Once the fish has been cooked, it’s hard to find any identifiable DNA at all.<p>So, kind of a non-story.<p>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.
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.<p>So I'm curious about the tests. Cooking is one known reason why they might be incorrect. I'm sure there are others.
Following up on their "chicken" not being chicken-- <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2017/02/28/subways-denies-report-that-50-of-its-chicken-is-not-really-chicken/?sh=9d18fbd622ac" rel="nofollow">https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2017/02/28/subways-den...</a><p>Maybe they should rebrand from "Eat fresh" to "Maybe this isn't cardboard"?