Is a tuna sandwich a tuna sandwich if it does not have actual tuna?
That is the question that was recently put to Subway sandwich shops.
The question came after an allegation that the “tuna” the company uses is not actually tuna.
Rags to Riches to Rags
Subway was “just” another sandwich shop until Jared Fogle came along.
When he lost all that weight eating Subway sandwiches, Subway suddenly became THE sandwich shop in the country, with Fogle leading the charge.
When his perversions were later known, it hurt the company just as much as it led to Fogle’s ruination.
This time, someone got the bright idea to send the contents of the tuna sandwich to a lab for testing.
What do you know, the lab test did not come back as one would have expected.
Plaintiffs Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin alleged, “In reality, the Products do not contain tuna nor have any ingredient that constitutes tuna.”
Those allegations were confirmed by an independent lab that tested multiple samples and “the ingredients were not tuna and not fish.”
According to attorney Shalini Dogra, the alleged samples of Subway tuna that they sent off for testing “is actually ‘a mixture of various concoctions’ that have been blended together to give them the appearance of tuna.”
Subway responded, stating, “There simply is no truth to the allegations in the complaint that was filed in California.”
“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, small business owners who work tirelessly to uphold the high standards that Subway sets for all of its products, including its tuna.
“Subway delivers 100% 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 continued that its restaurants “serve only wild-caught tuna.” It called the lawsuit “a reckless and improper attack on Subway’s brand and goodwill.”
Source: Right Wing Newshour
