Posted on 06/24/2021 11:27:27 AM PDT by ransomnote
One tuna fish sandwich, please — but hold the tuna.
A lab test set up by the New York Times reportedly detected no tuna DNA in 60 inches of tuna sandwiches that were examined. The experiment included sandwiches from three Subway shops in Los Angeles. Of course, there’s a catch.
According to a spokesperson from the unidentified lab that conducted the testing, there are two possibilities for their inability to detect tuna. The first explanation is that Subway’s tuna is so heavily processed that if there is tuna in their sandwiches, it couldn’t be clearly identified. The second possibility is that there’s no tuna.
The testing, which the Times said cost $500, included a polymerase chain reaction test, which searched for DNA of five different tuna species.
MORE AT LINK
Oh that’s right, you’re the guy who thinks we have this secret technology which allows us to travel interstellar and to other galaxies.☺
Hit piece “journalism.”. In the original story, they say they tested against 5 species and got no match. But the US recognizes 15 species of tuna the report also said a lab in Massachusetts found a match. Further, the original report said they did not identify the species of fish tested. Could it be that it was one of the other 10 species??? You decide. There’s a class action suit pending. I suspect this article is related to that to get the misleading headline. If I was the judge and caught them doing this I’d dismiss with prejudice.
Thank goodness I got the smoked turkey instead.
Or “new and improved!”
Get double tuna on rye or even oat, with pepper jack melted and add a few jalapenos, light mustard, a thin line of southwest sauce, light onions, light green peppers, salt and pepper. In fact, I will try this as a new Melt tomorrow.
In Subway's defense, they may have thought they were buying tuna but were actually getting bonito, amberjack or trawler's bycatch.
"Yet customers coast-to-coast want to know what’s up, so Inside Edition conducted our own test to see if something fishy was going on. Our investigative unit bought the tuna at three Subway locations in Queens, New York.When we asked an employee about the tuna controversy, he brought out the packaging showing the listed ingredients: tuna, water and salt. Our next step was sending the samples to Applied Food Technologies. The Florida-based lab specializes in conducting DNA testing of fish.
So, did the tuna in the tuna sandwiches that we tested actually contain tuna?
“Yes, we confirmed that tuna was definitely in all three samples we received," LeeAnn Applewhite, the CEO of the lab (Applied Food Technologies), told Inside Edition."
“Why should Subway do anything but file a strong counter-claim for business defamation.”
Well, because it may not have been tuna at that franchise.
They’d be foolish to claim such an outfit under the corporate banner and what must be federal court.
And I’ve never seen a defamation suit prevail if the facts are provable.
Subway does not know whether they are.
This has put me off Subway tuna melts for life.
Please excuse my ignorance, what kind of fish is that?
If I were Subway I would make these “tuna” sandwiches with whale meat and lots of mayonnaise to disguise it.
My thought also. We were told that Chevy pickups blow up too. This is a reason why one should not own much of an invividual stock. BS from out of the blue can cost you big bucks.
Then on the human and personal level on what can happen to a PERSON, note the thread at the top concerning what the FBI is doing to the 69 year old man in New York.
With two Bollywood plaintiffs who look like and probably smell like what they eat at Subway, and their 2 shysters Shalini Dogra and Alex Brown.
InsideEdition had already proved it's TUNA from a reliable national testing firm, as has SUBWAY.
So the Plaintiffs were facing dismissal and instead of taking the L, got the NYT involved. The NYeT admitted straight-up in the article about the weakness of their testing: "When tuna is cooked, its DNA becomes denatured - meaning that test results could be inaccurate due to the change."
Thank you for edifying me.
Common carp
It’s a carp. Goldfish are in the carp family, too.
I apologize if that came off the wrong way. I detest shysters.
That is a big-ass New England mud carp. A nasty, bottom-feeding, polluting rough fish that destroys every habitat it can find. Kinda like Democrats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.