Is there something fishy about the tuna at Subway restaurants? Maybe... but maybe not.
According to published reports, a lawsuit filed last week in San Francisco federal court contends that the tuna sub sandwich sold by the popular fast food chain does not, in fact, contain tuna, nor fish of any kind.
Plaintiffs named in the suit claim that they performed independent lab tests on samples of "tuna" taken from several Subway locations in California.
The tests, it's alleged, proved that Subway's so-called tuna is actually a ‘"mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna, yet have been blended together by (Subway) to imitate the appearance of tuna," according to the complaint.
So, what's in this alleged concoction? The suit does not specify what the lab tests supposedly revealed, or what the tuna is actually made of.
The plaintiffs' attorney told the The Washington Post simply: "We found that the ingredients were not tuna and not fish."
Related
Subway has flat out denied these claims, telling DailyMail.com that the tuna is real, is from fish caught in the wild, and that the claims in the lawsuit are "meritless."
"There simply is no truth to the allegations in the complaint that was filed in California,' a company spokesperson told the Daily Mail.
"Subway delivers 100% cooked tuna to its restaurants, which is mixed with mayonnaise and used in freshly made sandwiches, wraps and salads that are served to and enjoyed by our guests."
Subway says lawsuit is part of a trend in which certain attorneys have been targeting the food industry in an effort to make a name for themselves.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, plus attorneys’ fees.