There's been an interesting, ongoing discussion about the authenticity of Subway's tuna since two Subway customers filed a lawsuit against America's biggest fast-food chain last January. They argued that Subway "falsely advertised" its tuna as real tuna, while alleging that the ingredient Subway serves is "anything but tuna." Now, the New York Times has completed an investigation of multiple samples of Subway's tuna. The verdict? A fish-testing lab says it's hard to say.
On Saturday, Julia Carmel, the reporter who conducted the investigation just published in the New York Times, said on Twitter: "In January, @Choire thought it would be funny to test a Subway tuna sandwich." She refers to fellow writer and former New York Times Style section editor Choire Sicha, as the two seemed to have hit on a worthy question by fishing around about Subway's tuna—as Carmel tweeted: "Nearly 6 months later, I can finally show the world this 2,500-word deep dive into the world of Big Tuna."
It was a "deep-dive" indeed, as the journalist described her method of procuring samples of Subway tuna sandwiches from three Los Angeles-area Subway restaurants. "It seemed logical to order only tuna on the sandwiches—no extra vegetables, cheese or dressing—as the lab was already wary about the challenges of identifying a fish that's been cooked at least once, mixed with mayo, frozen and shipped across the country." Then, Carmel reported, "I was told that if I packed a Ziploc of Subway tuna into a Styrofoam shipping cooler with a few ice packs and mailed it across the country, the lab could test it."
Carmel reports that in a month's time, the lab (which requested not to be named in the New York Times report) relayed their findings, as quoted in this New York Times article excerpt:
"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." Subway declined to comment on the lab results. [Reply]
Originally Posted by loochy:
Did anyone here work at Subway in their younger years? Would you care to elaborate on the tuna practices (or any other interesting tidbits)?
I didn't, but a friend that owns a little deli shop fists his tuna [Reply]
For years, Long John Silvers and Red Lobster were selling "lobster" that was really langostino, which is also known as a squat lobster, but actually isn't a lobster. Now they have to call it "langostino lobster," which is still misleading since it really isn't lobster. [Reply]
I remember learning a few years ago (from a Subway corporate exec…) that their “ham” products are actually just turkey dyed with food coloring. For legal reasons, they do contain like 1% ham… but they are 95% turkey.
My old “go to” on the rare occasion I visited Subway prior to that news was a turkey and ham sandwich, now I just get turkey. I’ve got no issue with turkey, but the fact that it was fake ham really bothered me.
Agree that subway is sh*t, but I’ll pick them over McDonalds on a road trip in small town America when nothing else is available. [Reply]
