Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin filed a third version of their proposed class action this week in the federal court in San Francisco, near their homes in Alameda County.
Subway said in a statement it will seek a dismissal of the "reckless and improper" lawsuit, calling the claims "meritless" and saying its "high-quality, wild-caught, 100% tuna" was regulated strictly in the United States and around the world.
Since the case began in January, Subway has run TV ads and launched a website defending its tuna. It also revamped its menu but not its tuna, saying an upgrade wasn't needed.
The original complaint claimed that Subway tuna products were "bereft" of tuna, while an amended complaint said they were not 100% sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna.
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar dismissed the second version last month, saying the plaintiffs did not show they bought Subway tuna based on alleged misrepresentations.
He did not rule on the merits, and gave the plaintiffs another chance to make their case.
The Nov. 8 lawsuit relies on testing by a marine biologist of 20 tuna samples taken from 20 Subway restaurants in southern California.
It said 19 samples had "no detectable tuna DNA sequences," while all 20 contained detectable chicken DNA, 11 contained pork DNA and 7 contained cattle DNA.
Many people cannot eat various meats because of diet or religious issues.
The complaint said the testing showed that Subway mislabeled its tuna products, and "duped" consumers into paying premium prices.
Amin said she ordered Subway tuna products more than 100 times from 2013 to 2019, and always checked the menu to ensure she would be eating "only tuna."
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for fraud and violations of California consumer protection laws.
The case is Amin et al v Subway Restaurants Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 21-00498.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/BPQH4HGPGNKSPIMDQ744Q5DZ7Q.jpg)
www.reuters.com
Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin filed a third version of their proposed class action this week in the federal court in San Francisco, near their homes in Alameda County.
Subway said in a statement it will seek a dismissal of the "reckless and improper" lawsuit, calling the claims "meritless" and saying its "high-quality, wild-caught, 100% tuna" was regulated strictly in the United States and around the world.
Since the case began in January, Subway has run TV ads and launched a website defending its tuna. It also revamped its menu but not its tuna, saying an upgrade wasn't needed.
The original complaint claimed that Subway tuna products were "bereft" of tuna, while an amended complaint said they were not 100% sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna.
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar dismissed the second version last month, saying the plaintiffs did not show they bought Subway tuna based on alleged misrepresentations.
He did not rule on the merits, and gave the plaintiffs another chance to make their case.
The Nov. 8 lawsuit relies on testing by a marine biologist of 20 tuna samples taken from 20 Subway restaurants in southern California.
It said 19 samples had "no detectable tuna DNA sequences," while all 20 contained detectable chicken DNA, 11 contained pork DNA and 7 contained cattle DNA.
Many people cannot eat various meats because of diet or religious issues.
The complaint said the testing showed that Subway mislabeled its tuna products, and "duped" consumers into paying premium prices.
Amin said she ordered Subway tuna products more than 100 times from 2013 to 2019, and always checked the menu to ensure she would be eating "only tuna."
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for fraud and violations of California consumer protection laws.
The case is Amin et al v Subway Restaurants Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 21-00498.
Lawsuit over Subway tuna now says chicken, pork, cattle DNA were detected
A new version of a lawsuit accusing Subway of deceiving the public about its tuna products said lab testing shows they contain animal proteins such as chicken, pork and cattle, and not the advertised "100% tuna."
www.reuters.com
mryounggun
OG
Not for nothing, them cheesesteaks ain't nothing to sneeze at either.
Young_Chitlin
Carajo 🇵🇪🧩
(Reuters) - A new version of a lawsuit accusing Subway of deceiving the public about its tuna products said lab testing shows they contain animal proteins such as chicken, pork and cattle, and not the advertised "100% tuna."
Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin filed a third version of their proposed class action this week in the federal court in San Francisco, near their homes in Alameda County.
Subway said in a statement it will seek a dismissal of the "reckless and improper" lawsuit, calling the claims "meritless" and saying its "high-quality, wild-caught, 100% tuna" was regulated strictly in the United States and around the world.
Since the case began in January, Subway has run TV ads and launched a website defending its tuna. It also revamped its menu but not its tuna, saying an upgrade wasn't needed.
The original complaint claimed that Subway tuna products were "bereft" of tuna, while an amended complaint said they were not 100% sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna.
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar dismissed the second version last month, saying the plaintiffs did not show they bought Subway tuna based on alleged misrepresentations.
He did not rule on the merits, and gave the plaintiffs another chance to make their case.
The Nov. 8 lawsuit relies on testing by a marine biologist of 20 tuna samples taken from 20 Subway restaurants in southern California.
It said 19 samples had "no detectable tuna DNA sequences," while all 20 contained detectable chicken DNA, 11 contained pork DNA and 7 contained cattle DNA.
Many people cannot eat various meats because of diet or religious issues.
The complaint said the testing showed that Subway mislabeled its tuna products, and "duped" consumers into paying premium prices.
Amin said she ordered Subway tuna products more than 100 times from 2013 to 2019, and always checked the menu to ensure she would be eating "only tuna."
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for fraud and violations of California consumer protection laws.
The case is Amin et al v Subway Restaurants Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 21-00498.
Lawsuit over Subway tuna now says chicken, pork, cattle DNA were detected
A new version of a lawsuit accusing Subway of deceiving the public about its tuna products said lab testing shows they contain animal proteins such as chicken, pork and cattle, and not the advertised "100% tuna."
That's fucked up on so many levels.
How can 19 out of 20 samples have "no detectable tuna"?
Even coke that's stepped on... still has coke in it!
