Thank the good Lord above that I haven't had one of Subway's fishy foot-longs in quite awhile:
Subway claims that its tuna is "100% wild caught," but a lab test paid for by The New York Times found absolutely no tuna DNA in over 60 inches of sandwich.
What have we been snacking on all these years, my friends??
I've heard reports that tuna can be high in mercury.
I didn't know it could be low in tuna.
The experiment included sandwiches from three Subway shops in Los Angeles. Of course, there's a catch.
According to a spokesperson from the unidentified lab that conducted the testing, there are two possibilities for their inability to detect tuna. The first explanation is that Subway's tuna is so heavily processed that if there is tuna in their sandwiches, it couldn't be clearly identified. The second possibility is that there's no tuna.
The testing, which the Times said cost $500, included a polymerase chain reaction test, which searched for DNA of five different tuna species.
The experiment by the Times comes on the heels of a lawsuit that was filed January in California against Subway over said tuna scandal. The two women listed as plaintiffs in the suit allege that lab testing of their own found that the sandwiches are "a mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna, yet have been blended together by defendants to imitate the appearance of tuna."
"We found that the ingredients were not tuna and not fish," said the attorney in the case, which the plaintiffs hope will be granted class-action status.
I do have to point out, however, that a separate test of Subway shops in Queens, New York back in February did find tuna in said tuna sandwiches.
I can't believe that's an actual sentence I just wrote.
Subway says there is "no truth" to the allegations and that their sandwiches contain "100 percent cooked tuna," because of course they did.
