I had a Subway tuna sub tonight.
Sure seemed indistinguishable from tuna & mayo.
I really miss the old wheat bread.
Maybe it’s actually chicken that was raised in the sea.
The plaintiffs have re-filed their suit a third time, now alleging that the tuna contains a mixture of beef, pork, and chicken DNA.
Still sounds like bunkum to me, but who wants to tell them why there might be chicken DNA in a mixture of tuna and mayonaise?
Well it took me a moment to remember, but yeah…
You can tune a piano, but you can’t tuna fish? I’m sure you could find anything in a sample if you wanted to and did the test in a butcher shop.
I believe they have shopped around and found a lab that will write a report based on tests that are not appropriate for cooked products.
That sort of legalistic nitpickery gets old (not criticizing you, @garygnu), as it’s always done with the intent of throwing shade on whatever it is.
Like someone will decide to bitch about sausages, and claim “They’re only 80% meat!” with the implication that 20% is leftover barbershop floor hair, or some other repulsive substance. But when you dig in, it turns out that they’re 80% meat, 10% water, 3% salt, 2% spices and 5% stuff like sugar, jalapenos, cheese, etc… and nothing weird whatsoever.
I would guess that if you took just about any commercially prepared ground taco beef product, it would be right about 88% meat, with the remainder being water, spices, salt, and something like cornstarch that would allow the spices to have a somewhat “saucy” consistency allowing it to coat the ground beef pieces.
I can see that pork DNA might raise some religious ire in certain circles.
Perhaps some of the foreign DNA came from the knife or spatula used when the sandwich was made? If it wasn’t totally clean, it might have transferred some pork or beef DNA to the tuna salad?
Maybe it contains porkfish.
That’s what I assumed–the foods are all in trays right next to each other, and a trace amount of cross-contamination seems inevitable. Folks who are super-strict about avoiding pork aren’t eating at Subway, as this sort of cross-contamination is well-known; they’re eating in places with kosher/halal kitchens.
What are the percentages of DNA here? The article says 19 out of the 20 samples had “no detectable tuna DNA sequences”. What? Is this because of breakdown during cooking? I am hard pressed to believe that Subway would present something as tuna with NO tuna at all in the mix.
I read someplace that Subway stores get the tuna in large plastic bags. The best way to test it would be to get one of these bags, still sealed, and send it out for testing.
Yup. This is pretty much it. Process flesh by cooking or mixing with other ingredients and proteins will undergo chemical reactions, some of which will make DNA unreadable.
The accusation doesn’t even make sense. Why set up a nefarious plot when adulterating the supply chain is almost certainly more expensive than using a regular and plentiful source of tuna? It costs them less to serve tuna. Their suppliers might not be careful about letting other fish into their nets but mixing in pork and beef? To what end?
It’s like the accusations of various fast food places using horse meat instead of beef. Beef is cheap. Horse meat is not and you can’t get nearly the same quantities anyway.
Or worms. Obviously they didn’t bother price checking nightcrawlers/lb.
Nightcrawlers are a niche specialty worm. You’re obviously unaware of the secret McDonald’s worm ranches, where the poor creatures are jammed into 0.5x0.5x4.0 inch cages and force fed the garbage from all the corporate McDonald’s restaurants, and then ground up live and mixed into the ‘meat’ formed into patties and shipped out.
It’s a foil pouch:
So if someone can get an intact foil pouch and send that out for testing, we could at least be sure there’s no contamination from other stuff in the store.
Since we’re resurrecting old threads I’m just mad this joke didn’t get the attention it deserved.
Wow! Very Worm Ourboros, or like studying to become Education faculty.