Where’s The Tuna? Not In Subway’s Tuna Sub, Report Claims

ACROSS AMERICA — It’s a culinary revelation that will surely wilt your lettuce. The tuna in Subway’s classic tuna sandwich? Not real tuna, according to one new analysis.

It all started in January when a class-action lawsuit was filed against Subway in California. The lawsuit claimed the tuna sandwiches there “are completely bereft of tuna as an ingredient.”

What followed was a deep-dive investigation by The New York Times and journalist Julia Carmel, who was determined to figure out whether the allegations against Subway were true or false.

After removing the tuna from 60 inches worth of sandwiches and sending it to a commercial food lab for testing, the results came in.

“No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so we obtained no amplification products from the DNA,” the email to The Times read. “Therefore, we cannot identify the species.”

So what the heck are we eating? That remains one of those mystery meat questions for the ages.

The lab told Carmel it came to two conclusions: Either the meat was too heavily processed to be identified, or there was simply no tuna in it to start with.

Subway has denied the allegations.

"A recent New York Times report indicates that DNA testing is an unreliable methodology for identifying processed tuna. This report supports and reflects the position that Subway has taken in relation to a meritless lawsuit filed in California and with respect to DNA testing as a means to identify cooked proteins," the sandwich chain said in a statement to Business Insider. "DNA testing is simply not a reliable way to identify denatured proteins, like Subway's tuna, which was cooked before it was tested."

It’s also worth noting that Inside Edition sent out samples from three Subway locations in Queens for testing earlier this year. Those labs found the specimens were, in fact, tuna.

Whether you decide to keep eating the sandwiches, the tuna kerfuffle is the latest over what's really in the items on Subway’s menu.

Last year, an Irish court ruled that the bread at Subway contains so much sugar it can’t actually be defined as bread. In fact, the judge went so far as to say the bread should be defined as “confectionery.”

In 2017, a Canadian investigative consumer program ordered a DNA analysis of Subway’s popular chicken breast. While the chicken at McDonald's, Wendy's, A&W and other eateries came back with 80 percent to 90 percent chicken DNA, Subway fared much worse.

In fact, the analysis found the oven roasted chicken breast at Subway contained only 53.6 percent chicken DNA, while the chicken strips were found to have just 42.8 percent chicken DNA.

The majority of the remaining DNA?

Soy (it ain't so).

Meanwhile, "freaky fast" Illinois-based Jimmy John’s was among the first to start trolling Subway's troubled waters, hoping to capitalize on the tunatastrophe. Jimmy John’s sent out an email blast, claiming its Club Tuna sandwich is made with, “REAL Tuna. 100% of the time.”

The company didn’t stop at an email, though.

Savage.

Everyday Twitter users also got in on the action.

“Bread without bread, tuna without tuna... #subway is an existential master.” — Christine Layton

“Subway can tune a piano but they can’t tuna fish.” — Arin Hanson

“To be fair, if you ordered tuna at Subway, that’s kind of on you…” — Rich Starnes

“Subway’s tuna is the best tuna I’ve ever tasted so I wanna know what we’ve been actually eating cause I wanna buy some more.” — @bbreezybeasy

Dr. Karen James, a molecular ecologist, took a different, more scientific approach in hopes of explaining why the Subway tuna might not identify as tuna.

“Here is my off-the-cuff list of all the things that could have caused there to be ‘no amplifiable tuna DNA’ in the Subway tuna samples they sent away for testing. You might want to get comfortable.” — Dr. Karen James

Finally, Dan Rather took it there.