[Bruce Campbells Chin]

This honestly doesn't make a lot of sense. Low-grade tuna is cheap, and has an identifiable taste. I really can't imagine that it would make economic sense for Subway not to use tuna in those subs.

Also, for those who didn't read past the headline, there's this from the article:

Inside Edition did its own test of the tuna sandwich in February, in which it had a Florida-based lab test sandwiches from three Subway locations in New York. That test confirmed that tuna was in the sandwiches.

So it could very well be that the NYT (shockingly...) cut some corners in terms of the testing it had done. Likely because they had a story narrative that they wanted to push.

[lepton]

I really can’t imagine that it would make economic sense for Subway not to use tuna in those subs.

---

Not only to not use tuna, but to not even be ‘contaminated’ by tuna.

[Kartographer]

See my post #11 this thread

[j.havenfarm]

I agree with you. Low quality tuna is dirt cheap. It’s tuna. There’s something wrong with the testing

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

I don’t agree with your logic.

Sugar is dirt cheap too, and you could say it doesn’t make economic sense not to use sugar. Yet the entire industry has gone to poisoning our food with high-fructose corn syrup because it is a little bit cheaper to use than sugar.

Companies today are brutal in using the LOWEST cost ingredients, no matter how bad they are for us. I have no doubt that if Subway could add a low-cost filler to their tuna to cut costs, they would. I have no doubt that the proportion of that filler could be increased over time to the point where there is more filler than Tuna, or none at all.

I am not saying there is or isn’t. I am saying, don’t go by what you think is “economic sense”. There is always a cheaper alternative and companies today are ruthless in cutting costs.