ScriptOhio
Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.
A Lab Analysis Was Done to Determine Whether a Subway Tuna Sandwich Contained Tuna DNA
The New York Times published a report Sunday, which revealed that lab tests didn’t find “amplifiable tuna DNA” in Subway’s infamous tuna sandwich.
NYT submitted “60 inches worth of Subway tuna sandwiches” from three separate Los Angeles locations for lab analysis in wake of the lawsuit filed earlier this year alleging the sandwich chain was serving customers “a mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna.” The suit claims that independent lab tests showed the company meant to “imitate” tuna’s appearance by blending together these unknown ingredients.
The study, commissioned by NYT, failed to not only identify tuna DNA, but the lab couldn’t even determine the origins of the fish in the provided sandwiches. “No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so we obtained no amplification products from the DNA. Therefore, we cannot identify the species,” the results read.
.
.
.
Inside Edition conducted a similar test in February after purchasing sandwiches from three franchises in New York, and found that their samples contained tuna.
One Subway employee tried to disprove allegations by showing a package with “Flaked White Tuna in Brine” written on the box. Seafood experts suspect that the chain’s tuna dilemma may not actually have anything to do with them. “I don’t think a sandwich place would intentionally mislabel,” Dave Rudie, president of Catalina Offshore Products, told NYT. “They’re buying a can of tuna that says ‘tuna.’ If there’s any fraud in this case, it happened at the cannery.”
.
.
.
continued
Entire article: https://www.complex.com/life/subway...xmag&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social
The New York Times published a report Sunday, which revealed that lab tests didn’t find “amplifiable tuna DNA” in Subway’s infamous tuna sandwich.
NYT submitted “60 inches worth of Subway tuna sandwiches” from three separate Los Angeles locations for lab analysis in wake of the lawsuit filed earlier this year alleging the sandwich chain was serving customers “a mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna.” The suit claims that independent lab tests showed the company meant to “imitate” tuna’s appearance by blending together these unknown ingredients.
The study, commissioned by NYT, failed to not only identify tuna DNA, but the lab couldn’t even determine the origins of the fish in the provided sandwiches. “No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so we obtained no amplification products from the DNA. Therefore, we cannot identify the species,” the results read.
.
.
.
Inside Edition conducted a similar test in February after purchasing sandwiches from three franchises in New York, and found that their samples contained tuna.
One Subway employee tried to disprove allegations by showing a package with “Flaked White Tuna in Brine” written on the box. Seafood experts suspect that the chain’s tuna dilemma may not actually have anything to do with them. “I don’t think a sandwich place would intentionally mislabel,” Dave Rudie, president of Catalina Offshore Products, told NYT. “They’re buying a can of tuna that says ‘tuna.’ If there’s any fraud in this case, it happened at the cannery.”
.
.
.
continued
Entire article: https://www.complex.com/life/subway...xmag&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social
Last edited:
Upvote
0
