Summary:
-
A New York Times reporter found no tuna DNA in Subway sandwiches from Los Angeles, while Inside Edition detected traces of tuna.
-
Former Subway employees assert that the tuna is real, resembling grocery store tuna, despite the lawsuit alleging Subway’s tuna is fake.
-
Some question why Subway would substitute tuna, as experts affirm that the tuna is likely genuine and unlikely to be swapped.
After a California lawsuit alleged that Subway’s tuna sandwiches were devoid of tuna, a New York Times reporter sent samples to a lab and reportedly found no tuna DNA.
The lab says the results mean one of two things: “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.”
Another study conducted by Inside Edition did find traces of tuna.
A notable difference between the two is that the New York Times sandwich samples came from Los Angeles Subway stores, while the Inside Edition sandwich samples came from stores in Queens, New York.
Former Subway Employees and Patrons Weigh In
In response to the lawsuit from January 2021, former Subway employees are testifying that the tuna is indeed tuna.
ADVERTISEMENT
So, it was a long time ago, but I worked at a Subway for a couple of years. It’s tuna. Ordinary canned tuna mixed with regular Mayo. They didn’t have a special Subway tuna product – it was literally the same food service sized cans of tuna every other restaurant uses.
— Mr. Doug (@TheFr3shMak3r) January 30, 2021
Many say that Subway tuna is exactly like the tuna from grocery stores.
As someone who worked there for years I can say this is bs. They definitely serve real tuna and it comes exactly like you get it in the packs in the grocery store
— Natsfan (@darch007) January 29, 2021
I worked at one in MS in the 1990s and yep, the tuna came in giant cans, which had to be hand squeezed to get all the water out. My cats loved me for daaays… That was back when the bread was cut like a boat, and the meat was “setup” between sheet of deli paper.
— (at) scattrd_evrywhr (at) techhub (dot) social (@scattrd_evrywhr) January 30, 2021
Although the majority worked at Subway a while ago, current California employees and fish experts interviewed by the New York Times affirm that the tuna is probably real.
“I don’t think a sandwich place would intentionally mislabel,” Mr. Rudie from Catalina Offshore Products said. “They’re buying a can of tuna that says ‘tuna.’ If there’s any fraud in this case, it happened at the cannery.”
They also question why Subway would swap out its tuna, much like some Twitter users.
Well, tuna isn’t really a high-end fish. Maybe it has better fish than tuna. I mean honestly, I have had the tuna from Subway. It tastes exactly like tuna that I buy from the store. I wouldn’t expect it to be that much better.
— Alex Ginzo (@ginzo412) January 30, 2021
I doubt the tuna is fake. Tuna is so cheap to buy, it wouldn’t make any fiscal sense to go through the effort to disguise something else.
Store managers would be able to tell as well, as they’d have direct knowledge of the suppliers. I call bs.
— Banana (@8bit_bb) January 30, 2021
ADVERTISEMENT
Others are pointing out that this is one problem in a long list of allegations against Subway.
I’m done with @SUBWAY. 1st they started cutting back and skimping on how many ingredients can go in a salad, now fake tuna! You can keep your smaller than a salad “protein” bowls. Cutting corners on quality to increase your profits is….disappointing.
— Monnie (@MZ_H2083) January 30, 2021
Who still eats at @SUBWAY? They charge more for less.
I used to love them but stopped patronizing their locations in 2014. I did visit a location last year and the bread is half the width and they are stingy on the vegetables.— Everett McConnaughey | ????️???? (@Everett88BOI) January 29, 2021
