This is actually a fair point in general. Friends who moved here from the US noticed that they fell in weight fairly quickly - and the only difference was that the amount of sugar-variants (corn...
This is actually a fair point in general. Friends who moved here from the US noticed that they fell in weight fairly quickly - and the only difference was that the amount of sugar-variants (corn starch specifically) allowed in US food is banned here.
It's funny how my opinion, albeit strongly held, that Subway is absolute trash is met with such puzzlement by my fellow Americans. I don't get it. They're trash sandwiches.
It's funny how my opinion, albeit strongly held, that Subway is absolute trash is met with such puzzlement by my fellow Americans. I don't get it. They're trash sandwiches.
I'm not american but … I like them. In fact, I'm French and I'm pretty particular about sandwiches. A jambon-beurre or saucisson sandwich with high quality baguette bread is one of my favourite...
I'm not american but … I like them.
In fact, I'm French and I'm pretty particular about sandwiches. A jambon-beurre or saucisson sandwich with high quality baguette bread is one of my favourite meals. But Subway sandwiches are kind of their own thing, their own category of food.
I definitely wouldn't call them "trash", at any rate. Maybe they shouldn't be compared to other sandwiches but rather to burgers and wraps.
I guess it's just weird to me because no reasonable person wouldn't call the fluffy sliced carbohydrates sitting in my pantry "bread", except apparently for the Irish government. It's a strange...
I guess it's just weird to me because no reasonable person wouldn't call the fluffy sliced carbohydrates sitting in my pantry "bread", except apparently for the Irish government. It's a strange way to phrase a standard dictating how healthy food should be to qualify for tax breaks, to the point where I almost wonder if it's the result of some clever editorializing to earn some clicks. They could easily say that the bread does not meet the nutritional standards necessary to earn a tax deduction, rather than the clickbait-ready "Subway's bread isn't actually bread"
To be fair, the actual headline is very clear and specific about what’s going on: “Subway bread does not meet tax exempt legal definition of bread, Irish court rules”.
To be fair, the actual headline is very clear and specific about what’s going on: “Subway bread does not meet tax exempt legal definition of bread, Irish court rules”.
I think that it probably depends where you live. Bread in most parts of the world has just enough sugar to feed the yeast to make it rise. Products such as 'banana bread' do have more sugar...
I think that it probably depends where you live. Bread in most parts of the world has just enough sugar to feed the yeast to make it rise. Products such as 'banana bread' do have more sugar everywhere in the world, but banana bread is considered a form of cake.
In North America, on the other hand, the standard is to add significantly more sugar (possibly in the form of a corn syrup). To the palates of most non-Americans, American sandwich bread is more like cake in terms of the sweetness.
So it is unsurprising that an American company rolling out products similar to what they sell in their country of origin to other parts of the world would encounter differences in how their product is locally categorised.
It is probably also a good example of where localisation of products to local norms would have been better practice than blind copying when entering a new market (similarly, for example, that same chain also rolls out imperial units in naming their products to countries where those units are not in current use or well understood).
This is actually a fair point in general. Friends who moved here from the US noticed that they fell in weight fairly quickly - and the only difference was that the amount of sugar-variants (corn starch specifically) allowed in US food is banned here.
It's funny how my opinion, albeit strongly held, that Subway is absolute trash is met with such puzzlement by my fellow Americans. I don't get it. They're trash sandwiches.
That’s a pretty common sentiment. I don’t know anybody who considers them “good”. They go because they are cheap and fast.
Fair enough! Here we also have Jimmy John's which is also cheap and fast
They might still be fast but they deffo ain't cheap here anymore.
I'm not american but … I like them.
In fact, I'm French and I'm pretty particular about sandwiches. A jambon-beurre or saucisson sandwich with high quality baguette bread is one of my favourite meals. But Subway sandwiches are kind of their own thing, their own category of food.
I definitely wouldn't call them "trash", at any rate. Maybe they shouldn't be compared to other sandwiches but rather to burgers and wraps.
I can respect that! Like how I love Taco Bell. It's not Mexican food, but it's good on it's own!
This is very fair. Full disclosure, I over ate Subway in college because it was one of very few options.
Maybe they think it’s good or healthy only in comparison to the alternatives.
Maybe? I feel like anymore there's way more healthy options though.
2% sugar/flower ratio seems really low. I'm guessing most sandwich bread at my grocery store wouldn't qualify under that rule.
I guess it's just weird to me because no reasonable person wouldn't call the fluffy sliced carbohydrates sitting in my pantry "bread", except apparently for the Irish government. It's a strange way to phrase a standard dictating how healthy food should be to qualify for tax breaks, to the point where I almost wonder if it's the result of some clever editorializing to earn some clicks. They could easily say that the bread does not meet the nutritional standards necessary to earn a tax deduction, rather than the clickbait-ready "Subway's bread isn't actually bread"
To be fair, the actual headline is very clear and specific about what’s going on: “Subway bread does not meet tax exempt legal definition of bread, Irish court rules”.
This is not true in the U.S., at least for officially designated bread.
I think that it probably depends where you live. Bread in most parts of the world has just enough sugar to feed the yeast to make it rise. Products such as 'banana bread' do have more sugar everywhere in the world, but banana bread is considered a form of cake.
In North America, on the other hand, the standard is to add significantly more sugar (possibly in the form of a corn syrup). To the palates of most non-Americans, American sandwich bread is more like cake in terms of the sweetness.
So it is unsurprising that an American company rolling out products similar to what they sell in their country of origin to other parts of the world would encounter differences in how their product is locally categorised.
It is probably also a good example of where localisation of products to local norms would have been better practice than blind copying when entering a new market (similarly, for example, that same chain also rolls out imperial units in naming their products to countries where those units are not in current use or well understood).