This is not the first time Subway has been in trouble with the content of the food products. If you remember they discovered the same material in a yoga mat to be in their breads….


As Reported by Food&Wine


Earlier this year, two women filed a lawsuit against Subway, alleging that the Connecticut-based sandwich chain’s tuna sandwiches and wraps didn’t contain any actual tuna. The Washington Post reported that their attorney purchased tuna sandwiches from multiple Subway locations in California, and then submitted the fish in question to an independent lab for testing.

Although the attorney declined to discuss the exact findings with the Post, she did say that the tests revealed that the sandwich filler was “not tuna” and “not fish.” The resulting lawsuit alleged that Subway’s tuna was “a mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna, yet have been blended together by defendants to imitate the appearance of tuna.”
Subway Tuna Sandwich
Credit: dpa / picture alliance / Getty Images

In a statement to Food & Wine, Subway strongly denied those claims. “There simply is no truth to the allegations in the complaint that was filed in California. Subway delivers 100 [percent] cooked tuna to its restaurants, which is mixed with mayonnaise and used in freshly made sandwiches, wraps and salads that are served to and enjoyed by our guests,” the statement read. “Given the facts, the lawsuit constitutes a reckless and improper attack on Subway’s brand and goodwill, and on the livelihood of its California franchisees.”

Six months later, a New York Times reporter followed up on the plaintiffs’ claims and sent “more than 60 inches worth of Subway tuna sandwiches” to a commercial food-testing lab (one that asked not to be named). Reporter Julia Carmel wrote that she visited three Subway locations in the Los Angeles area, ordered plain tuna sandwiches — no cheese, dressing, or extra veggies — scraped the tuna into plastic baggies, froze it, and then shipped it off to be DNA tested.

After a month, she got the results back. “No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so we obtained no amplification products from the DNA,” an email from the lab read. “Therefore, we cannot identify the species.”

A spokesperson from the lab suggested that either the tuna had been “so heavily processed” that the species just couldn’t be ID’ed or that it just wasn’t tuna. (Carmel also explained that cooking the fish could’ve “denatured” its DNA, making it even more challenging to identify.)


Read the full story at Food&Wine

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Explore More

Get Rid Of Heartburn FAST With Surprisingly Effective Remedies

Surprisingly Effective Heartburn Remedies
August 16, 2022 0 Comments 0 tags

Heartburn is a burning sensation in your chest that can radiate up to your neck and throat. It’s often brought on by eating spicy foods or other foods that irritate

Is Cheese 🧀 Really Bad For You?

August 16, 2022 0 Comments 0 tags

Cheese is a dairy product that originated in the Middle East.  Cheese is one of the most loved foods in the world. It’s delicious, versatile, and has a long history

Here’s How To Know If You Have A Vitamin K2 Deficiency

Signs and symptoms of Vitamin K2 Deficiency
August 16, 2022 0 Comments 0 tags

Signs and symptoms of Vitamin K2 Deficiency Vitamin K2 deficiency is rare because vitamin K1 is found in many foods people eat daily. However, some people may be more likely