Subway found itself in yet another whirlwind of bad press after the New York Times recently published a report centered around its tuna sandwich. 

The Times commissioned lab analysis after ordering “60 inches worth of Subway tuna sandwiches” from three separate locations in Los Angeles. The study determined that the submitted samples didn’t contain tuna DNA or a species that could be identified. “No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so we obtained no amplification products from the DNA,” the report read. “Therefore, we cannot identify the species.” 

The lab test was conducted months after a lawsuit was filed against Subway, alleging that the sandwich chain uses “a mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna.” Their claims were supported by independent lab tests which suggest these mysterious ingredients are “blended together” in an effort to “imitate” the appearance of tuna. 

Inside Edition conducted an investigation of its own, ordering sandwiches from three locations in New York City. The study revealed that the provided samples contained tuna. 

As alarming as these findings may appear, there are a number of possible reasons why there was no tuna DNA present in the samples.

“There’s two conclusions. One, it’s so heavily processed that whatever we could pull out, we couldn’t make an identification,” a lab spokesperson explained. “Or we got some and there’s just nothing there that’s tuna.” A fish expert also posits if identifying the sample was made difficult because the protein was broken down after being cooked.