4 comments

[ 102 ms ] story [ 452 ms ] thread
Wow this article wastes a lot of words before getting to the point. And when it gets there, the conclusion isn't very interesting.
Indeed. Imagine what this journalist must be paid to write crap like this. Reams and reams of filler that does nothing but waste people's time. Let me take a crack at this:

"Some people have claimed there isn't any tuna in Subway's sandwiches, so I sent some Subway 'tuna' to a lab for testing. They couldn't find an Tuna DNA, but cooking destroys proteins and there's probably no viable substitute or motivation for Subway to use it, so this entire experiment, and by extension this article, was pointless."

There, I just saved you 15 minutes of reading. Where's my $100k a year?

TL;DR: Lab said that since he tuna was cooked it was too denatured to determine whether it was actually tuna. HN title is editorialized clickbait.