Subway's tuna is not made of tuna

Question

Several have claimed that Subway's tuna isn't actually what you think it is, to the point where lawsuits sprouted from it. I've heard this claim before, but I haven't gotten a definitive answer.

Comments

I found another source claiming that the "tuna" is a mix of other types of meat and fish, according to a recent lawsuit filed by the US District Court and Northern District of California. The tests on the "tuna" claim the substance is certainly not tuna and majority not fish. There are several varying accounts however.

Answer 1

This claim has been proven false in an a direct statement from subway themselves. In an infographic found on subway.com, they go into detail of the process of sourcing, suppliers facilities, and restaurant. They claim "Subway sources 100%.. wild caught skipjack tuna from Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia". The lawsuit had also been dismissed in 2023 and the plaintiff became the counter plaintiff, being charged over 600,000 for false claims. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/subway-tuna-lawsuit-dismissed/

https://www.courthousenews.com/fake-tuna-lawsuit-against-subway-dropped-by-plaintiffs/

https://www.subway.com/en-us/-/media/northamerica/usa/tuna-facts/pdf/subway-tuna-infographic.pdf

Answer 2

Your claim seems to be true. Looking into this deeper on Google, NPR published an article titled, "A U.S. judge rules that Subway can be sued over its '100% tuna' claim". This article explains that scientists did intense research with multiple samples, concluding that there were no traces of tuna in the Subway "tuna." The article states, "Amin's lawsuit cites a marine biologist who analyzed 20 samples of tuna offerings from 20 different Subway restaurants and found "no detectable tuna DNA sequences whatsoever" in 19 samples. But, Amin says, the samples did contain other types of animal DNA, such as from chicken and pork." 

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/13/1111270816/subway-tuna-lawsuit

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/subway-tuna-lawsuit-dna/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2021/01/27/subway-tuna-lawsuit/

Comments

I really like that you did further research into the claim and looked into the materials of the lawsuit in order to prove it. I also like that you provided the links to your articles and talked about how scientists did extensive testing and research to conclude that the "tuna" wasn't real. This provides credibility to the claim and helps provide accurate facts to back it up. NPR is also a typically reliable source for news and information, so I commend you for using that specific article as a way to support your answer. It is important for consumers to know what they are really eating, and companies can easily get away with things like this if not for research that people like scientists, and subsequently you, provide.

Answer 3

After looking into this a little I think that the tuna is real at Subway and all of the lawsuits were dismissed. Also, Subway has shared test results of their tuna to prove it is real. I have also heard of these things in the past and nothing ever seems to come up from the claims. 

here is the other source I read: 

https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/foodservice-retail/subway-defends-tuna-as-top-tuna-testing-lab-questions-dna-report#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20retort%20process%20used%20in,focus%20to%20Subway's%20sustainability%20claims.