Subway’s tuna sandwiches were placed under a microscope and new accusations were fabricated, claiming that they were full of mysterious meat.
After two women filed a class-action lawsuit accusing the hero chain of providing fish-free tuna submarines, laboratory tests analyzing tuna sandwich spoons from three different locations in Los Angeles could not determine the ingredients.
After waiting for more than a month after submitting the Ziploc bag full of frozen “Sepperk Tuna Sandwich”, the laboratory results came back.
“There is no amplifiable tuna DNA in the sample, so we did not obtain amplification products from the DNA,” the results showed, according to the Times.
“Therefore, we cannot determine the species.”
A Subway spokesperson dismissed the laboratory findings, arguing that “DNA testing is an unreliable method of identifying processed tuna,” according to New York Post.
“DNA testing is not a reliable way to identify denatured proteins, such as Subway’s tuna, which is cooked before the test.”
She also pointed out that the Subway Tuna Sandwich submitted to the laboratory is not a fish, and there is no conclusion.
“What it says is that the test cannot confirm tuna, which is what people expect from DNA testing for denatured proteins,” the spokeswoman told the Post.
Then, she strengthened the high-quality ingredients of the menu items.
“In fact, Subway restaurant serves 100% wild-caught cooked tuna, which is mixed with mayonnaise and used in freshly made sandwiches, wraps and salads for guests to enjoy,” she said.
“The taste and quality of our tuna makes it one of Subway’s most popular products. These unfounded accusations may harm our franchisees, small business owners, who work tirelessly to maintain Subway’s products. All products (including tuna) set high standards. ”
The laboratory analyzing the Subway sandwich “tuna” determined that there may be other factors at play.
“One, it has gone through such a heavy processing, no matter what we can take out, we can’t identify it,” a laboratory spokesperson told the New York Times, noting that the company refused to be named because of fear of sandwich The leader fell out.
“Or we got some, but there is no tuna there,” the laboratory spokesperson added.
This effort came after Northern Californians Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the fast food giant.
“Independent testing has repeatedly confirmed that the product is not made from tuna,” The court documents filed in January said.
Subway is fighting back with a torpedo lawsuit, claiming that their tuna is made from simple ingredients.
“Subway provides 100% cooked tuna to its restaurants,” they replied.
They say their tuna is “mixed with mayonnaise and used in freshly made sandwiches, wraps and salads for guests to enjoy.
“The taste and quality of our tuna makes it one of Subway’s most popular products.”
according to Metro website, Its tuna sandwich contains “100% wild-caught tuna mixed with creamy mayonnaise”.
The tech master is dead
John McAfee “died by suicide” because tweets sparked speculation about the cause of death
McAfee’s wife warned that “the authorities want him to die”-3 days before the “suicide”
Tech tycoon is dead
John McAfee “hanged” in a Spanish prison before being extradited to the United States
But Dhanowa and Namin claimed that the fish sandwich was “made from various mixtures that did not make up tuna, but the defendant mixed them together to mimic the appearance of tuna.”
According to the Washington Post, the couple appeared to have avoided the unexpected allegations of tuna and filed an amended complaint in June accusing Subway of selling sustainably caught bonito and yellowfin tuna, but in fact it was Contains “any unhealthy fish”.
Subway initially stated that it would “fight against these allegations” because it defended itself against “unfounded misrepresentation and defilement of the quality products provided to customers by Subway and its franchisees… The lawsuit constitutes a threat to the Subway brand and goodwill Reckless and improper attacks, and the livelihoods of its California franchisees.
“Indeed, there is no legal or factual basis for the plaintiff’s claim.”