Are people *still* ordering Subway tunafish sammiches knowing there's no tuna in them?
How much tuna would a tuna be if a tuna was in a @SUBWAY sandwich?
Amazing. Ireland ruled Subway bread had too much sugar to be bread; then the CBC in Canada found that there was only around 50% chicken in their chicken (the rest was bread, which we've learned may not be bread); now the NYT has found the tuna sandwiches... have no tuna in them.
don't particularly care what's in the subway tuna and will still eat it happily but maybe i'm built different
Is there tuna in Subway tuna?
The chain says it serves "100% wild-caught, cooked tuna" mixed with mayonnaise. Subway also says tuna is one of its most popular sandwich fillings. Business InsiderSubway says the drama surrounding the New York Times' tuna story is based on a misunderstanding
What kind of fish is in Subway tuna?
The lab says the tuna was either so heavily processed that the tuna DNA wasn't identifiable or that no tuna was used. Subway says it uses the skipjack and yellowfin tuna and that there's "simply no truth to the allegations." WLS-TVNo tuna DNA found in Subway's tuna sandwich, according to NYT lab test
Is Subway selling real tuna?
“We only sell skipjack and yellowfin tuna. It is sourced from fisheries with non-threatened stock levels. Furthermore, we have a global ban on the sale of tuna species that come from anything less than healthy stocks, for example, Albacore and Tongol,” the statement read. masslive.comStudy finds no tuna in Subway sandwiches; either fake fish or too cooked to tell
24 June, 2021 - 09:32am
A lawsuit filed in January in California alleges that Subway’s tuna sandwich do not include tuna.
At the time, The Washington Post reported that, according to the lawsuit, the tuna “is made from anything but tuna.”
Lab tests of samples taken from Subway stores in California found the tuna is “a mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna, yet have been blended together by defendants to imitate the appearance of tuna,” The Washington Post reported. The Post said when it asked what the ingredients were, an attorney for the plaintiffs, would not say.
Now The New York Times is weighing in with its own testing that determined no tuna DNA was found in Subway’s tuna.
Subway has denied the allegations and said the tuna is real and is wild-caught.
The New York Times paid a commercial food tester to examine the Subway tuna. The reporter gathered the tuna from three different Subway shops in Los Angeles. The tester told the newspaper, “No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so we obtained no amplification products from the DNA,” the email read. “Therefore, we cannot identify the species.”
The spokesman from the lab offered a bit of analysis. “There’s two conclusions,” he said. “One, it’s so heavily processed that whatever we could pull out, we couldn’t make an identification. Or we got some and there’s just nothing there that’s tuna.”
The Times also reported that testing done earlier this year by Inside Edition of tuna from Subway stores in New York found the tuna was tuna.
Note to readers: if you purchase something through one of our affiliate links we may earn a commission.