Subway Tuna May Be Mystery Meat

[loochy]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

5 oz can = 2 ounces of water .30 ounces of oil and the rest tuna/ whitefish product.

people actually buy the tuna in oil?

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by loochy

people actually buy the tuna in oil?

I used to buy that because it's what I got as a kid. Then at some point I finally looked at the labels and realized that I was eating a lot of calories of oil, so I switched.

Why do they make cans of tuna in both oil and water? They don't really taste much different.

[Stewie]

Wait. I'm pretty sure Subway sells tuna salad, not pure tuna. No wonder there's such a conundrum. Stupid journalists are stupid.

[Baby Lee]

Reminds me of when This American Life tracked down the rumor that 'imitation' calamari was hog butthole.

Ended up strongly doubting, but unable to definitively debunk.

Some mused that the entire episode was conjured to slyly promote food origin legislation.

Ep segment here - https://www.thisamericanlife.org/484...angers/act-one - no embedding enabled.

[ptlyon]

Hope Solo approved

[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/

[loochy]

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...

[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.

[Baby Lee]

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].

[Easy 6]

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/

[sedated]

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.

[Easy 6]

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

[ptlyon]

Eat fresh Easy

[BucEyedPea]

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.