ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 6 of 7
« First < 23456 7 >
Nzoner's Game Room>Subway Tuna May Be Mystery Meat
gblowfish 09:11 AM 06-22-2021
What is that smell???
https://www.eatthis.com/news-subway-...investigation/

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]
Abba-Dabba 12:47 PM 06-23-2021
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
Well, you should raise your expectations.

pssh, clearly overcooked.
[Reply]
Abba-Dabba 12:48 PM 06-23-2021
Originally Posted by ptlyon:
FYP
I'm trying watch my figure.
[Reply]
Sorry 01:02 PM 06-23-2021
Originally Posted by RubberSponge:
pssh, clearly overcooked.
i'd rather them cook it well done at an establishment like mcd than try for any temp. besides that lol
[Reply]
sedated 01:41 PM 06-23-2021
Originally Posted by BlackOp:
Then there was the "pink slime" McDonalds was doing...
"Pink slime" is actually real beef
[Reply]
htismaqe 02:53 PM 06-23-2021
Originally Posted by Dunerdr:
Yes, Italians, the only meat cheaper than tuna.
Bologna.
[Reply]
DaneMcCloud 07:45 PM 06-23-2021
I think something fishy is going on...

--------------
https://www.lamag.com/article/subway-tuna-lab

A Lab Says Subway Tuna Sourced in L.A. Was Mysteriously Missing Tuna DNA

Lab results have revealed that samples sent from tuna sandwiches made at Subway restaurants in Los Angeles contain no “amplifiable” tuna DNA. “We cannot identify the species,” a lab report sent to The New York Times said. Let’s take a pause here. First of all, ew. But second of all, similar samples taken by Inside Edition in New York and sent to laboratories revealed that the substance contained in Subway tuna sandwiches was, in fact, tuna.

Is this a Los Angeles thing?

The Times report offers no explanation as to why the samples, taken from three different locations, all came from L.A. stores of the global sandwich chain. It’s also unclear why the samples from Los Angeles would be different than those in New York. A spokesperson from the lab offered a couple of possible explanations for the L.A. result: “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 is currently the subject of a class-action lawsuit in California, in which plaintiffs claim that the sandwich shop’s tuna is “completely bereft of tuna as an ingredient.” Instead, it’s a “mixture of various concoctions.” Again, ew. The class-action suit claims that the tuna is also bereft of fish, which a Subway employee with a weak stomach for fish disputes to the Times. Her explanation, though, is cold comfort. “Last time I ate it,” she said, “I puked my guts out.”

Subway declined to comment on the lab results.

No tuna DNA found in Subway's tuna sandwich, according to NYT report

https://abc7.com/subway-tuna-no-dna-nyt/10824160/
[Reply]
loochy 08:25 PM 06-23-2021
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
I think something fishy is going on...

--------------
https://www.lamag.com/article/subway-tuna-lab

A Lab Says Subway Tuna Sourced in L.A. Was Mysteriously Missing Tuna DNA

Lab results have revealed that samples sent from tuna sandwiches made at Subway restaurants in Los Angeles contain no “amplifiable” tuna DNA. “We cannot identify the species,” a lab report sent to The New York Times said. Let’s take a pause here. First of all, ew. But second of all, similar samples taken by Inside Edition in New York and sent to laboratories revealed that the substance contained in Subway tuna sandwiches was, in fact, tuna.

Is this a Los Angeles thing?

The Times report offers no explanation as to why the samples, taken from three different locations, all came from L.A. stores of the global sandwich chain. It’s also unclear why the samples from Los Angeles would be different than those in New York. A spokesperson from the lab offered a couple of possible explanations for the L.A. result: “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 is currently the subject of a class-action lawsuit in California, in which plaintiffs claim that the sandwich shop’s tuna is “completely bereft of tuna as an ingredient.” Instead, it’s a “mixture of various concoctions.” Again, ew. The class-action suit claims that the tuna is also bereft of fish, which a Subway employee with a weak stomach for fish disputes to the Times. Her explanation, though, is cold comfort. “Last time I ate it,” she said, “I puked my guts out.”

Subway declined to comment on the lab results.

No tuna DNA found in Subway's tuna sandwich, according to NYT report

https://abc7.com/subway-tuna-no-dna-nyt/10824160/

Weird stuff, man. You'd think some tuna DNA would at least get in there by accident...
[Reply]
Megatron96 10:00 PM 06-23-2021
For myself, I never liked Subway because of their bread. I thought it was tasteless, and to me the bread is as important as what's between the slices/buns. And when the meats are as non-descript as Subway's, well, you deserve what you get if you choose to eat there.
[Reply]
Baby Lee 10:13 PM 06-23-2021
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
For myself, I never liked Subway because of their bread. I thought it was tasteless, and to me the bread is as important as what's between the slices/buns. And when the meats are as non-descript as Subway's, well, you deserve what you get if you choose to eat there.
For me, it's not the bread itself but the smell of those 'herbs and spices' baking on their bread.

Of all the shit in WalMart, that pungent blast at the front of the store is the absolute WORST.

Rosemary and oil shouldn't smell like chemicals.

And FTR, in it's decades of history, I think I've eaten Subway around 6-8 times total. Always the same, Spicy Italian on white with lots of [appropriate] veggies [lettuce, peppers, olives, onion. tomato].
[Reply]
Beef Supreme 08:39 AM 06-24-2021
Originally Posted by Dunerdr:
Yes, Italians, the only meat cheaper than tuna.
I bet they even use real Italians.
[Reply]
Easy 6 03:19 PM 06-24-2021
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
For myself, I never liked Subway because of their bread. I thought it was tasteless, and to me the bread is as important as what's between the slices/buns. And when the meats are as non-descript as Subway's, well, you deserve what you get if you choose to eat there.
I was forced to eat lunch there tuesday and wednesday because they were the only place in the little town we were working in

And you're right their bread is just awful, and its even worse when toasted... it turns into a barely chewable piece of cardboard

IIRC just 2-3 years ago their "bread" was caught in a scandal where scientists said its not even technically bread... yep here it is

https://www.outkick.com/subway-bread-ruled-not-bread/
[Reply]
sedated 03:35 PM 06-24-2021
Originally Posted by Easy 6:
IIRC just 2-3 years ago their "bread" was caught in a scandal where scientists said its not even technically bread... yep here it is
Well to be fair, it was only labeled that way because it had too much sugar, which is a pretty common occurrence in a lot of food products especially fast food.
[Reply]
Easy 6 03:38 PM 06-24-2021
Originally Posted by sedated:
Well to be fair, it was only labeled that way because it had too much sugar, which is a pretty common occurrence in a lot of food products especially fast food.
Correct, but the two sammies I had this week were truly awful

Had to chew each and every bite for like 5 minutes just to choke it down
[Reply]
ptlyon 03:55 PM 06-24-2021
Eat fresh Easy
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 03:27 PM 06-25-2021
My daughter used to do content writing for Fire House subs and she said Subway's subs aren't all made with real meat either.
I think she specifically mentioned their chicken being fake.

Oh and McDonalds fries are supposed to be from potatoes grown on Gate's farms.
[Reply]
Page 6 of 7
« First < 23456 7 >
Up