We have heard a lot of talk about restaurants in the past few years. People seem to be suing them on a regular basis because they make claims that aren’t true. One of the more recent food chains to go through this is Subway, as somebody sued them because they claimed their tuna sandwich did not have any tuna in it.
It seems as if that is not true, and they use real tuna that is regulated by the FDA! This is great news for those who love their regular subway tuna sub because it shows that the reports, which originally came from The New York Times, were untrue.
Those original reports said that Subway’s premium tuna sandwich wasn’t actually tuna. In reality, the New York Times tried to determine if it was tuna by running a DNA test, according to a post from Subway. Scientific experts are saying this isn’t unusual, but there is no indication that the sample they tested had no tuna in it.
What it did show is that the type of DNA test that was used by the New York Times was unreliable. If there was a protein in the sandwich other than tuna, then it would’ve raised a red flag. The truth was that the test was not conclusive.
For those who may still be naysayers out there, there is an independent fact check done by USA Today of the conclusions posted by the New York Times. They talk about the limitations of using DNA testing to determine what proteins are in food.
The FDA also weighed in on why DNA testing isn’t a reliable process.
Perhaps they could’ve done a little bit of research and found out that Subway does their own testing of the tuna used in their sandwiches to make sure that it meets all safety and quality requirements. They also work along with the FDA to remain in their good graces.
So what is it that you are getting when you buy a subway tuna sandwich? 100% wild-caught tuna from FDA-approved sources.
It seems like the New York Times may need to look for a new story.SKM: below-content placeholder