News 13 November 2021

New lawsuit accuses Subway of selling tuna containing ‘chicken, pork and cattle’

13 November 2021
subway tuna

An updated lawsuit has accused Subway of including other animal proteins such as ‘chicken, pork and cattle’ in their tuna.

According to the suit, the plaintiffs are claiming that of the 20 tuna samples they took from different Subway branches across Southern California, 19 of them contained at least one other animal protein from chicken, pork or cattle.

The drama follows on from the previously reported lawsuit that was filed by two women earlier this year.

The two women from the US filed a lawsuit against the brand after buying tuna melts from one of their branches that they claim were not up to scratch.

Concerned that their sandwiches did not seem as advertised, the women claim to have put their sandwiches and several other samples through independent testing which reportedly proved that “the filling in the products has no scintilla of tuna at all.”

The lawyer for the two women said, “Consumers are consistently misled into purchasing the products for the commonly known and/or advertised benefits and characteristics of tuna when in fact no such benefits could be had, given that the products are in fact devoid of tuna.”

“We found that the ingredients were not tuna and not fish” said the lawyer who added that the filling is instead, “a mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna, yet have been blended together by defendants to imitate the appearance of tuna.”

The now updated lawsuit says “Subway’s marketing, labelling and advertising, duped the plaintiffs 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.”

Subway continues to dispute these claims. On their FAQ’s on their website, they write, “the New York Times test results only show that the type of DNA test done by the unnamed lab wasn’t a reliable way of determining whether the sample was tuna or not. If the test had confirmed the existence of a protein other than tuna, questions could have been raised. However, their “non-detect” conclusion really just means that the test was inadequate in determining what the protein was. In other words, it was a problem with the test, not the tuna.

“Still not convinced? Check out USA Today’s independent fact check of the New York Times’ conclusion, which found it lacked important context about the limitations of DNA testing of denatured proteins, and some additional information from food DNA testing firm Applied Food Technologies about why DNA testing isn’t always conclusive in testing processed tuna given the cooking and packaging process breaks down the DNA fragments. The challenge of accurately testing processed tuna DNA has been known for a while, and even studied by scientists.”

In a statement given to Indy100, they said, “The plaintiffs have filed three meritless complaints, changing their story each time.

“Our legal team is in the process of evaluating the plaintiffs’ amended claim, and will once again file a new motion to dismiss this reckless and improper lawsuit.”