Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

There's no tuna in Subway's tuna sandwich according to NYT study in 60 sandwiches from 3 different Subways in LA

"A lab test commissioned by the New York Times found no traces of tuna DNA in over 60 sandwiches tested."

The lab offered two explanations, the first being that "Subway’s tuna is so heavily processed that if there is tuna in their sandwiches, it couldn’t be clearly identified. The second possibility is that there’s no tuna." Neither is exactly reassuring, is it?

The New York Times commissioned the test because of a recent lawsuit against Subway that claimed the same thing, that there was no tuna in their tuna.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 74June 24, 2021 6:14 PM

DaFuck???!!

by Anonymousreply 1June 23, 2021 5:15 PM

I'm allergic to some fish but not tuna. Others have the same allergy. This could be deadly.

by Anonymousreply 2June 23, 2021 5:15 PM

That's the reason there was no OJ Simpson DNA either.

by Anonymousreply 3June 23, 2021 5:16 PM

I'm curious WHAT IT IS. I think NYTimes should have spent more to have the substance analyzed.

by Anonymousreply 4June 23, 2021 5:16 PM

Um, OP, you’re quite the reporter. Knew you would sniff out a scoop…

…that we knew about 6 months ago!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 5June 23, 2021 5:16 PM

They couldn't determine what, if any, kind of fish was in the sandwich. That's concerning!

by Anonymousreply 6June 23, 2021 5:18 PM

Genius know-it-all r5, read the fucking article. They commissioned the test BECAUSE of the lawsuit from six months ago, and the article is from the 19th of this month.

If you're going to be a cunt, at least make sure you have your facts straight.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7June 23, 2021 5:19 PM

Never eat fish.

by Anonymousreply 8June 23, 2021 5:21 PM

This isn't the same test used in the lawsuit. After the lawsuit someone else ran tests and they did find tuna, so then NYT did their own tests, and they didn't. Who even knows what's going on. I think the fact that sometimes they can tell it's tuna and sometimes they can't is even more concerning than just never finding it at all. Schroedinger's Tuna!

by Anonymousreply 9June 23, 2021 5:24 PM

But it’s safe to say that Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin — the plaintiffs in the lawsuit — do not love Subway’s tuna, which they believe is “anything but tuna,” according to their filing from January. (Ms. Dhanowa and Ms. Amin’s legal team declined to comment on the case for this article.)

What exactly the plaintiffs believed the sandwiches contained, they wouldn’t say. But in their filing from January, they alleged that Subway has deliberately misled customers by selling products “falsely advertised as ‘tuna’” in order to charge a “premium price.”

Subway’s spokeswoman, when asked about the progress of the case, reiterated the statement shared when the original complaint was filed.

“The taste and quality of our tuna make it one of Subway’s most popular products and these baseless accusations threaten to damage our franchisees,” she wrote in an email.

“Given the facts, the lawsuit constitutes a reckless and improper attack on Subway’s brand and goodwill,” she added.

With all of that in mind, I began searching for a commercial lab that could test a sample of Subway’s product. A handful of them politely declined my inquiries, citing technical limitations and company policies that made my tuna ineligible for analysis. Eventually, I found myself on the phone with a spokesman for a lab that specializes in fish testing. He agreed to test the tuna but asked that the lab not be named in this article, as he did not want to jeopardize any opportunities to work directly with America’s largest sandwich chain.

For about $500, his lab could conduct a PCR test — which rapidly makes millions or billions of copies of a specific DNA sample — and try to tell me whether this substance included one of five different tuna species.

According to the Seafood List, which is compiled by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, there are 15 species of nomadic saltwater fish that can be labeled “tuna.”

Subway’s tuna and seafood sourcing statement says the chain only sells skipjack and yellowfin tuna — species that a lab would recognize as Katsuwonus pelamis and T. albacares.

Before it lands on a Subway sandwich, that tuna, like the majority of commercially sold tuna, is caught by fishermen working in exclusive economic zones. (E.E.Z.s are areas that extend roughly 200 nautical miles from each country’s coast; the U.S., with over 13,000 miles of coastline, controls the largest E.E.Z. in the world, containing 3.4 million square nautical miles of ocean.)

Though Subway declined to disclose its tuna suppliers, Sage, who has been a Subway manager in California for three years, shared some details about how the product arrives at her location. (Sage asked not to use her full name out of fear of reprisal from her employer.)

“The tuna comes in a case and inside the case, there are six aluminum pouches and it’s just like a pressed, vacuum sealed slab of tuna,” Sage said. “It’s flaky and it’s clearly soaked in water — it’s like a brine, so it’s just soaked in salt water — and it’s just flaky tuna. We just spread it apart with our hands” — gloved, of course — “and mix it with mayo.”

by Anonymousreply 10June 23, 2021 5:24 PM

r9 I think it means that Subway's suppliers sell them a lot of fake tuna and it's not tested. The long-winded NYT article goes into great detail about how tuna fraud is a big thing, apparently.

by Anonymousreply 11June 23, 2021 5:25 PM

Also: "Subway declined to comment on the lab results." red flag

by Anonymousreply 12June 23, 2021 5:25 PM

Tuna fraud. My god.

by Anonymousreply 13June 23, 2021 5:26 PM

I assume if you purchase and eat food from places like this you are already aware that you are eating garbage. It reminds me of when I lived in Africa, and little stands on the side of the road would offer "bushmeat" which often was rat. Glad to be vegetarian and not eating mush of unknown origin.

by Anonymousreply 14June 23, 2021 5:28 PM

r14 you're vegetarian? I had no idea.

by Anonymousreply 15June 23, 2021 5:29 PM

"After a decades-long decline in tuna consumption, a 2018 Wall Street Journal story suggested that millennials were to blame (“many can’t be bothered to open and drain the cans”), though newer brands offering more sustainable options were seeing their market share grow."

MILLENNIALS ARE TO BLAME!!

by Anonymousreply 16June 23, 2021 5:29 PM

I've seen a lot of Millennial-blaming nonsense in the media but "Big Tuna is suffering because Millennials can't be bothered to open a can" is a new one on me.

by Anonymousreply 17June 23, 2021 5:34 PM

Yes 1R5 and I drink like a fish and no matter how hard you try to be healthy I will still live longer than you!

Thanks to all meat eaters as you will help reduce the financial burden on Medicare and hopefully it will still exist when I retire.

I assume R15 you have a subscription to the WSJ and can access this article.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 18June 23, 2021 5:34 PM

It's CHICKEN!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 19June 23, 2021 5:36 PM

[quote]It reminds me of when I lived in Africa.

From Darfur? I have a pen pal there. O. R. Phan. Do you know him?

by Anonymousreply 20June 23, 2021 5:38 PM

r18 someone seems triggered! I was just acknowledging that you were a vegetarian! Were you abused as a child?

by Anonymousreply 21June 23, 2021 5:40 PM

Food testing is complicated. Sometimes other ingredients in the food make accurate testing difficult. What should happen is the originating fish-like substance in the pouches should be analyzed.

by Anonymousreply 22June 23, 2021 5:45 PM

Bushmeat isn’t primarily rat — rats are not worth it because they’re too small to yield much meat unless you’re starving.

Bushmeat is any animal in the jungle that marauding bands can rustle up. It’s mostly primates (monkeys and apes) and also bush antelope like duiker. It also includes bats and reptiles. So basically, if it has meat on it, they’ll eat it.

by Anonymousreply 23June 23, 2021 5:47 PM

Well R18 that sure is something I have been wanting to do because there are loads of options where I work now. But I don't really know how to swing it. Seems as much as I try, everything is meat. I hate ANYTHING sweet except fruit and my ulcerative colitis prohibits too much roughage. The strange thing is, I love legumes and cruciferous vegetables and beans and lentils. But how do you go out or grab a bite o the go without meat? Your life has to be very ordered not chaos like mine with working abroad, LA traffic and long commutes.

by Anonymousreply 24June 23, 2021 5:47 PM

r22 the article says the person got the tuna sandwiches without anything else on them, so it's just bread and "the substance formerly referred to as tuna".

by Anonymousreply 25June 23, 2021 5:48 PM

Still goin' to drink like a fish and attend your funeral R21!

by Anonymousreply 26June 23, 2021 5:49 PM

r24 I don't think anyone on the DL cares if you're vegetarian or not - it's the sanctimonious ones who seem to enjoy smelling their own farts that are obnoxious and preachy about it, and give the rest of the vegetarians a bad name.

Similar how you wouldn't want to be friends with a Christian preacher who kept shrieking "THAT'S A SIN" every time you accidentally said "damn" in front of them.

by Anonymousreply 27June 23, 2021 5:49 PM

There was no mayonnaise or seasoning in the tuna then, R25?

by Anonymousreply 28June 23, 2021 5:50 PM

r26 Darling, you aren't invited.

by Anonymousreply 29June 23, 2021 5:50 PM

Fuck you R23. I saw rats that weighed 20 fucking lbs in Africa. I assume you have never lived in West Africa. Correct?

by Anonymousreply 30June 23, 2021 5:51 PM

r28 it's mixed with mayo according to the article:

“The tuna comes in a case and inside the case, there are six aluminum pouches and it’s just like a pressed, vacuum sealed slab of tuna,” Sage said. “It’s flaky and it’s clearly soaked in water — it’s like a brine, so it’s just soaked in salt water — and it’s just flaky tuna. We just spread it apart with our hands” — gloved, of course — “and mix it with mayo.”

The test looked for tuna DNA though, so the fact that there was no DNA in any of the sixty samples seems mighty fishy.

But yes, Subway should be testing their tuna regularly if it's a concern that they will receive fake tuna from their suppliers, and it seems to be a valid concern.

by Anonymousreply 31June 23, 2021 5:52 PM

I don't care what it is. I actually like Subway's tuna. I order it with lots of cracked pepper and a splash of vinegar. I have them toast the bread before they add the "tuna."

by Anonymousreply 32June 23, 2021 5:55 PM

Have they tested tuna from other restaurants? Is this unique to subway? Weird that they “couldn’t” identify the fish.

by Anonymousreply 33June 23, 2021 5:58 PM

How bored are these people who are dissecting Subways sandwiches? And how many people don't know that they aren't made with authentic stuff? I mean, try a Subway anywhere in Europe. It tastes and smells like food. I had the Italian BMT out here because I know import and export of provolone and cured meat is a business many Eastern Europeans are in. The salami had a strong and meaty taste, the pepperoni was spicy but you can taste the meat and the cheese was also very smooth and flavorful. Also, the tomatoes are sweet and succulent and the other vegetables tasty, especially in summer. I haven't done tuna but like to get it Iike R32 except I do lemon.

by Anonymousreply 34June 23, 2021 5:59 PM

r34 they advertise that it's real tuna, it's not odd to expect that they actually PROVIDE real tuna. Especially in today's climate where source and nutrition matter to people.

I ate frequently at Subway when I lived in the UK, and they were actually not much different from the Subways in the US. It wasn't any better, in my opinion.

by Anonymousreply 35June 23, 2021 6:02 PM

A buddy and I used to get tacos on Taco Tuesday from this place called Rolibertos down the road. They were $1 each. They tasted pretty good. Then one day for some reason my friend decided to look inside one.

What is this? he said. What is this meat? I looked at mine. It was supposed to be pork, carnitas. It was a shade too dark, slightly lighter than beef. But the texture was what was strange. It had short fibers that flaked almost like fish. It had no discernible meat flavor of its own. It was very lean. I think it was rabbit. That was our last Taco Tuesday.

by Anonymousreply 36June 23, 2021 6:07 PM

I've had rabbit and it doesn't flake like fish, it's more like a stringy chicken thigh, if that makes you feel any better.

by Anonymousreply 37June 23, 2021 6:11 PM

Cooking destroys DNA. What kind of fool doesn't know that?

Hint: A New York Times reporter who took a lot of Communications and Gender Studies classes but probably not a lot of science.

by Anonymousreply 38June 23, 2021 6:12 PM

Probably tastes better than that strange veggie patty that they used to have.

by Anonymousreply 39June 23, 2021 6:23 PM

[quote]Subway’s tuna is so heavily processed that if there is tuna in their sandwiches, it couldn’t be clearly identified.

In other words, it's been COOKED - which at a fast food restaurant is a GOOD THING. As noted above, cooking will destroy DNA.

by Anonymousreply 40June 23, 2021 6:34 PM

Do they purposefully train their employees to squirt a fuck ton of mayonnaise on their sandwiches?

by Anonymousreply 41June 23, 2021 7:33 PM

Tuna isn’t the only thing there’s no trace of

by Anonymousreply 42June 23, 2021 7:35 PM

I think I'd rather eat fake tuna than bunny rabbit. Barf.

by Anonymousreply 43June 23, 2021 7:45 PM

r40 yes, it's well known it destroys DNA totally. There's nothing left for testing. In fact it's reverse-DNA, which means it's made of quarks and not actual physical matter. That's why there's so many fat people in the world now. You're eating quarks.

by Anonymousreply 44June 23, 2021 7:49 PM

R35 - I agree with you that if they advertise it, then they do need to do it. But wasn't there a lawsuit a decade or so of a similar nature that Taco Bell had regarding their beef? As per the FDA, aren't they supposed to put a certain percentage of the ingredient they are advertising? I recall reading about that and, at that time, I was sort of living in a dream world of booze and fast food (my partner had just died and I was inconsolable) and somehow I couldn't tolerate anything but the beef tacos. Then they found out it was essentially Wheaties with artificial flavor and color so no wonder my cholesterol was ok. As for London and Central Europe, I totally understand....taste-free food and the places vegetables forgot. However, there is still some pretention of natural in Southern and Southeast Europe which is, oddly enough, held up by the poverty levels. Many people still have a country home and grow stuff, so if you sell them too much fake stuff, they won't come. Hell, KFC needs Eams chairs and "organic chicken" to sell here. Of course, it is about 10 bucks a bucket, which is the American equivalent of 30 bucks.

by Anonymousreply 45June 23, 2021 7:53 PM

Which makes Caitlyn Jenner the perfect spokes"woman" for Subway's fishless sandwich.

by Anonymousreply 46June 23, 2021 8:00 PM

The reason they didn't find any is obvious

by Anonymousreply 47June 23, 2021 8:03 PM

r45 the lawsuit got dropped though because Taco Bell changed its labeling to say it wasn't 100% beef, at least that's what they said. Here's the actual ingredients, according to Taco Bell (note the oats and soy):

Beef, Water, Seasoning [Isolated Oat Product, Salt, Chili Pepper, Onion Powder, Tomato Powder, Oats (Wheat), Soy Lecithin, Sugar, Spices, Maltodextrin, Soybean Oil (Anti-dusting Agent), Garlic Powder, Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Citric Acid, Caramel Color, Cocoa Powder (Processed With Alkali), Silicon Dioxide, Natural Flavors, Yeast, Modified Corn Starch, Natural Smoke Flavor], Salt, Sodium Phosphates. CONTAINS SOYBEANS, WHEAT

Since oats swell up with water it's likely that oats are actually MORE of the "beef product" but by the amount of ingredients, beef is first. It's a bit deceptive.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 48June 23, 2021 8:03 PM

The Subway tuna samples were run through a $500 PCR test — aka a polymerase chain reaction test, which detects genetic material from a specific organism by making millions or billions of copies from a DNA sample. The lab was looking for traces of one of five tuna species, including the skipjack and yellowfin tuna that Subway’s tuna and seafood sourcing statement says are used in its sandwiches.

The results: “No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so we obtained no amplification products from the DNA,” the report read. “Therefore, we cannot identify the species.”

DNA testing is an unreliable way to identify denatured proteins — or proteins whose characteristic properties change due to heat or acidity, such as the way Subway’s tuna was cooked before it was served on a sandwich, and then later tested by the Times.

by Anonymousreply 49June 23, 2021 8:05 PM

The tuna is cooked and the test can't detect tuna dna in cooked tuna. The end.

Fucking trolls all over the internet. You are part of the problem with this click bait based on deliberate misreading, or complete stupidity.

by Anonymousreply 50June 23, 2021 8:08 PM

r49 the word "HEAVILY PROCESSED" features in the article.

by Anonymousreply 51June 23, 2021 8:09 PM

r50 did you read the fucking article before your diatribe?

by Anonymousreply 52June 23, 2021 8:10 PM

[quote]The salami had a strong and meaty taste, the pepperoni was spicy but you can taste the meat and the cheese was also very smooth and flavorful. Also, the tomatoes are sweet and succulent and the other vegetables tasty, especially in summer.

MARY!!

by Anonymousreply 53June 23, 2021 8:17 PM

Yeah shit for brains I read the article a couple days ago when it was published by the NYT.

by Anonymousreply 54June 23, 2021 8:22 PM

The American Life did a story on fake fish. In some cities half of all the fish sold are not what they claim to be.

And it is common to sell rings of pig intestine as calamari.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 55June 23, 2021 8:23 PM

I had a Tuna sub there ONCE! I had the worst diarrhea in my life. Never again going to that joint.

by Anonymousreply 56June 23, 2021 8:24 PM

r56

Shit troll, why don't you go back to your "Make Room For Daddy," reruns.

by Anonymousreply 57June 23, 2021 8:27 PM

Ask any tuna, that to exist, what's the best tuna "Starkist"

by Anonymousreply 58June 23, 2021 8:35 PM

Ask any tuna you happen to see, what's the best tuna? Bumble Bee

by Anonymousreply 59June 23, 2021 8:35 PM

Open up a can and make some at home. Tuna salad is so easy to make and so much better than the crap they sell at sub shops.

by Anonymousreply 60June 23, 2021 8:36 PM

From This American Life's 2013 Doppelganger episode:

A recent study of seafood by a group called Oceana used DNA testing and found that all across the country fish is regularly being labeled as other species in restaurants and in grocery stores. Escolar sold as white tuna, Pacific rock fish being fraudulently sold as snapper.

In Miami, more than 30% of fish was being sold as something it wasn't. In New York, the number was 39%, Boston 48%, Los Angeles-- are you ready-- 55%. 55. That means if you order fish in LA, you are most likely eating a species you did not order.

In other words, seafood substitution is rampant in this country.

by Anonymousreply 61June 23, 2021 8:37 PM

There's more fish DNA in my pussy than there is in those sandwiches.

by Anonymousreply 62June 23, 2021 8:44 PM

R30 thinks she's Queen of Africa.

by Anonymousreply 63June 23, 2021 8:50 PM

Subway's tuna tastes better than Jimmy John's tuna.

by Anonymousreply 64June 23, 2021 8:56 PM

My sandwich is non-bluefinny!

by Anonymousreply 65June 23, 2021 8:58 PM

What is a Subway ? I once ordered something called the "Ike and Tina Tuna" at a godawful place called Klimpy's and it was the worst experience of my life.

by Anonymousreply 66June 23, 2021 9:15 PM

[quote] In other words, it's been COOKED - which at a fast food restaurant is a GOOD THING. As noted above, cooking will destroy DNA.

That article was poorly written and poorly edited. At the end, the author pointed out that the New York Post's tuna tests found the sandwiches contained tuna. And she clarified that tuna could not be identified possibly because it had been cooked/processed-- cooking destroys dna. The only safe thing to eat at Subway is the veggie delite sandwich. I don't know why anyone would order any meat product at Subway.

by Anonymousreply 67June 23, 2021 9:49 PM

Meanwhile OP and other outrage and misinformation trolls have enjoyed trolling.

by Anonymousreply 68June 23, 2021 11:06 PM

Try this, from The Minimalist Baker -- you'll never know the difference!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 69June 23, 2021 11:18 PM

r54 sure you did.

by Anonymousreply 70June 24, 2021 5:11 PM

r68 how, exactly, is posting for discussion an article that was published in the New York Times a few days ago, "trolling"?

Get some fucking perspective.

by Anonymousreply 71June 24, 2021 5:15 PM

Subway tuna sandwiches are people!

I always preferred tuna steak over canned tuna. Goes great on top of a greek salad if you ever get tired of grilled chicken breast.

R50 If they can detect DNA in fragments of burnt human remains from a fire I'm sure they can detect DNA in tuna even if it's been cooked.

by Anonymousreply 72June 24, 2021 5:27 PM

Next up: Investigation determines that McDonald's hamburgers contain NO HAM!

by Anonymousreply 73June 24, 2021 5:57 PM

I never understood the obsession over Taco Bells' beef being "dog food". Is it 100% beef, no. But they just pad it with oats to cut costs. Oats are good for you. Could be worse, I guess. Back in my broke ass college student days in the 90's, getting a couple of tacos from there with just some pocket change hit the spot.

by Anonymousreply 74June 24, 2021 6:14 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!