Recently news came out that a giant chain’s tuna sandwiches contain no tuna. The CEO of the subway has answered to the said allegation after the considerable analysis wasn’t able to trace precisely what kinds of fish were used in the sandwiches this year.
A lab report came out which suggested the absence of real tuna fishes in the sarnies; a lab report was held by the New York Times.
A Subway representative has dismissed the said allegations urging that the allegations were ‘meritless’. On the other hand, a lawsuit also stated that the sarnies were a blend of numerous concoctions and found an absence of tuna.
Recently, things took a massive turn when Subway CEO John Chidsey uttered that the sandwiches contain ‘100 %’ tuna. They have a rock-solid stand against the allegations surrounding the tuna sarnies while disregarding the lab reports.
“We 100 percent stand behind our tuna. It’s the one ingredient we didn’t even touch in the largest brand refresh in the history of this brand.”
“If you follow the science, once tuna is cooked its DNA becomes denatured, which means you can’t tell once the product’s been cooked.” said John Chidsey on the TV programme.
The New York Times took the initiative to test the originality of the said sarnies to check the presence of tunas. The experiment was conducted with 60 inches of Subway sandwiches, and the sandwiches were sent to a laboratory in Los Angeles.
The lab reports shown the absence of tuna DNA in the sandwiches, and the reports stated that ‘no amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so we obtained no amplification products from the DNA.’ Hence the conclusion was some unidentified species.
Also, a PCR test was conducted by the researchers to check if the DNA matched with at least one of five different species of tuna; however, the accurate answer wasn’t found.
Some researchers firmly agreed to Mr Chidsey’s statement in which he said, “The cooked tuna structure might make it difficult to trace the actual species of fish as the heat might alter the DNA of the tuna.”
In early January, a lawsuit was filed against the Subway regarding the said allegation, ‘tricked into buying food items that wholly lacked the ingredients they reasonably thought they were purchasing.’ plaintiffs stated, urging that the chain has been lying till now.
The massive chain’s website states that they include ‘wild-caught skipjack tuna regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.
The Subway representative also said that a particular website had been dedicated for their customers to go through check-facts, which is called subwaytunafacts.com. Anybody can scroll through the website to have a detailed look into the matter and know about the tuna the chain is serving, said Mr Chidsey.
Have a look at Mr Chidsey’s official statement in his response to the allegations – “A recent New York Times report indicates that DNA testing is an unreliable methodology for identifying processed tuna,” some experts claim.
“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.
“DNA testing is simply not a reliable way to identify denatured proteins, like Subway’s tuna, which was cooked before it was tested.
“Unfortunately, various media outlets have confused the inability of DNA testing to confirm a specific protein with a determination that the protein is not present.
“The testing that the New York Times report references does not show that there is not tuna in Subway’s tuna.
“All it says is that the testing could not confirm tuna, which is what one would expect from a DNA test of denatured proteins.
“The fact is Subway restaurants serve 100% wild-caught, cooked tuna, which is mixed with mayonnaise and used in freshly made sandwiches, wraps and salads that are served to and enjoyed by our guests.
“The taste and quality of our tuna make it one of Subway’s most popular products and these baseless accusations threaten to damage our franchisees, small business owners who work tirelessly to uphold the high standards that Subway sets for all of its products, including its tuna.
“Subway would like to point out that, after being presented with information about Subway’s tuna and the reliability of DNA testing, the plaintiffs in the California lawsuit abandoned their original claim that Subway’s tuna product does not contain tuna.
“However, rather than dismiss the claims altogether, as they should have, the plaintiffs’ lawyers filed an amended complaint that alleges our tuna product is now not 100% tuna and that it is not sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna.
“Just like the original claim, the new claims are untrue and have absolutely no merit.
“In fact, the amended complaint does not remedy any of the fundamental flaws in the plaintiffs’ case that should result in the case being dismissed.
“Given the facts, the lawsuit constitutes a reckless and improper attack on Subway’s brand and goodwill, and on the livelihood of its franchisees.”