General Category > National/Breaking News

Subway’s tuna sandwiches found to contain no tuna fish DNA, lab tests find following lawsuit

(1/3) > >>

mystery-ak:
Subway’s tuna sandwiches found to contain no tuna fish DNA, lab tests find following lawsuit
New York Times report had 60 inches of Subway tuna tested at lab and found 'no amplifiable tuna DNA was present'

   
By Jeanette Settembre FOXBusiness

Subway is on the hook for its tuna once again after a lab report found there’s no actual tuna DNA in its sandwiches and wraps.

The New York Times had 60 inches of Subway tuna sandwiches from three different restaurants in Los Angeles lab tested after the chain was accused in a lawsuit reported earlier this year, alleging the fish is made from "a mixture of various concoctions," first reported by the Washington Post.



The tuna was frozen and sent out to the lab, which determined "no amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so we obtained no amplification products from the DNA. Therefore, we cannot identify the species," according to the Times.

The lab conducted a PCR test to see if Subway’s tuna featured one of five varying tuna species, the New York Times reported, explaining there are 15 species of fish that can be labeled tuna, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Seafood List.

The lab determined two potential reasons why no tuna was detected in the sample, saying, "One it’s so heavily processed that whatever we could pull out, we couldn’t make an identification … Or we got some and there’s just nothing there that’s tuna," the newspaper noted.

more
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/lab-tests-no-tuna-subway-sandwiches

catfish1957:
Wonder what the mystery meat was.  In any case this is a big corporate reputation hit for a company that I thought prided itself of freshness, and cleanness.

PeteS in CA:
So, it could be "tuna" that is too heavily processed (including freezing it prior to being tested) to be identifiable. Or it could be "tuna" of one of the 10 species for which the "tuna salad" samples were not tested. Or it could be something other than "tuna". And after one wades through those possibilities, one comes to another key question, did Subway defraud or was Subway defrauded by a supplier?

IMO, those suing Subway would have a better chance if they could identify the actual species in the samples and if, through discovery, they could find and provide evidence that Subway knew it was selling something other than tuna as tuna.

FWIW, I'm a Subway non-fan. Their sandwiches are, IMO, mediocre, and Togos (a regional chain that started in San Jose) is far better.

catfish1957:

--- Quote from: PeteS in CA on June 23, 2021, 07:36:10 pm ---

FWIW, I'm a Subway non-fan. Their sandwiches are, IMO, mediocre, and Togos (a regional chain that started in San Jose) is far better.

--- End quote ---

Same pretty much opinion.  However, my first job out of college with the Health Dept. inspecting restaurants among many other things.  Funny how that job put things in perspective, and things you might not like to hear about. 

Though mediocre, it is the one place that you can see and watch your sandwich being prepared. Plus, they get good marks in sanitation and cleanliness in the food prep area.   That means more to me than most people.

Bigun:
Took one bite of a Subway tuna sandwich and knew immediately it wasn't tuna.  I asked for, and received, a refund. Haven't been in a Subway sandwich shop since.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page