Eat fresh? New York Times finds no tuna DNA in Subway tuna sandwich

 Something is off-putting about Subway's "fish" sandwich. 

Business lab tests again tracked down no recognizable fish DNA in the sandwich that implies to contain the fish. 

The New York Times purchased Subway fish sandwiches from three unique areas in Los Angeles, and afterward sent frozen examples to a unidentified business food testing lab after two California ladies documented a legal claim against the organization in January asserting that Subway's fish sandwiches aren't really made of the fish. 

The ladies requested fish from the sandwich monster at areas close to their home, however "autonomous testing has over and over attested, the items are produced using anything other than fish," the suit said. 

The lab the Times used to test the fish most as of late declined to be distinguished inspired by a paranoid fear of losing any chances to work straightforwardly with Subway, the country's biggest sandwich chain, the power source announced. 

The paper said it paid about $500 for the lab, which has practical experience in fish testing, to direct a polymerase chain response, or PCR, test to check whether the substance had any of five distinctive fish species. PCR tests quickly reproduce enormous measures of a particular DNA test. 

Over a month after the examples were presented, the lab results read, "No amplifiable fish DNA was available in the example thus we acquired no enhancement items from the DNA."

"Thusly, we can't distinguish the species," the outcomes said, as per the Times. 

A representative for the lab added that there are two potential ends. 

"One, it's so vigorously handled that whatever we could pull out, we were unable to make an ID. Or on the other hand we got a few and there's only nothing there that is fish," he told the Times. 

Metro didn't quickly return The Post's solicitation for input. 

The suit that started the discussion initially affirmed that Subway's fish is "produced using a combination of different inventions that don't comprise fish, yet have been mixed together by litigants to copy the presence of fish." 

In a changed grievance from June, the offended parties restrained their charges, saying that Subway professes to sell reasonably got skipjack and yellowfin fish, however was truth be told selling "anything short of sound stocks." 

Tram has been "selling and proceeding to sell some combination that is misleadingly and deceptively being made look like in accordance with their portrayals to buyers yet are not really agreeable," the revised suit states. 

Metro has more than once questioned the charges and protected its fish sandwiches in an advertising barrage. 

"There just is no reality to the charges in the grumbling," Subway has said about the claims.

"Tram will overwhelmingly protect itself against these and some other ridiculous endeavors to misrepresent and discolor the top notch items that Subway and its franchisees give to their clients, in California and all throughout the planet, and means to battle these cases through every accessible road on the off chance that they are not promptly excused," the assertion proceeded. 

While the lab tests requested by the Times showed no recognizable fish in the sandwiches, Inside Edition did its own test in February that yielded various outcomes. Inside Edition requested that a lab in Florida test fish tests from three Subway areas in New York. 

That test affirmed that fish was in the sandwiches.