The sandwich shop chain Subway has experienced issues in the past, on July 18, 2022. A accusation that Subway’s footlong subs weren’t as long as they were advertised was resolved in 2013. Then, in 2014, a scandal over a “yoga mat” ingredient discovered in its bread caused it to suffer. The biggest sandwich restaurant in the world is currently embroiled in a dispute over whether the tuna fish it uses is actually 100 percent tuna.
U.S. this month Nilima Amin of Alameda County, California, may continue the lawsuit she filed in January 2021, District Judge Jon Tigar ruled in response to Subway’s request to have the case dismissed regarding the franchise chain’s tuna items.
According to the initial complaint, Subway’s tuna products violated federal and California law by being mislabeled, causing customers to spend more for “premium priced food meals” and to assume they are only eating “tuna and no other fish species, animal goods, or miscellaneous products.”
The updated 2022 complaint states, “Subway misrepresents its products as being made entirely of tuna. “Consumers were duped into purchasing food items that completely lacked the substance they reasonably believed they were getting,” the study concluded.
We Are Disappointed, Says The Subway
The plaintiff’s suit was partially dismissed by the court, including the charge that Subway misled customers by selling sandwiches that didn’t contain 100% tuna.
The judge’s decision stated that “consumers understand that a tuna sandwich will involve bread and that tuna salad is typically blended with mayonnaise.”
He did not, however, deny the exaggerated tuna allegations.
In response, Subway argued that any non-tuna DNA was the consequence of contact with various products used to prepare tuna sandwiches and wraps.
According to a representative for the company, “Subway provides 100% tuna.” We’re dissatisfied that the Court didn’t think it was possible to dismiss the plaintiffs’ careless and improper case at this point. When the Court gets a chance to weigh all the facts, we are optimistic that Subway will triumph.
A marine biologist’s examination of 20 tuna samples collected from 20 Subway locations revealed “no discernible tuna DNA sequences whatsoever” in all but one of them, according to the plaintiff’s earlier research. Furthermore, The New York Times’ study found “no amplifiable tuna DNA” in its lab-tested samples.
The lab that the Times hired provided two explanations for the unfavorable findings.
“First, it has undergone so much processing that we were unable to identify anything we were able to extract. Or we obtained some and there was simply nothing that resembled tuna, a lab representative told the newspaper.
But when Inside Edition submitted samples to a lab, the results showed that the Subway tuna was, in fact, tuna, supporting the sandwich company. In support of one of its most well-liked products, Subway points to Inside Edition’s “more accurate” lab testing procedure through Applied Food Technologies.
According to Subway’s website, “Applied Food Technologies is one of only labs in the country with the capability to examine broken-down fish DNA, which makes it more accurate in analyzing processed tuna.” For Inside Edition, AFT performed more than 50 separate tests on 150 pounds of tuna from Subway, concluding that every sample included yellowfin and/or skipjack tuna.
While the trial is ongoing, Subway has started a marketing push to defend their “100% authentic” tuna subs.