CALIFORNIA, 29TH June 2021: One of the world’s leading fast food chain Subway Restaurants defends its tuna products and said it utilizes 100 percent wild tuna, after facing a class-action lawsuit and a New York Times report that claimed testing found no tuna DNA in the restaurant chain’s tuna sandwiches.
In its report, Subway said NYT report indicates that DNA testing is an unreliable methodology for identifying processed tuna. This report supports and reflects the position that Subway has taken in relation to a meritless lawsuit filed in California and with respect to DNA testing as a means to identify cooked proteins. DNA testing is simply not a reliable way to identify denatured proteins, like Subway’s tuna, which was cooked before it was tested.
Unfortunately, various media outlets have confused the inability of DNA testing to confirm a specific protein with a determination that the protein is not present. The testing that the New York Times report references does not show that there is not tuna in Subway’s tuna. All it says is that the testing could not confirm tuna, which is what one would expect from a DNA test of denatured proteins.
The tuna sandwiches is one of the premium product of Subway’s most popular products.
The company accuses that these baseless reports 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 would like to point out that, after being presented with information about Subway’s tuna and the reliability of DNA testing, the plaintiffs in the California lawsuit abandoned their original claim that Subway’s tuna product does not contain tuna. However, rather than dismiss the claims altogether, as they should have, the plaintiffs’ lawyers filed an amended complaint that alleges our tuna product is now not 100% tuna and that it is not sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna. Just like the original claim, the new claims are untrue and have absolutely no merit. In fact, the amended complaint does not remedy any of the fundamental flaws in the plaintiffs’ case that should result in the case being dismissed. Given the facts, the lawsuit constitutes a reckless and improper attack on Subway’s brand and goodwill, and on the livelihood of its franchisees.