Talk about a rough year for Subway.
In January, a class-action lawsuit was filed alleging that Subway’s tuna doesn’t actually contain any tuna at all.
Last month, things got worse. Hoping to get to the bottom of the viral story, the New York Times sent Subway’s tuna to a lab for independent testing. “No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample,” the results came back. “Therefore, we cannot identify the species.” The lab offered multiple reasons why the tests may have failed — explaining that things like processing or cooking could disrupt the results — but once again, the headlines didn’t break Subway’s way, suggesting that further evidence supports the “not tuna” theory.
So here we are, SubwayTunaFacts.com ! “Subway tuna is real tuna.” The chain continues, “That’s right. The truth is, Subway uses wild-caught skipjack tuna regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A favorite among sub lovers, our tuna is and has always been high-quality, premium and 100 percent real.”
The next thing visitors encounter is a “Tuna Fact Check” directly combating the New York Times article. “What actually happened is that the New York Times commissioned a test that couldn’t detect tuna DNA in their sample,” Subway writes. “If the test had confirmed the existence of a protein other than tuna, questions could have been raised. However, their ‘non-detect’ conclusion really just means that the test was inadequate in determining what the protein was. In other words, it was a problem with the test, not the tuna.”
Then, finally, after answering some FAQs, Subway lays out its tuna supply chain: naming names for importers — Jana Brands and Rema Food Group — and explaining that these suppliers “are only allowed to accept whole frozen fish, which comes with a statement from each fishing boat captain affirming the species, catch method, traceability information, and more.”
— foodbeast (@foodbeast) July 17, 2021
Will we ever get to the bottom of this?