LogFAQs > #955370956

I thought the bread scandal w/ Subway was that they were using some chemical found in yoga mats, which they got rid of after it was brought to light...

And yeah, not sure if this study is legit given the full NYT article, makes the whole "scientific process" sound sketchy.
If it is fake tuna, they did a damn good job mimicking the taste and texture. Tuna's pretty fucking cheap and easy to come by compared to other meats they offer, so I don't know why they'd bother to use something else anyway. But then again I've been surprised by the penny wise pound foolish nature of giant corporations before, too (like that GM scandal that got like a dozen people killed b/c they skimped on putting a $1 part in their cars or something).

Sahuagin posted...

reading about it, apparently you can extract DNA from cooked meat, but it takes special techniques and there are papers on particular ways that you can go about it. the link you provided says that they can only distinguish between 12 specific different mammals.

so if they can't identify tuna, I would highly expect their test is insufficient and/or the amount of DNA is insufficient. not that the tuna is some unidentifiable substance that is something other than meat.

I don't think it was ever in question that it wasn't some sort of meat. Just possibly some cheaper fish than tuna, and possibly filled w/ cheap additives like taco bell meat is.
There have been a bunch of stories about (formal / sit down) restaurants' fish being tested and like half of them being some cheaper fish than what's on the menu....