Hacker News Reader

Comment by WheelsAtLarge | Hacker News Reader

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 rolls. Yes, they are 12 inches in length but they are smaller over all. Another cost cutting step that will eventually hurt them.

View on HN

>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).

They did!

Heroin and cocaine were popular additions in the late 19th/early 20th to medicines of questionable value.

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

They sell nicotine, which is arguably worse.

Maybe in 1987[1]?

Seriously, though, as someone who is staunchly anti-smoking, I'm interested to hear the argument as to why you think that is.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-t...

> Maybe in 1987?

(Edit: this is in reference to the grandparent post which mentions selling heroin to infants )

Nestle still does the milk formula trick at hospitals and maternity courses, where try to get babies addicted to milk formula. They even have "pre-conception courses".

http://www.nestle-baby.ca/en/preconception

Notice, the WHO breastmilk popup on that page. This was put up after the boycott-nestle campaign.

http://www.babymilkaction.org/nestlefree

> "Our recipe calls for one per cent or less of soy protein in our chicken products."

> "We will look into this again with our supplier to ensure that the chicken is meeting the high standard we set for all of our menu items and ingredients."

Ah, the beauty of third parties shows itself once again. "Now, supplier, we want a one hundred percent chicken product, but we will only pay 50% of what that would cost. We're relying on you to get this right."

Nearly every gas station and general store in the land will sell you a much better sub for the same price or less than Subway charges for their aggressively mediocre products.

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

If you are gonna complain, you should complain that they are needlessly hatched, caged and slaughtered.

If we weren't eating them, we'd also stop growing them.

I feel like you have a point in there somewhere. Would you like to share it?

Zing!

I personally don't care about chickens, they are basically a moving vegetable to me. But we don't pull chickens out of a magic chicken tube, we grow them in huge barns, with a great deal of intention.

I guess my comment came across as rude, I didn't mean it that way.

I originally wrote a reply something along the lines of "I hear that argument a lot: if we didn't raise animals for food they wouldn't even be born!"

But I thought it would be better to ask you to clarify rather than respond based on an assumption.

His point is that though they may be "needlessly slaughtered", they would not have been born if not for that purpose.

My personal extension of this is that if you believe that the well-being of the chicken is all that matters, and if you believe that the chicken was better off never having lived, then you should avoid meat. However, if the chicken is better off for having lived, you should eat meat.

Thanks for the comment! It's an interesting point to raise. Personally, I don't think most farmers, who raise chickens for the express reason of selling them for their meat or eggs, would continue raising chickens if there was no demand for their products.

These chickens often live in squalor and die of disease or physical trauma. It is better for these chickens to have never lived.

However, if you would like to raise pet chickens in decent conditions, and you just so happen to eat a few of the eggs they produce naturally with no coercion, then it is all good for these chickens to be alive

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

Which is why it is fortunate that they use soy :)

personally i wish it was 0% chicken of course

ITT: triggered carnivores

you should scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the "rules" link, and familiarize yourself with our community expectations.

My apologies. Which guideline do you feel that I have strayed from?

Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com