Those of us with a keenly developed sense of justice should be following this one closely:
A federal judge says a woman's lawsuit against Subway can move forward, refusing the restaurant chain's request to dismiss the suit that alleges its tuna sandwiches "partially or wholly" lack tuna.
Plaintiff Nilima Amin of Alameda County, Calif., says Subway misled her and other consumers by saying its sandwiches and other products contain "tuna" and "100% tuna."
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.
You know, I never want to cast doubt on anyone's career choices, but I do wonder if it is more than a little demoralizing to have spent a lot of time and money becoming a marine biologist only to find yourself analyzing ersatz tuna subs from a global sandwich franchise.
I digress. Subway, for one, stands by its tuna grinders:
Subway asked U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar to dismiss the case, saying in part that its tuna sandwich routinely includes other ingredients, such as mayonnaise (which contains eggs).
Subway also says a reasonable consumer watching a "sandwich artist" prepare their order would recognize that there's a chance for cross-contact between various ingredients.
Oh sure, many a time I've ordered a ham sando from Subway and ended up with not a single speck of ham on the entire thing. That's "cross-contact" for you.
Let's keep an eye on this one. And maybe order the cold cut combo at Subway until this is all over, just to be safe.
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
