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]
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.
Cliff notes: It's tuna, and Subway blows boat people. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
A few years ago, a team did genetic research on fast food "chicken" from several restaurants.
McDonald's, BK, and several others were using chicken that was 95% or more real chicken.
Subway was using "chicken" that was 50% soy, IIRC.
Really makes you wonder what the top-down motivation is behind manipulating chicken to the point it's not really even chicken anymore.
Then there was the "pink slime" McDonalds was doing...
I eat fast food maybe once or twice a year...and remember eating McDonalds and how terrible my body felt afterwards...I wont eat there for free...probably wouldn't if they paid me. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BlackOp:
Really makes you wonder what the top-down motivation is behind manipulating chicken to the point it's not really even chicken anymore.
This article seems odd to me. In the past, I've seen the tuna....it's in extra large "chicken of the sea" cans and they mix it there. Maybe they've changed their methods?
Also, it tastes, looks, and feels like cheap tuna. Why wouldn't it be cheap tuna? It's not like cheap tuna is hard to ship or keep from spoiling, and neither is cheap mayo. 1 can of tuna, N cups of mayo, mix with a fork - there's a day's worth of tuna. There's very little to be improved with that recipe (from a time/process/simplicity/cost perspective).
Some people just like to throw shit around. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BlackOp:
Really makes you wonder what the top-down motivation is behind manipulating chicken to the point it's not really even chicken anymore.
Do you really wonder the motivation?
Cost. Everything is about profit. EVERYTHING. [Reply]
"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."
So.... the author could have and caught a tuna, cooked it, mixed it with mayo, froze it and then shipped it to the lab and still seen "inconclusive" results?
Maybe find another lab? One that isn't "wary" of testing it? [Reply]
