Buckle up, because this could be experienced as a bit of an emotional rollercoaster for the hardcore Subway fans out there. Or maybe, as a ride or die Subway aficionado, you've long since come to terms with Subway's decorated past. And not the good kind of decorated past. In this case though, we're dealing with something particularly fishy. Yep, it's the tuna. Or rather, we wouldn't be right if we were to call it tuna.
Apparently, a study conducted by journalist, Julia Carmel, at the New York Times ended up revealing that of the 60 inches worth of Subway tuna sandwiches that were collected, and then shipped off to a lab, no "amplifiable" tuna DNA was obtained. So, basically what is actually in those tuna sandwiches? Of course, Subway shrugged off all that investigative business and insisted that they're actually serving tuna sandwiches.
There is a potential counterargument to be made that the NYT only tested 5 of the 15 species of nomadic saltwater fish. So, they might've missed something. Also, apparently the cooking process could be impacting the legitimacy of being able to obtain accurate results for when the Subway tuna is tested for tuna DNA. Even then though. Come on, Subway. While we're at it, it also turns out that Subway's flour recipe contains 10% sugar. If it seemed like their bread was uncharacteristically sweet, now you know why.
No comments:
Post a Comment