Eat fresh is the slogan Subway uses, but do they practice what they preach?
As reported on news sources, a study found that the company doesn't have tuna DNA in their sandwiches. A class-action lawsuit was filed in January against Subway over the matter. The New York Times launched an investigation to find out if it's true or not.
A journalist named Julia Carmel said she used a commercial lab for about $500. The lab company wished not to be named, but they did a PCR test to see if tuna fish DNA would be found in the 6 foot or foot-long sandwiches.
USA Today reports the lab told Carmel, "either the meat was too heavily processed to be identified, or there was simply no tuna DNA to begin with." The article also notes that once the tuna is cooked, it could change the DNA.
Subway responded and released a statement. It says:
A recent New York Times report indicates that DNA testing is an unreliable methodology for identifying processed tuna. 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'sSubway'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'sSubway'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.
What are your thoughts?