July 18, 2022 – The sandwich chain Subway is not any stranger to scandals. In 2013, Subway settled a declare that alleged its footlong subs have been shorter than marketed. Then, in 2014, it endured a scandal over a “yoga mat” chemical present in its bread. Now, the world’s largest sandwich chain is dealing with one other controversy: whether or not the tuna fish it makes use of is really 100% tuna.
This month, U.S. District Decide Jon Tigar rejected Subway’s request to dismiss a lawsuit over the franchise chain’s tuna merchandise, ruling Nilima Amin of Alameda County, CA, might proceed the go well with she filed in January 2021.
The unique grievance mentioned Subway tuna merchandise have been misbranded below federal and California legal guidelines, main clients to pay extra for “premium priced meals dishes” and to imagine they’re consuming “solely tuna and no different fish species, animal merchandise, or miscellaneous merchandise.”
“Subway misrepresents its merchandise as ‘100% tuna,’” the renewed 2022 case reads. “[Consumers] have been tricked into shopping for meals gadgets that wholly lacked the ingredient they fairly thought they have been buying.”
Subway: ‘We Are Dissatisfied’
The court docket dismissed components of the plaintiff’s declare, together with the allegation that Subway deceived clients by promoting sandwiches that weren’t 100% tuna.
“Customers perceive that tuna salad is often combined with mayonnaise, and {that a} tuna sandwich will include bread,” the choose’s ruling argued.
However he didn’t dismiss the overstated tuna claims.
Subway pushed again, insisting that any non-tuna DNA discovered is the results of contact between different elements used to make tuna sandwiches and wraps.
“Subway serves 100% tuna,” a Subway spokesperson informed In the present day. “We’re dissatisfied the Court docket felt it couldn’t dismiss the plaintiffs’ reckless and improper lawsuit at this stage. Nonetheless, we’re assured that Subway will prevail when the Court docket has a possibility to contemplate all of the proof.”
A Fishy Investigation
Beforehand, the plaintiff offered a marine biologist’s evaluation of 20 tuna samples from 20 Subway areas that discovered “no detectable tuna DNA sequences in any respect” in all however one. What’s extra, an investigation by The New York Instances concluded “no amplifiable tuna DNA” was current in its lab-tested samples.
The lab commissioned by the Instances provided two options for the detrimental outcomes.
“One, it’s so closely processed that no matter we may pull out, we couldn’t make an identification. Or we acquired some and there’s simply nothing there that’s tuna,” a lab spokesperson informed the newspaper.
However whenInside Version despatched samples to a lab, the outcomes have been within the sandwich chain’s favor: The Subway tuna was, actually, tuna. Subway cites Inside Version’s “extra correct” lab testing course of through Utilized Meals Applied sciences in protection of certainly one of its hottest choices.
“Utilized Meals Applied sciences is among the solely labs within the nation with the power to check broken-down fish DNA, which makes it extra correct in testing processed tuna,” Subway defined on its web site. “AFT carried out greater than 50 particular person checks on 150 kilos of Subway’s tuna for Inside Version and confirmed yellowfin and/or skipjack tuna in each pattern.”
Because the case continues, Subway has launched an promoting marketing campaign defending its tuna subs as “100% actual.”
