A new report from The New York Times claims that Subway’s Tuna Sandwich doesn’t contain “amplifiable” tuna DNA. This comes after a lawsuit against the fast-food chain alleging that it uses a “mixture containing various concoctions that don’t constitute tuna.”

The lab analysis of 60 inches worth of Subway Tuna Sandwiches from three Los Angeles locations failed to identify any tuna DNA. It also couldn’t distinguish which fish was in the mix. “We did not find any amplifiable tunaDNA in the sample so no amplifying products were obtained from it. We cannot therefore identify the species.”

The spokesperson for the laboratory that did the test stated, “There are two conclusions. The first is that it has been so processed that we couldn’t identify what we pulled out. Or we got some, but there’s nothing that looks like tuna.” Experts have also pointed out that protein can also be reduced after cooking making it harder to identify.

The Supreme Court of Ireland ruled last fall that Subway’s hero rolls were too sugary to be considered bread. Subway replied that Subway’s bread was, in fact, bread. “We have been baking fresh bread in restaurants for over three decades.” Subway was also criticized for using azodicarbonamide, a chemical found in yoga mats, in its bread recipe. Subway has since phased out that chemical.

In 2017, Canadian laboratory test results showed that only about half of the chicken in the sandwich chain’s menu contained actual chicken DNA. The rest was soy-filler. Subway replied that they did not know how the data was obtained. And Subway is now suing for $210 million in defamation against Canada’s public broadcaster Marketplace.