I’m assuming we’re all familiar with the recent (months-long, really) controversy about the quality and even the identity of Subway’s Tuna. But the rumours persist. So, Subway has launched a new website dedicated solely to addressing the Tuna ‘scandal’. For convenience’s sake, I’m hereafter going to call it ‘Tunagate’.
The new, maybe unprecedented, Subway website defending itself
against allegations that its Tuna isn’t really Tuna…
The force that most recently perpetuated the theory that Subway’s Tuna is not really Tuna at all came from a New York Times (NYT) story that claimed independent lab testing could find no identifiable Tuna DNA in samples the reporter submitted. But the lab people themselves suggested that the testing might not have been 100 percent conclusive:
“There’s two conclusions. One, it’s so heavily processed that whatever we could pull out, we couldn’t make an identification. Or we got some and there’s just nothing there that’s tuna.”
That was enough for the conspiracy theorists and Subway-haters to kick their noise machines into high gear.
Lawsuit launched
At least one class action lawsuit has been launched in California, by plaintifs Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin, charging that Subway Tuna Sandwiches, “are completely bereft of tuna as an ingredient.”
Subway has fought back with vigor saying, in a statement to the NYT, that: “There simply is no truth to the allegations in the complaint that was filed in California. Subway 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 statements have repeatedly insisted that its Tuna Sandwich is one of it’s most popular menu items, enjoyed by millions all around the world.
Level heads beg to differ
Tuna, Fishing Industry and Sandwich Industry experts all say it doesn’t make sense for a huge food purveyor like Subway – the world’s largest sandwich shop chain by outlet count – to fiddle its Tuna. Tuna, they point out, is already a relatively inexpensive ingredient, and substituting some even cheaper fish to wring a few cents more profit out of the menu item simply wouldn’t reward the effort.
Subway responded to the allegation aggressively: “The taste and quality of our tuna make it one of Subway’s most popular products and these baseless accusations threaten to damage our franchisees. […] Given the facts, the lawsuit constitutes a reckless and improper attack on Subway’s brand and goodwill.”
The statement was probably written by company lawyers. Corporations don’t usually comment on lawsuits that are actively before the courts. But, in this case, I suspect Subway was anxious enough to push back that it ordered its lawyers to prepare something it could safely release without damaging their legal position.
And furthermore…
In a further attempt to state its case and prove its point, Subway has launched a new website the sole purpose of which is to defend its Tuna. In the historical context of established corporate practice, Subway’s erection of a separate website to address a single issue such as the Tunagate scandal is probably unique.
“We know there’s been a lot of talk on this topic, including misinformation generated in the media, so we created this page to set forth the facts and help clarify any misunderstandings,” a bold heading near the top of the page affirms. The preamble to the site states that the NYT-commissioned tests were, “inadequate in determining what the protein was. In other words, it was a problem with the test, not the tuna.”
The core message is embodied in a statement that leaves no doubt as to the company’s position: “Subway sources 100% wild-caught tuna from leading global food suppliers that have a reputation for working diligently with food safety and quality experts to ensure consistent, high-quality products at every state of the supply chain.”
And doubters are invited to peruse the site’s Tuna Q&A.
What do you think?
As a matter of principle, I’m not a big believer in conspiracy theories of any kind. Unless real, hard, conclusive evidence is provided to support them. And I tend to agree with the Industry Experts, that it just doesn’t make sense for Subway to ‘fake’ its Tuna in any way.
So, are the plaintiffs behind the class action lawsuit just glory seekers, or gold-diggers trying to squeeze some cash out of a big corporation?
I guess we’ll have to await the outcome of the court case for an answer. ‘Tunagate’ is about as hazy and messed up as a claim / counter claim situation can be. But I do subscribe to the theme of the cult classic TV series The X Files: ‘The truth is out there!’
~ Maggie J.