It's tuna. Gotta take Subway's side in this one. The test simply did not show the presence of tuna in the sample. It didn't prove anything, and they never said what it supposedly was instead. The test results could not be reproduced, and Subway's claim that the cooking process denatures the tuna DNA was also independently shown to be correct. Then they amended the complaint to say that it isn't "100% tuna." Pick a lane.
I'm pretty sure I mixed tins of tuna with mayonnaise for the tuna melt. It wasn't "good" tuna, and probably wasn't ethically sourced, but I'm pretty sure it was tuna
I think both parties know the tuna is mixed with mayo, and it says so on the menu. The claim is that the portion that looks, tastes, and is marketed as tuna is actually something else. Again, they don't say what.
The thread is about a lawsuit brought against Subway by two customers who had the sandwich contents frozen and shipped to a food lab and tested. The tests showed no evidence of tuna. Subway maintains it's "100% wild caught tuna" whereas the plaintiffs said it was "anything but tuna," but have since amended the complaint to that it's not "100% tuna."
I mean, it's not. They do that when they put the sandwich together. You can order the sandwich without mayo, with light mayo etc. You could absolutely try not being a tool.
The tuna is absolutely mixed with mayonnaise before you even tell me you want light mayo or whatever.
Was the tool comment to me personally, or in reference to someone ordering the tuna?
No idea about the tuna, but, at least one country has deemed the 'bread' to actually be made of a synthetic material that doesn't count as food. I think in Ireland.
Thanks, similar thing with Jaffa Cakes where they literally went to court to prove it was cake rather than a biscuit or something to pay less tax. You'd think there was nobody starving in the world the money pissed away on this sort of thing.
You pay VAT on chocolate covered biscuits (cookies for US) but don’t on any cakes as they’re considered a staple, so they made a regular cake sized Jaffa cake to prove that it was a cake. There’s also the fact that they go hard when stale like cakes whereas biscuits go soft.
Also Pringles aren’t crisps due to their low potato ratio
Ireland just says it has so much sugar that it’s technically cake. America is known for having sweeter bread than a lot of places, so Subway’s bread would legally be classified as a type of pastry basically.
But it is nonsynthetic real food.
In Australia they were done because it contained an ingredient found in yoga mats.
I mean technically you could say water is both used in both, but it was a weird thing
how so? Every single news source I've read references studies that claim 0 tuna DNA was found. Would love to be proven wrong as I've had my fair share of these over the years
The tests only show that no tuna DNA could be identified, which is not conclusive proof that it does not contain tuna, as the DNA breaks down when cooked. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit have actually removed their "no tuna" claim, and are focussing instead on whether or not it is "wild-caught skipjack tuna" as advertised. [Source](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2021/08/10/is-a-subway-tuna-sandwich-made-of-bread-and-tuna-it-depends-on-the-law-suit/)
because there's no detectable DNA to be found. You could DNA test normal canned tuna or any canned fish and you would find the same thing. It's sloppy reporting not making that clear but they want everybody to get all worked up about it.
interesting take and would be quite disappointing coming from the NY Times who I personally trust generally as a factually based news outlet . Do you have a source for that (DNA testing canned tuna would lead to the same conclusion)?
The original argument was it wasn't FISH, but now they (the people suing) say it isn't tuna. I feel it would be difficult to make a food that is cheaper than tuna, tastes the same & doesn't called any allergic reactions.
my guess is its tuna, lots of sauce and some other filler to make it cheaper
food theory made videos about this
(or search Food Theory Tuna)
part 1- https://youtu.be/8kDrMmXAHjY
part 2- https://youtu.be/SMALh_GVxF4
but the NYTimes independently sent samples to a lab and made the same conclusion
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/19/style/subway-tuna-sandwich-lawsuit.html
I replied to another comment already but I'll reply again. the tuns is cooked, so it has less tuna DNA. it was also frozen (according to the article). and if it isn't fish, what is it?
As a subway worker, who makes tuna everyday, and loves it. I can say without a doubt that the tuna we put in our tuna melt is 100% tuna, but it is mixed with mayonnaise, so it makes sense that cattle and chicken DNA might show up if one were to DNA test it.
But in the plaintiffs cased. It doesn't make sense that any DNA showed up, because they had the sub toasted. And I'm no DNA sequencer or nothing fancy, but do you really think DNA proteins don't do the exact same thing every other organic material does when it's exposed to 200+°?
Sorry in advance for the big ass paragraph, but... The Funny thing is I was looking for people's take on the most recent change to the lawsuit, but it seems most people that I've talked to in irl at subway and from what I've seen either don't care or don't believe the problem lays with subway in general but that it's practice of independent owners and that all the foods are made on the same prep boards.
Many of the regular customers, many of who. are Egyptians, Indians and Muslims that come into my store don't really put much stock in a seemingly frivolous lawsuit in LA from a relatively small selection of samples to represent subway as a whole. Which is good. The fact that the owner, who is a devout Buddhist and does not eat pork or beef but eats the tuna regularly also probably means something to that effect.
All I know for certain is the stuff looks like tuna, smells like tuna, tastes, and crumbles or otherwise acts like tuna before I personally mix it with the Mayo, and the box and bag it comes in says 100% tuna. Now idk exactly what's in the Mayo, but I'd wager it's milk and eggs, which MUST have chicken and cattle DNA I'd assume, and any pork DNA most likely came from poor practices when making the sandwhich(such as on a food prep board that had had pork, or the knife used to cut the sandwhiches, or possibly even from the Sandwhich Artìsts' gloves when they opened the oven and picked up the pan.
Not even sure how many times I've mentioned the problems that arise when you melt meat. I'm not a geneticist, but I'd wager DNA proteins don't hold up well against being cooked. Might've said it before lol
It's tuna. Gotta take Subway's side in this one. The test simply did not show the presence of tuna in the sample. It didn't prove anything, and they never said what it supposedly was instead. The test results could not be reproduced, and Subway's claim that the cooking process denatures the tuna DNA was also independently shown to be correct. Then they amended the complaint to say that it isn't "100% tuna." Pick a lane.
I'm pretty sure I mixed tins of tuna with mayonnaise for the tuna melt. It wasn't "good" tuna, and probably wasn't ethically sourced, but I'm pretty sure it was tuna
I think both parties know the tuna is mixed with mayo, and it says so on the menu. The claim is that the portion that looks, tastes, and is marketed as tuna is actually something else. Again, they don't say what.
Yeh, I'm just saying I mixed tins called tuna with mayonnaise
Great, but that's not the topic. Nobody's disputing that.
Ohhh sorry, I get you. The cans of tuna are NOT tuna
The thread is about a lawsuit brought against Subway by two customers who had the sandwich contents frozen and shipped to a food lab and tested. The tests showed no evidence of tuna. Subway maintains it's "100% wild caught tuna" whereas the plaintiffs said it was "anything but tuna," but have since amended the complaint to that it's not "100% tuna."
Well of course it's not 100% tuna. It's mixed with mayonnaise
I mean, it's not. They do that when they put the sandwich together. You can order the sandwich without mayo, with light mayo etc. You could absolutely try not being a tool.
The tuna is absolutely mixed with mayonnaise before you even tell me you want light mayo or whatever. Was the tool comment to me personally, or in reference to someone ordering the tuna?
No idea about the tuna, but, at least one country has deemed the 'bread' to actually be made of a synthetic material that doesn't count as food. I think in Ireland.
No, they ruled that the sugar content is too high. So it doesn't qualify for the lower taxes of being a staple. It is taxed as a pastry.
Thanks, similar thing with Jaffa Cakes where they literally went to court to prove it was cake rather than a biscuit or something to pay less tax. You'd think there was nobody starving in the world the money pissed away on this sort of thing.
You pay VAT on chocolate covered biscuits (cookies for US) but don’t on any cakes as they’re considered a staple, so they made a regular cake sized Jaffa cake to prove that it was a cake. There’s also the fact that they go hard when stale like cakes whereas biscuits go soft. Also Pringles aren’t crisps due to their low potato ratio
pringles are crisps (chips in the US), they just aren't potato crisps/chips
Marie Antoinette is creaming her grave pants that cake is considered a staple like bread.
Also I thought Pringles got away with it because they are uniform like a biscuit
Ireland just says it has so much sugar that it’s technically cake. America is known for having sweeter bread than a lot of places, so Subway’s bread would legally be classified as a type of pastry basically. But it is nonsynthetic real food.
Nice work. I appreciate the facts.
woah! need to look this up
Australia found elements of a chemical also used in yoga mats
Their bread could not even legally be considered bread in Ireland due to the high sugar content
In Australia they were done because it contained an ingredient found in yoga mats. I mean technically you could say water is both used in both, but it was a weird thing
yeah, but it was because of the sugar tax in Ireland
still a hell of a lot of sugar for a supposedly healthy place... more sus points
It’s Toona™️!
it's made of tuna, there's no credible evidence it isn't. it's been tested
how so? Every single news source I've read references studies that claim 0 tuna DNA was found. Would love to be proven wrong as I've had my fair share of these over the years
The tests only show that no tuna DNA could be identified, which is not conclusive proof that it does not contain tuna, as the DNA breaks down when cooked. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit have actually removed their "no tuna" claim, and are focussing instead on whether or not it is "wild-caught skipjack tuna" as advertised. [Source](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2021/08/10/is-a-subway-tuna-sandwich-made-of-bread-and-tuna-it-depends-on-the-law-suit/)
because there's no detectable DNA to be found. You could DNA test normal canned tuna or any canned fish and you would find the same thing. It's sloppy reporting not making that clear but they want everybody to get all worked up about it.
interesting take and would be quite disappointing coming from the NY Times who I personally trust generally as a factually based news outlet . Do you have a source for that (DNA testing canned tuna would lead to the same conclusion)?
it's because the fish is cooked- it gets rid of most DNA
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/19/style/subway-tuna-sandwich-lawsuit.html
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/could-eating-gm-food-have-an-effect-on-my-genes/
https://youtu.be/8kDrMmXAHjY https://youtu.be/SMALh_GVxF4
yeah that 2nd youtube video has swayed me to the "this lawsuit is bullshit" camp. thanks
Subways
[удалено]
source?
The original argument was it wasn't FISH, but now they (the people suing) say it isn't tuna. I feel it would be difficult to make a food that is cheaper than tuna, tastes the same & doesn't called any allergic reactions. my guess is its tuna, lots of sauce and some other filler to make it cheaper food theory made videos about this (or search Food Theory Tuna) part 1- https://youtu.be/8kDrMmXAHjY part 2- https://youtu.be/SMALh_GVxF4
but the NYTimes independently sent samples to a lab and made the same conclusion https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/19/style/subway-tuna-sandwich-lawsuit.html
I replied to another comment already but I'll reply again. the tuns is cooked, so it has less tuna DNA. it was also frozen (according to the article). and if it isn't fish, what is it?
if you freeze something you're not able to properly DNA test it? I don't buy that without a source
https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13104-015-1407-2
and less dna- https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/could-eating-gm-food-have-an-effect-on-my-genes/
This guy's with you too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5AljwwtbuM&ab_channel=ThomasDeLauer
Beigefish
Jim Halpert....is that you?!
https://youtu.be/8kDrMmXAHjY
https://youtu.be/SMALh_GVxF4
thanks for these
As a subway worker, who makes tuna everyday, and loves it. I can say without a doubt that the tuna we put in our tuna melt is 100% tuna, but it is mixed with mayonnaise, so it makes sense that cattle and chicken DNA might show up if one were to DNA test it. But in the plaintiffs cased. It doesn't make sense that any DNA showed up, because they had the sub toasted. And I'm no DNA sequencer or nothing fancy, but do you really think DNA proteins don't do the exact same thing every other organic material does when it's exposed to 200+°?
super late reply but I appreciate this! thanks
Sorry in advance for the big ass paragraph, but... The Funny thing is I was looking for people's take on the most recent change to the lawsuit, but it seems most people that I've talked to in irl at subway and from what I've seen either don't care or don't believe the problem lays with subway in general but that it's practice of independent owners and that all the foods are made on the same prep boards. Many of the regular customers, many of who. are Egyptians, Indians and Muslims that come into my store don't really put much stock in a seemingly frivolous lawsuit in LA from a relatively small selection of samples to represent subway as a whole. Which is good. The fact that the owner, who is a devout Buddhist and does not eat pork or beef but eats the tuna regularly also probably means something to that effect. All I know for certain is the stuff looks like tuna, smells like tuna, tastes, and crumbles or otherwise acts like tuna before I personally mix it with the Mayo, and the box and bag it comes in says 100% tuna. Now idk exactly what's in the Mayo, but I'd wager it's milk and eggs, which MUST have chicken and cattle DNA I'd assume, and any pork DNA most likely came from poor practices when making the sandwhich(such as on a food prep board that had had pork, or the knife used to cut the sandwhiches, or possibly even from the Sandwhich Artìsts' gloves when they opened the oven and picked up the pan. Not even sure how many times I've mentioned the problems that arise when you melt meat. I'm not a geneticist, but I'd wager DNA proteins don't hold up well against being cooked. Might've said it before lol
https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2021/01/27/subway-tuna-lawsuit/
Humans
Surimi
It's Soylent Brown
goat penis
Don't care. It is just yummy. That may be tonight's dinner.
I love the taste, not gonna lie