There's a class-action lawsuit in California against Subway arguing that their tuna sandwiches "are completely bereft of tuna as an ingredient." Of course Subway denies this and told the New York Times that "Subway delivers 100 percent cooked tuna to its restaurants, which is mixed with mayonnaise and used in freshly made sandwiches, wraps and salads that are served to and enjoyed by our guests." So New York Times reporter Julia Carmel purchased tuna subs from three Subway locations in Los Angeles and had them scientifically tested for tuna DNA.
"There's two conclusions," [the lab representatives] said. "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."
From the New York Times:
To be fair, when Inside Edition sent samples from three Subway locations in Queens out for testing earlier this year, the lab found that the specimens were, indeed, tuna.
Even the plaintiffs have softened their original claims. In a new filing from June, their complaints centered not on whether Subway's tuna was tuna at all, but whether it was "100% sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna."
With all testing, there are major caveats to consider. Once tuna has been cooked, its DNA becomes denatured — meaning that the fish's characteristic properties have likely been destroyed, making it difficult, if not impossible, to identify.
All of the people I spoke with also questioned why Subway would swap out its tuna.
"I don't think a sandwich place would intentionally mislabel," [Dave Rudie, president of] 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."
