Subway’s Tuna Sandwich Contains No Tuna
A recent lawsuit claims that Subway tuna doesn't contain any tuna at all, stating that whatever the meat is, it doesn't contain tuna.
This article is more than 2 years old
Subway’s motto is “eat fresh,” yet if you want to eat fresh with some tuna, Subway may not be the place to go. Two San Francisco customers have filed a lawsuit in federal court, stating that Subway is misrepresenting its tuna sandwich, saying that Subway’s tuna does not, in fact, contain any tuna at all.
Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin, the pair who filed the claim, state that they were “tricked into buying food items that wholly lacked the ingredients they reasonably thought they were purchasing.” Alex Brown, the attorney with the Lanier Law Firm, which is representing Dhanowa and Amin, stated that they were trying to determine what the product is if it’s not tuna. Brown told CBS MoneyWatch, “The lab tests thus far have only told us what it isn’t.” Subway’s website claims that this substance is flaked tuna blended with creamy mayo. Nothing says appetizing like blended fish!
According to CBS News, if the case is seen as class-action, the suit would represent thousands of customers who had purchased tuna products in California since January 21, 2017. California currently has 2,266 locations. That’s a lot of possibly faux tuna. Subway has told the Daily Mail that their tuna comes from real fish caught in the wild, and that these claims are “meritless.” Dhanowa and Amin claim that Subway is saving money by giving customers a fabricated product in place of tuna, and that they were cheated out of the health benefits that come from tuna due to this false fish substitute.
This is just one of several lawsuits against Subway in recent years, claiming the sandwich chain is lying about their products. Back in 2017, a class-action settlement was thrown out over claims that Subway’s footlong subs were actually only 11 inches. Last year, Ireland’s Supreme Court found that considering the amount of sugar content within Subway’s bread, the loaves could not be legally defined as bread. Come to Subway, where you can eat an 11-inch sub that claims to be a footlong, with tuna fish that supposedly doesn’t contain fish, on bread that can’t even be considered bread.
In fact, Subway has had to support their meats in the past against claims that they aren’t what they say they are. When several fast-food restaurants had their chicken DNA tested by the Canadian Broadcast Corporation’s Marketplace series, it was found that Subway’s oven-roasted chicken only contained 53.6% chicken DNA. With their chicken strips, the percentage was even lower, containing only 42.8% chicken DNA. The other restaurants tested ranged between 89.4% and 88.5% chicken DNA. Subway sued the CBC for a $210 million defamation lawsuit, with the Ontario Supreme Court siding with the CBC. No word yet on if Subway plans a similar defamation lawsuit against these tuna claims.
With so many claims coming against Subway, it’s hard to know what in the restaurant is actually real. Bread and various meats are already suspicious, what about cheese and vegetables? At this point, are the employees even real, or could they potentially be robots controlled by tuna, trying to avoid their brothers from being captured and eaten by Jared Fogle? Only time will tell what others secrets might lie within the Subway.
