Just what the heck is going on with Subway’s tuna?

Amid a lawsuit alleging Subway tuna contained no actual tuna, The New York Times conducted their own investigation, and the results have everybody talking.

Just what the heck is going on with Subway’s tuna?

Amid a lawsuit alleging Subway tuna contained no actual tuna, The New York Times conducted their own investigation, and the results have everybody talking.

Jessica Simpson became one of the original memes when she couldn’t tell the difference between chicken and tuna, the chicken of the sea. But it appears she’s having the last laugh.

Back in January, a class-action lawsuit was brought to a Californian court that alleged “tuna in Subway’s sandwiches and wraps is a ‘mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna yet have been blended together to imitate the appearance of tuna’.”

Subway was and continues to be steadfast against these claims: “The fact is Subway restaurants serve 100 percent wild-caught, cooked tuna, which is mixed with mayonnaise and used in freshly made sandwiches, wraps and salads that are served to and enjoyed by our guests.”

Like what you see? Sign up to our bodyandsoul.com.au newsletter for more stories like this.

In response, the New York Times recently conducted their own examination, sending in a sample of the fast-food giant’s tuna to an independent testing lab, which returned some rather inconclusive results.

“No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so we obtained no amplification products from the DNA,” the Times report said. “Therefore, we cannot identify the species.”

The lab offered up two conclusions: “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.”

However, in a previous analysis of three Subway tuna samples, Inside Edition found that indeed there was tuna in Subway’s tuna.

Subway responded to the Times report, stating: “DNA testing is simply not a reliable way to identify denatured proteins, like Subway’s tuna, which was cooked before it was tested.”

Still, consumers are a little troubled by Subway’s bad press recently, with an Irish court declaring Subway, er, subs, couldn’t be classified as bread because they contained too much sugar.

Since filing their initial complaint, the Californian plaintiffs against Subway have since amended the lawsuit to say the tuna product is not 100 percent tuna and that it is not sustainably caught.

“Just like the original claim, the new claims are untrue and have absolutely no merit,” the sandwich giant says.