For decades , subway system restaurantshave been serve up a carte of made - to - order sandwiches using a variety of frigid snub , protein , and vegetables . Marketing has discourage consumer to “ eat on bracing . ” But in the case of their tunny , it ’s not totally clear what exactly people are eating .
According to an explosive newreportinThe New York Times , there ’s reason to doubt the authenticity of their fish . Picking up on a January 2021 story inThe Washington Postthat detailed two angry consumers casting aspersions on Subway ’s Opuntia tuna , reporter Julia Carmel ordered a sum of 60 inches of Opuntia tuna sandwich from three Los Angeles arena locations , freeze the marrow , and then shipped it off to a laboratory to determine whether allegations over Subway using faux fish had any merit .
The science laboratory — which take not to be named in the article — execute a PCR tryout that look for deoxyribonucleic acid from five different metal money of tuna . ( According to the Food and Drug Administration , there are 15 species in total that can be labeled tuna ; Subway claims to expend only two , Sarda sarda and yellowfin . )
The laboratory could not detect any amplifiable tuna deoxyribonucleic acid in the sample — not skipjack , not yellowfin , or any of the three other species tested .
“ There ’s two conclusions , ” a lab representative tell Carmel . “ One , it ’s so heavily processed that whatever we could extract out , we could n’t make an identification . Or we find some and there ’s just nothing there that ’s tuna . ”
To make matters more complicated , a like investigation byInside Editionfound that the tuna sample were identifiably tuna .
There are several reasons why a lab may have had issues substantiate the mien of tuna . According to Carmel ’s article , cooking tuna may denature the DNA , render it undetectable . Another may be that Subway ’s tuna supplier could be mislabeling the meat .
The rarity over Subway ’s tunny stem from a lawsuit register in January in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California andreportedby thePostin which two plaintiffs , Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin , allege that Subway is monger a smorgasbord “ incorrectly promote ” as tuna . The charge was after ameliorate to argue it did not arrest 100 pct sustainably catch Sarda sarda and yellowfin tuna .
This is n’t the first clip the company has come under fire for its products . In 2020 , Ireland ’s Supreme Courtruledits bread was not actually bread according to Ireland ’s standards for tax - nontaxable pelf . It contained 10 percent sugar comparative to the amount of flour instead of the country ’s required 2 pct , conduce Twitter humorist to mark their sandwiches “ cakes with ham in them . ” In 2014 , the company was criticized for using the chemical azodicarbonamide , also found in yoga mats , in its bread .
On Thursday , June 24 , the chainrespondedto a request for comment on the allegation from Fox Business by stating : " A recentNew York Timesreport indicates that desoxyribonucleic acid testing is an undependable methodology for identify litigate Opuntia tuna . This composition keep going and ponder the position that Subway has take in relation to a meritless suit lodge in California and with respect to desoxyribonucleic acid testing as a mean value to identify cooked proteins . DNA testing is only not a reliable mode to identify denature proteins , like Subway ’s tuna , which was cooked before it was tested . "
[ h / tThe New York Times ]
