BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.
To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.
To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.
There might be something fishy about Subway tuna, according to a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, who has allowed a lawsuit against the sandwich chain to proceed.
According to a complaint filed in November 2021 by several San Francisco Bay area consumers, Subway’s labeling and marketing materials duped them “into buying premium priced food dishes based on the representation that the tuna products contained only tuna and no other fish species, animal products or miscellaneous ingredients.”
The plaintiffs alleged that 19 of the 20 samples collected from Subway locations in California contained “no detectable tuna DNA sequences whatsoever,” based on DNA bar coding tests, according to The Washington Post. They also alleged that all 20 samples contained “detectable sequences of chicken DNA,” while 11 samples contained pork DNA and seven included cattle DNA.
Subway claimed in court filings that any evidence of other animal DNA likely comes from the eggs in the mayo or from the cross-contact of ingredients, as its workers use the same gloves, utensils and cutting boards to prepare various sandwiches, according to the Post.