Much Ado About Tuna

When I read about Subway being sued in Northern California over their tuna used in their sandwiches in January in The Washington Post, I was like waaaaah. The plaintiffs alleged the 'tuna' is an imitation, and "the ingredient billed as “tuna” for the chain’s sandwiches and wraps contains absolutely no tuna." 

The sandwich chain is no stranger to weird lawsuits and disgruntled customers. They were sued for selling sandwiches that were less than a foot long. Thankfully, sanity prevailed and that lawsuit was thrown out by the US appeals court. Subway is being sued for fraud, intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, among others. The main point of contention here it seems, is the tuna. The plaintiffs claimed that its tuna isn't even fish, but a fabricated ingredient used in place. 👀

Well. I haven't eaten a Subway sandwich for years. Maybe a full decade. In Singapore, I have choices. If I want a sandwich, one from Subway isn't my default or at the top of the list. I would just get a bánh mì or a savory bun of sorts from the nearest bakery. I'm not fond of those tuna buns from the local bakeries though. Those kinda suck. It's a weird mash-mash of sweet bread with savory tuna and bits of onions. It could be any mystery meat, and no one would be none the wiser.  

According to Subway’s nutritional information page on its website, the tuna salad for its sandwiches contains flaked tuna in brine, mayonnaise and an additive to “protect flavor.” A spokeswoman for Subway said the nutritional information is up to date.

Of course Subway has "categorically denied the allegations" and stated that their tuna sandwiches ranked as the best loved on the menu. Subway employees didn't think the tuna was fake, since the meat was already relatively cheap, and there wasn't a point to find replacement tuna to have it sold to customers in the sandwiches. 

Now, there’re further developments and The New York Times also got into dissecting the Subway’s tuna. Titled 'The Big Tuna Sandwich Mystery' written by Julia Carmel published on June 19, 2021. The writer actually bought more than 60-inches worth of Subway's tuna sandwiches, froze them, and sent them to a laboratory, paid $500 to do a PCR test to determine if the contents included one of the five species of tuna. However, the lab results were inconclusive, and no amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample. 

Commercial canned tuna. It has been cooked and thoroughly processed. The protein has been completely broken down. Sometimes, I can’t even tell the difference between tuna and chicken. Canned food sort of taste the same. Oof. I'm not fond of tuna. But I still pop by the shops to get a tuna maki rolls to-go, or tuna inari sushi. They're inoffensive and easy to eat. And I absolutely can't tell if it's actually tuna. Hahahaha.

The writer also spoke to people within the industry to discuss if and why would Subway swop out its tuna. Many figured that if there was fraud, it would have happened at the cannery, and not an intentional move on Subway's part. One Peter Horn, the director of the Ending Illegal Fishing Project at the Pew Charitable Trusts puts it across the best. He "agreed that it would be difficult to place blame on Subway if this were the case." The writer highlighted another report's laboratory results as conclusive for tuna DNA, contents of which were procured from three locations in Queens. 

And even as Subway’s prices have risen beyond the days of $5 footlongs, Mr. Horn said the company’s notably cheap sandwiches raise more important questions than the integrity of their tuna.  “We can’t just continue to have a downward pressure on the price,” Mr. Horn said, “because if we all want everything at rock bottom prices, that means something, somewhere is going to be exploited, whether that’s people or the ocean — probably both.”