Lab results have revealed that samples sent from tuna sandwiches made at Subway restaurants in Los Angeles contain no “amplifiable” tuna DNA. “We cannot identify the species,” a lab report sent to The New York Times said.
Let’s take a pause here. First of all, ew. But second of all, similar samples taken by Inside Edition in New York and sent to laboratories revealed that the substance contained in Subway tuna sandwiches was, in fact, tuna.
Is this a Los Angeles thing?
The Times report offers no explanation as to why the samples, taken from three different locations, all came from L.A. stores of the global sandwich chain. It’s also unclear why the samples from Los Angeles would be different than those in New York.
A spokesperson from the lab offered a couple of possible explanations for the L.A. result: “One, it’s so heavily processed that whatever we could pull out, we couldn’t make an identification. Or we got some and there’s just nothing there that’s tuna.”
Subway is currently the subject of a class-action lawsuit in California, in which plaintiffs claim that the sandwich shop’s tuna is “completely bereft of tuna as an ingredient.” Instead, it’s a “mixture of various concoctions.” Again, ew.
The class-action suit claims that the tuna is also bereft of fish, which a Subway employee with a weak stomach for fish disputes to the Times. Her explanation, though, is cold comfort. “Last time I ate it,” she said, “I puked my guts out.”
Subway declined to comment on the lab results.