Lawsuit over Subway’s ‘100% tuna’ claim moves forward

Combined ShapeCaption
Subway’s tuna sandwich , contains no Identifiable tuna, according to NY Times test.The New York Times recently bought 60 inches of Subway tuna sandwiches from three different store locations in Los Angeles.The tuna was then removed from the sandwiches, frozen and sent to a commercial food testing lab.The New York Times paid for a PCR test to see if the food contained one of five tuna species.The lab found "no amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so we obtained no amplification products from the DNA.".Therefore, we cannot identify the species, Lab spokesperson, to The New York Times.A lab spokesperson told The New York Times , that there were two different possibilities for their findings.One, it’s so heavily processed that whatever we could pull out, we couldn’t make an identification, Lab spokesperson, to The New York Times.Or we got some and there’s just nothing there that’s tuna, Lab spokesperson, to The New York Times.In January, a class-action lawsuit was filed in California, also claiming the chain's sandwiches don't actually contain tuna.In February, 'Inside Edition' had a Florida-based lab test tuna sandwiches from three locations in New York.That test did in fact confirm tuna was in the sandwiches.In an email to The New York Times,Subway maintains... .... [that it] delivers 100 percent cooked tuna to its restaurants, which is mixed with mayonnaise and used in freshly made sandwiches, wraps and salads that are served to and enjoyed by our guests, Subway, via email to The New York Times

The sandwich chain’s tuna is still attracting suspicion

A federal judge has ruled that a lawsuit against sandwich chain Subway — over the claim that their tuna sandwiches are “100% tuna” — will be allowed to move forward.

The lawsuit, brought forward by California residents Nilima Amin and Karen Dhanowa, alleged that Subway tricked them “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.”

In the filing, the plaintiffs claimed to have found “no detectable tuna DNA sequences whatsoever” in 19 out of 20 samples of Subway’s tuna. They also claimed that all 20 samples contained sequences of chicken DNA and 11 contained pork, while seven of them contained sequences of cow DNA.

ExploreSubway sandwich chain co-founder Peter Buck dies at 90

Subway has strongly refuted the accusations, claiming their tuna is 100 percent wild-caught tuna. The company even filed a motion for the court to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.

While the judge is allowing the lawsuit to stand, he did dismiss Amin’s claim of harm she suffered from Subway’s alleged misleading. He also noted that “reasonable” customers know that tuna salad is not 100% tuna, as it contains mayonnaise, bread and other ingredients.

“While we obviously understand the Court is required to accept the plaintiff’s claims as true at the pleadings stage of the case, the fact is the plaintiff’s claims are not true. Subway tuna is tuna,” Subway attorney Mark C. Goodman told The Washington Post. “We look forward to vindicating Subway once the Court is able to consider the evidence and we are very confident that judgment will be entered for Subway on each of the plaintiff’s claims.”

ExploreDoes TikTok’s ‘internal shower’ drink really work?