Subway sub shops have had a rocky ride the past ten years or so. More, if you count the bad karma laid on them by their efforts to cut costs by slicing their meats and cheese thinner and thinner back in the 2000s and 1990s. But nothing has caused the chain more pain than its Great Tuna Scandal…
Subway’s current version Tuna Sandwich: Not 100 percent Tuna?
Subway is no stranger to lawsuits about the quality of its ingredients. In March, 2017, a Canadian CBC TV investigative report claimed the sandwich shop’s ‘Roast Chicken’ was not 100 percent chicken. I posted the following, in part:
“The CBC show Marketplace investigated the veracity of Fast Food Chicken, asking researcher Matt Harnden at Trent University’s Wildlife Forensic DNA Laboratory test six major chain Chicken Sandwiches. What Harnden found – about Subway Chicken in particular – was somewhat unsettling. […] Seems that Subway’s ‘Chicken Breasts’, used in its Oven Roasted Chicken and Chicken Teriyaki Sandwiches, are only about 50 per cent chicken! Which is not to say the rest is filler. Subway was so hurt by the lab’s findings that it conducted its own tests to prove that there’s only a trace of Soy protein in its ‘Chicken’.”
Subway sued the national TV network saying the report was wrong, but lost.
And it wasn’t just Subway customers who were becoming disenchanted. A 2015 Washington Post story noted that even Subway Franchisees were unhappy.”
How the mighty were fallen
Subway did very little in the 90s and 00s while other fast food chains moved mountains to keep their menus fresh and interesting. I’m not going to go into the successes and (many) food follies that effort produced, but the point is, at least they tried. Only when Subway – the world’s biggest fast food chain (by number of outlets) – started to suffer a drop in sales, announcing the closing more than 1,000 ‘underproducing’ outlets in 2017, did the company take a hard look at its operations and decide on some substantial renovations. That was back in the 20-teens. And things seemed to be working out for Subway. But it turned out the trouble was only beginning.
When is a Tuna not a Tuna?
“When it’s on a Subway sandwich,” was the punchline to that short-lived zinger. The much-talked-about affair began when a class action lawsuit was filed against Subway stating that its ‘Tuna’ menu items, were ‘bereft’ of actual tuna, claiming Subway misled the public as defined under California consumer protection laws. It was dismissed. A second version of the suit claimed the tuna in Subway tuna salads, sandwiches and wraps was not ‘100% tuna’. Subway again asked that the suit be thrown out. But the judge gave the complainants, Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin of Alameda County, California, another chance to rephrase their claim.
The second version of the lawsuit stated that Subway tuna was not “high-quality, wild-caught, 100% tuna”, as advertised. Again, Subway asked that the ‘meritless’, ‘reckless and improper’ claim be thrown out. So Dhanowa and Amin tried a third version – but not without some additional evidence to back themselves up.
Meanwhile. Subway launched a whole new website to defend its claims about its tuna. And backed it up with a major TV advertising campaign.
As of today…
The third version of the tuna lawsuit, filed November 8, states that new lab tests showed Subway tuna samples from 20 locations in southern California contained other animal proteins such as chicken, pork and beef.
According to a Reuters report, 9 samples contained “no detectable tuna DNA sequences,” while all 20 contained detectable chicken DNA, 11 contained pork DNA, and 7 contained cattle DNA.
The judge has yet to rule on the merit of that one…
~ Maggie J.