Subway “Tuna Sandwiches” Tested: No Tuna DNA Was Found, But Here Is What They Did Discover

November 9, 2021 28 Comments

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

28 thoughts on “Subway “Tuna Sandwiches” Tested: No Tuna DNA Was Found, But Here Is What They Did Discover”

  1. Yikes! I have bought only one Sub Way sandwich in my life and now I am glad.I just didn’t see what all the hype was about and never went back. I prefer to make my own sandwiches so I know what is in it.

  2. Bogus ‘hit-piece’ article , , which has already been debunked.

    What a dis-service to people, to spread this negative story.

  3. Oh, yum, yum! No tuna. Just processed fish flavored substance. Could it be the modern version of “Soilent Green”? Like the Covid shots that are alleged to be “vaccines”, nothing is as it appears anymore.

  4. (Carmel also explained that cooking the fish could’ve “denatured” its DNA, making it even more challenging to identify.)

    Imagine that. Cook & process any natural food enough and you will denature (destroy) it’s DNA. The labs were merely reporting that they couldn’t AMPLIFY enough DNA from the given samples to get a proper reading. Mystery solved!

    Subway’s heavily processed tuna no longer contained enough DNA for the labs to amplify and get a good reading on. Since the truth is so simple and boring I don’t expect a lot of media to bother with covering it much, if at all, and will thus leave the “Subway tuna conspiracy” to live eternally on the internet. Ain’t the “information age” just grand! 🙂

  5. If anyone thinks this has anything to do with science, they have drunk koolaid with no identifiable DNA. Anything reported by attorneys or anonymous labs is BS.

  6. This article doesn’t make sense, and I tend not to believe this story. Consumer Reports tested Subway’s tuna after this controversy began and determined that their filling was indeed real tuna. I am prone to believe CR more than this article, since none of the labs mentioned here are named and are, therefore, not verifiable. I am considering this information as fake news unless the labs are named and the results verified.

  7. I quit shopping there when they decided that the national Anthem Kneeling, American Hating purple haired soccer playing butch dyke would be a good spokesman for their company. No loss here. Jersey Mikes beats them anyway, hands down.

  8. DNA is for genetic reproduction . Cooked fish do not need reproduce. Instead of say that “It is tuna.” or that “It is NOT tune.”, they slander by reporting that no viable tuna DNA was found.

  9. I ate a tuna sub two days ago and I knew it didn’t taste like any tuna i have ever eaten. It also made me sick for which I am just now getting over eating this tune sub
    I will never eat at Subway again

  10. See! DNA is not real evidence. Everyone knows if cooked tuna is exposed to mayonnaise, mustard, pickles or cheese, it will be indistinguishable from O.J. Simpson’s DNA.

  11. More of the American OKY DOKE…Business as usual…. servicing the account by having you BEND OVER and gettng broken off in ones backside……in the end more profit, selling to stupid uniformed lazy obese overweight consumers……so what would expect?….REAL TUNA??!!!…….All food chains do this then you look around and see the gargantuan backsides, thighs, bellys, diabetes, etc, etc, etc……You get what you deserve, AMERICA , GARBAG IN=GARBAGE OUT…Stray home and learn to cook then burn down all food franchises

  12. As Shakespeare (the Rod & Reel Manufacturer) wrote: “Tuna or not Tuna that is the question”. Try Subway’s Hamlet sandwich. Probably no pork in there either.

  13. Cooking tuna can cause it to be impossible to detect the tuna DNA, according to the above article.

    So, Subway uses cooked rather than raw fish. This is supposed to concern us?

    1. The plaintifs and their lawyer knew from the get go that species specific DNA is unidentifiable in most processed fish.
      They are suing to extort an out of court settlement

  14. If you are still eating food from fast food chains I believe you don’t care what you put into your body, probably a bit ignorant and to lazy to cook for yourself and family. News of them all selling unhealthy food is nothing new. You are brainwashed by the corporate world.

  15. I can’t believe this. I had many times tuna sandwiches from subway and it was excellent. Some people have gone crazy about how to sue these franchises.

  16. I ordered a tuna sandwich from Subway about 3 years ago. I have eaten 100s of tuna sandwiches. This was not one of them! I made several attempts at as I was hungry. I probably only took 3 puzzling bites and threw it out. Going forward I never went into a Subway to this day.

  17. It best not to consume anything you do not know the ingredients of. Fast Food places, Tap Water, etc. READ THE INGREDIENTS YOU ARE PUTTING INTO YOUR BODY.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.