5 ms·

NY Times test finds no identifiable tuna DNA in Subway's tuna sandwich

14 points by revicon 5y ago

EnlightenedBro 5y ago
Are you kidding me?
valuearb 5y ago
Whatever it is, it’s delicious.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pbak 5y ago
  I've got some vat grown meat to sell you.
bradknowles 5y ago
Once the fish has been cooked, it’s hard to find any identifiable DNA at all. So, kind of a non-story. Now, go into the processing facility and grab the fish before it’s cooked, and test the DNA. Then you might have a story. Or maybe not.
- smcnally 5y ago
  These NIH and FDA articles indicate DNA testing on cooked fish is possible and a regular occurrence. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18791146/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18791146/ https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/what-kind-fish https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/what-kind-fis...
  - slightwinder 5y ago
    That it's possible, does not mean that this solutions were used in this case. In the first place the FDA did not test here, just unamend labs. And it should also be noted that it seeme that there are other means of processing besides cooking which can make the meat harder to identify. The Article reads as if they tested against a preselected choice of possible results, not the full FDA-database. The only result here is that they were unable to identify the origin of this food. But we don't know whether this happend because they were lacking data, or the processing made it not possible to identify it, or whether it really is not tuna. We only know they could not identify it as tuna.
vgeek 5y ago
Following up on their "chicken" not being chicken-- https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2017/02/28/subways-denies-report-that-50-of-its-chicken-is-not-really-chicken/?sh=9d18fbd622ac https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2017/02/28/subways-den... Maybe they should rebrand from "Eat fresh" to "Maybe this isn't cardboard"?
jfengel 5y ago
This seems very unlikely to me. I'd believe it if they said there was cheaper fish in there as well, to pad it out. But it would take a huge effort to make a passable fake tuna with zero tuna in it. Tuna has a distinctive flavor and texture, and it wouldn't be easy to turn pollock or tilapia into that. So I'm curious about the tests. Cooking is one known reason why they might be incorrect. I'm sure there are others.

14 points by revicon 5y ago

EnlightenedBro 5y ago

Are you kidding me?

valuearb 5y ago

Whatever it is, it’s delicious.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pbak 5y ago
I've got some vat grown meat to sell you.

bradknowles 5y ago

Once the fish has been cooked, it’s hard to find any identifiable DNA at all. So, kind of a non-story. Now, go into the processing facility and grab the fish before it’s cooked, and test the DNA. Then you might have a story. Or maybe not.

smcnally 5y ago
These NIH and FDA articles indicate DNA testing on cooked fish is possible and a regular occurrence. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18791146/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18791146/ https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/what-kind-fish https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/what-kind-fis...
- slightwinder 5y ago
  That it's possible, does not mean that this solutions were used in this case. In the first place the FDA did not test here, just unamend labs. And it should also be noted that it seeme that there are other means of processing besides cooking which can make the meat harder to identify. The Article reads as if they tested against a preselected choice of possible results, not the full FDA-database. The only result here is that they were unable to identify the origin of this food. But we don't know whether this happend because they were lacking data, or the processing made it not possible to identify it, or whether it really is not tuna. We only know they could not identify it as tuna.

vgeek 5y ago

Following up on their "chicken" not being chicken-- https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2017/02/28/subways-denies-report-that-50-of-its-chicken-is-not-really-chicken/?sh=9d18fbd622ac https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2017/02/28/subways-den... Maybe they should rebrand from "Eat fresh" to "Maybe this isn't cardboard"?

jfengel 5y ago

This seems very unlikely to me. I'd believe it if they said there was cheaper fish in there as well, to pad it out. But it would take a huge effort to make a passable fake tuna with zero tuna in it. Tuna has a distinctive flavor and texture, and it wouldn't be easy to turn pollock or tilapia into that. So I'm curious about the tests. Cooking is one known reason why they might be incorrect. I'm sure there are others.