A new version of a lawsuit filed against Subway accusing the fast-food restaurant franchise of deceiving the public about its tuna products claims that lab testing shows they contain animal proteins such as chicken, pork, and cattle, and not the advertised “100% tuna.”
Eleven of the samples contained animal protein including pork or cattle, according to the lawsuit.
Dhanowa and Amin collected the 20 data samples from multiple outlets before submitting them for testing at the Barber Lab at UCLA’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.
“Defendants do not take sufficient measures to control or prevent the known risks of adulteration to its tuna products. On the contrary, they actively perpetuate actions and steps that encourage mixing or allowing non-tuna ingredients to make their way into the tuna products,” Dhanowa and Amin alleged in their third amended lawsuit against Subway.
“That’s right. The truth is, Subway uses wild-caught skipjack tuna regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A favorite among sub lovers, our tuna is and has always been high-quality, premium, and 100% real,” the page reads.
Referencing Dhanowa and Amin’s lawsuit, the page adds, “The reckless complaint that spurred this misinformation was rightfully dismissed by the Court on October 7, 2021. While the plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint, Subway is moving swiftly to file a new motion to dismiss the lawsuit once again.”
The Times concluded that, “no amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so we obtained no amplification products from the DNA,” and could therefore not “identify the species.”
However, the report noted that various factors may have played a role in the results, including that when tuna is cooked, its DNA is broken down making it hard to identify.
In response to the study, Subway said on its website that, “The New York Times test results only show that the type of DNA test done by the unnamed lab wasn’t a reliable way of determining whether the sample was tuna or not. If the test had confirmed the existence of a protein other than tuna, questions could have been raised. However, their ‘non-detect’ conclusion really just means that the test was inadequate in determining what the protein was. In other words, it was a problem with the test, not the tuna.”
“The plaintiffs have filed three meritless complaints, changing their story each time,” a Subway spokesperson told The Post. “This third, most recent amended claim, was filed only after their prior complaint was rightfully dismissed by a federal judge. 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.”
