The sandwich dispute is getting more and more bizarre …
After it emerged in the summer that there is no tuna in the tuna sandwiches from the Subway fast food chain, meat is now said to be in it instead.
The two Californians Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin have been suing Subway since January 2021, claiming in their first lawsuit that the topping did not contain any tuna at all, and in the second that only traces could be found in it. Both lawsuits were dismissed.
In an amended lawsuit, the two now say that the topping used contains traces of chicken, pig and cattle DNA. That would have resulted in new laboratory tests, reports the “New York Post“.
The third version of the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in San Francisco (USA) on Monday, still states that 19 out of 20 tuna samples from 20 subway restaurants have “no detectable tuna DNA sequences”.
►Instead, all 20 samples contained detectable amounts of chicken DNA, 11 samples of pig DNA and seven samples of bovine DNA.
According to the plaintiffs, the alleged discovery of other animal DNA in the meat that Subway claims to be tuna not only undermines the company’s advertising for “100 percent tuna” but also potentially violates ethical principles relating to dietary and religious restrictions.
Their quarrels against the huge company (40,000 branches worldwide) had caused a lot of media coverage. So the television station sent “Inside Edition“Samples from various subway shops to be examined in a laboratory in February. Result: all samples contained tuna.
In June 2021, a reporter for the New York Times also brought several sandwiches to a laboratory for examination. Here the result was different: There was not a hint of tuna in the tuna sandwich. “There are actually only two options,” says the laboratory. “The sandwich topping could be so heavily processed that it can simply no longer be identified. Or it never contained tuna. “
Subway contradicted all allegations from the start and went to great lengths to defend its tuna sandwiches after the initial complaints. For example, since the first lawsuit in January, the company has been advertising on its website: Subway Tuna is real Tuna (German: Subway tuna is real tuna)
A Subway spokesman has now also denied the latest lawsuit, insisting that “Subway tuna is of high quality and 100 percent wild-caught.”
The plaintiffs filed three unsubstantiated complaints, each time changing their story. “This third, amended complaint was only brought after your previous complaint was rightly dismissed by a federal judge,” the spokesman said.
And even if the allegations are true, experts doubt Subways’ guilt. Fishmonger Dave Rudie told the New York Times: “I don’t think a sandwich shop would sell the wrong products on purpose. You buy tuna in a can that also says ‘tuna’. If there is fraud, then it is the suppliers’ fault. “
Not fish, not meat – let’s wait and see what should be in the sandwich in the next version of the lawsuit …