“Throw All of That Away”: Man Confronts Gas Station Employees Over Allegedly Relabeled Food 48%

By Haley49%

7/14/2026, 11:30:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Confirmation Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 18.5% saturation with 110 hits. Analysis detected 906 faulty-reasoning hits from 596 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49% and a BS Rank of 48% (11,185 of 21,197 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 52.80% of the article peer group.

A viral video shared on X appears to show a man confronting gas station employees after he claims to have found expired food with multiple date stickers on the packaging. 
In the video, he alleges the gas station was relabeling expired food instead of throwing it away. 
A man discovers local Indian-run gas stations have been placing three and four new expiration stickers on food products that were already well past their expiration dates, forcing him to take matters into his own hands and throw away their entire inventory. pic.twitter.com/Q6qBpNgYKx 
- Right Angle News Network (@Rightanglenews) July 13, 2026 
The man starts recording when he confronts the gas station employees about the expired ‘fresh’ food on their shelves. 
He found hamburgers and other meals with multiple expiration-date stickers placed one on top of another. 
Instead of throwing away the expired food, the gas station was trying to sell it and pretend that it was perfectly safe to eat. 
“Throw all of that away,” the man recording says. 
Garbage. 
Put this in the garbage. 
I know you wouldn’t let your family eat this.” 
The gas station attendants begin throwing away the expired food as the man puts pressure on them. 
“You take the first sticker off and then put another one on,” he continues. 
The gas station employee claims he was not putting new stickers on expired food. 
Rather, he had put the wrong sticker on in the first place and had to replace it. 
The employee says the labels were replaced because the wrong sticker had initially been applied. 
The video does not independently verify either account. 
People in the comment section were stunned by the alleged expired food being sold in the gas station. 
“OK GROSS! 
 Thankfully we pack our own sandwiches for travel UNLESS we are going by BUCKEE’S! 
Then we buy AS MUCH AS WE CAN INSIDE BUCKEE’S!!!,” commented one user. 
Another wrote, “We don’t have health inspectors in America anymore? 
WTF?” 
Others Claimed They Had Encountered Similar Situations 
Other people noted that they had experienced this themselves. 
“Wow, that’s absolutely wild. 
I’ve seen them do this with baked goods before, but to keep relabeling expired food like that is next level scamming. 
Good for you for calling them out.” 
“I’ve never understood why anyone would eat food from a gas station,” wrote someone else, unsure why people would want to eat food from a gas station to begin with. 
“I know of at least one gas station that consistently puts expired merchandise on the shelves and even in their coolers. 
They make purchases of expired or nearly past “use by” dates in bulk for a fraction of wholesale costs and then absolutely do NOT pass the savings on to customers. 
They simply stock the items and charge their already overinflated ‘convenience’ prices,” another commenter wrote. 
“It is maddening! 
Bad enough we have to constantly be aware that nearly everything is a scam as it is!” 
It seems like many people have encountered expired food on the shelves of gas stations and supermarkets. 
It’s important to double and triple check labels before making a purchase. 
The Daily Dot was unable to independently verify the circumstances shown in the video, which is based on footage shared on X. 
Sign up to receive the Daily Dot’s Internet Insider newsletter for urgent news from the frontline of online. 
The post “Throw All of That Away”: Man Confronts Gas Station Employees Over Allegedly Relabeled Food appeared first on The Daily Dot . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.8%Haley: 3.5%dailydot.com: 4.3%Confirmation Bias15.8%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.3%Haley: 3.9%dailydot.com: 4.2%Availability Heuristic17.3%This article: 0.0%Haley: 1.4%dailydot.com: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Haley: 1.1%dailydot.com: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias6.4%This article: 5.0%Haley: 5.8%dailydot.com: 4.9%Framing Effect5.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 1.4%dailydot.com: 1.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Haley: 1.7%dailydot.com: 1.3%Pessimism Bias7.9%This article: 10.7%Haley: 9.5%dailydot.com: 8.7%Negativity Bias10.7%This article: 5.0%Haley: 1.3%dailydot.com: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias5.0%This article: 6.5%Haley: 3.4%dailydot.com: 2.6%Fundamental Attribution Error6.5%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 2.0%dailydot.com: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 2.4%dailydot.com: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 2.3%dailydot.com: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 2.3%dailydot.com: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.4%dailydot.com: 1.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 1.7%Haley: 1.9%dailydot.com: 2.3%False Dilemma1.7%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.9%dailydot.com: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.6%Haley: 9.3%dailydot.com: 8.9%Hasty Generalization13.6%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.2%Haley: 2.2%dailydot.com: 2.4%Bandwagon4.2%This article: 7.4%Haley: 6.2%dailydot.com: 7.1%Appeal to Emotion7.4%This article: 2.3%Haley: 1.2%dailydot.com: 0.9%Begging the Question2.3%This article: 5.0%Haley: 0.6%dailydot.com: 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 1.2%dailydot.com: 1.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 18.5%Haley: 6.5%dailydot.com: 7.3%Anecdotal18.5%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 2.4%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 5.0%Haley: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity5.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 3.0%dailydot.com: 4.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 1.5%Haley: 2.5%dailydot.com: 3.4%Quote-first Misdirection1.5%This article: 6.9%Haley: 3.7%dailydot.com: 3.9%Biased Writer Voice6.9%This article: 6.0%Haley: 2.0%dailydot.com: 1.5%Indoctrination6.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Haley: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Haley: 2.3%dailydot.com: 2.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.2%

596 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers4.5%attributed speech569writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageRight Angle News Network • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageDaily Dot • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Daily Dot

100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words67% of attributed speech78% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +97.7 ptsWriter: 2.3%Daily Dot: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%Daily Dot: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-6.3 ptsWriter: 6.3%Daily Dot: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.6 ptsWriter: 1.6%Daily Dot: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.