Subway Tuna May Not Actually Be Tuna, DNA Test Rules
Months after an Irish court determined that the “bread” offered at Subway restaurants was not actually bread, its terrifyingly high sugar content earning it the not-so-coveted classification of a "confectionary or fancy baked good," the popular sandwich chain has found itself in the midst of yet another ingredient identity crisis – this time, surrounding a new investigation into if its tuna is actually tuna.
Back in January, two California residents filed a lawsuit against the chain, not only claiming that they “were tricked into buying food items that wholly lacked the ingredients they reasonably thought they were purchasing,” but that Subway's tuna was not such, alleging the restaurant “falsely advertised" their fish product as tuna "in order to charge a “premium price.” Although they didn't claim what, exactly they believe Subway's fish to be, they didn't mince words, stating the fish in question is “anything but tuna,”
Although shortly after, a spokeswoman from the restaurant denied the claims included in the suit, calling it a “reckless and improper attack on Subway’s brand and goodwill,” a New York Times report from earlier this month has further amplified the concerning allegations listed in the court filing. Recently, the outlet sent three samples of Subway's tuna from different locations around the Los Angeles area to undergo DNA testing, the results hinting that the fish in question may not actually be what it claims.
“No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so we obtained no amplification products from the DNA,” read the lab's results email. “Therefore, we cannot identify the species.” According to a spokesperson for the lab, the lack of distinguishable DNA in Subway's tuna offerings can indicate two equally terrifying notions. “There’s two conclusions,” they told the publication “One, it’s so heavily processed that whatever we could pull out, we couldn’t make an identification." The other? “There’s just nothing there that’s tuna,” they continued.
Although definitively alarming, there are a few things to keep in mind in fully understanding the meaning behind these results. Firstly, as the publication noted, cooking tuna denatures its DNA. This means that several of the fish's distinguishable properties may have been destroyed, making identifying the fish notably more difficult “if not impossible."
Secondly, the sanctity of Subway's fish hasn't always been in murky waters. Last February, Inside Editon completed an almost identical experiment, sending samples of Subway tuna acquired from three separate locations in Queens, New York, for DNA testing. Unlike the New York Times's tuna, the fish Inside Edition sent for testing was conclusively determined to be tuna.
So folks, although it's unclear what the heck is actually going on with Subway's tuna, there's one thing that's certain: Whatever the deal is it's definitely fishy.