Subway slams ‘reckless and improper lawsuit’ that claims tuna contains ‘cattle, pork and chicken DNA’

Subway slams ‘reckless and improper lawsuit’ that claims tuna contains ‘cattle, pork and chicken DNA’

Subway has hit back at the latest lawsuit filed against them that claimed their “100% tuna” contains traces of “cattle, pork and chicken DNA.”

The famed sandwich chain slammed the accusations as “reckless and improper” and stated that their “tuna is high-quality, wild-caught, 100% tuna.”

“The plaintiffs have filed three meritless complaints, changing their story each time,” a Subway spokesperson told Indy100.

“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.”

“The fact remains that Subway tuna is real and strictly regulated by the FDA in the U.S., and other government entities around the world.”

In what will mark their third lawsuit this year, the latest accusations suggest there was “no detectable tuna DNA sequences” in the 19 of 20 samples taken from 20 Subway restaurants in southern California.

All 20 samples, which were tested by a marine biologist, allegedly contained chicken DNA. In addition, more than half the tuna samples had pork DNA, and a further seven contained cattle DNA.

Sign up to our new free Indy100 weekly newsletter

Since their first tunagate scandal back in January, Subway has made a conscious effort to turn things around. They revamped the menu, published a spread of full-page ads – and even set up a dedicated website to their tuna called Subway Tuna Facts.

Following the New York Times investigation, which found that tuna DNA could not always be detected, Subway CEO John Chidsey told CNN : “If you follow the science, once tuna is cooked, its DNA becomes denatured, which means when you go to test it, you can’t tell one way or the other.”

Another lawsuit was filed by the same plaintiffs, which a judge soon dismissed in October after the evidence did not meet the legal standard. The lead plaintiff claimed she had bought Subway’s tuna products “more than 100” times between 2012 and 2019. She claimed she had specifically checked each time that what she was eating contained “only tuna.”

The Conversation (0)