Cake sandwich

[Gob]

Those wrestling with the great culinary-philosophical dilemmas of our time – are jaffa cakes actually cakes or just up-themselves biscuits, is putting chorizo in paella really an act of gastronomic terrorism, and what kind of monster doesn’t love Marmite? – can give thanks to the Irish supreme court. Earlier this week, it brought clarity to an important, if less bitterly contested, debate.

In a judgment published on Tuesday, the court ruled that the bread served at Subway, the US chain that hawks giant sandwiches in 110 countries and territories, could not in fact be defined as bread because of its high sugar content.

The ruling followed an appeal by Bookfinders Ltd, Subway’s Irish franchisee. The company had argued that the bread used in Subway sandwiches counted as a staple food and was consequently exempt from VAT.

However, as the court pointed out, Ireland’s Value-Added Tax Act of 1972 draws a distinction between staple foods – bread, tea, coffee, cocoa, milk and “preparations or extracts of meat or eggs” – and “more discretionary indulgences” such as ice-cream, chocolate, pastries, crisps, popcorn and roasted nuts.

The clincher was the act’s strict provision that the amount of sugar in bread “shall not exceed 2% of the weight of flour included in the dough”.

Subway’s bread, however, contains five times as much sugar. Or, as the supreme court put it: “In this case, there is no dispute that the bread supplied by Subway in its heated sandwiches has a sugar content of 10% of the weight of the flour included in the dough.”

The appeal arose from a claim by Bookfinder Ltd that there were owed a refund from January/February 2004 to November/December 2005, when they paid VAT at a composite rate of 9.2%. They argued that they should instead have been subjected to 0% VAT. But Mr Justice O’Donnell was not persuaded and the appeal was dismissed.

“The argument depends on the acceptance of the prior contention that the Subway heated sandwich contains ‘bread’ as defined, and therefore can be said to be food for the purposes of the second schedule rather than confectionery,” he ruled. “Since that argument has been rejected, this subsidiary argument must fail.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... -not-bread

[Guinevere]

Gack. Bread does not need all that sugar. My mother (a blue ribbon MD state fair bread baker) would be rolling in her grave. A little bit to feed the yeast is all that is necessary!

Chorizo in paella makes it jambalaya (although that’s andouille, preferably).

[Big RR]

While andoullie sausage may make it similar to jambalaya, I have had paella a number of times in Spain (usually around Valencia, which is where, I understand, paella originated) which contains Spanish chorizo. I don't think it is traditional, my guess is that many restaurants (and perhaps families) include the chorizo to cut down on the more expensive seafood. Personally, although I am not a paella gourmand, I prefer it with the sausage (but then I enjoy jambalaya).

[Long Run]

Paella has always been a "whatever" protein you got, to go with rice and saffron. I think chorizo would be good with both seafood dominate and chicken/rabbit versions.

[Long Run]

On the main question of the post, isn't the real question whether you can call what Subway serves a "sandwich" since it has so much content that can't really be called real food. $5 foot long (now $6) can only be profitable if the fixings are super cheap.

[Big RR]

Or bought in bulk; I happened to have a small sandwich (6") from Subway this weekend, and it was as good as subs I've had from local pizzerias. I don't think they have super premium cold cuts (like prosciutto or capicola), but the turkey I had was fine (and the lettuce and tomatow were fresh). The bread was ordinary Italian bread which toasted up acceptable; no identifiable sweetness). And, FWIW, it was at an airport and cost near $9.00. All in all, an acceptable sandwich at an acceptable price (for an airport, where a domestic beer is often $12 or more). Nothing special, but edible.