The Washington Post reports that "the on-again, off-again Subway tuna lawsuit is on again, and this time the plaintiffs are revealing their test results. They claim that 19 of 20 tuna samples from Subway locations throughout Southern California had no detectable tuna DNA, and all of the samples contained at least one other animal protein, whether chicken, pork or cattle.
"Subway’s marketing, labeling and advertising, the lawsuit contends, duped the plaintiffs 'into buying premium priced food dishes based on the representation that the tuna products contained only tuna and no other fish species, animal products, or miscellaneous ingredients.'
"If true, the claims would raise more than legal issues for one of the largest fast-food chains in the world. It would raise ethical, religious and dietary issues for consumers who, for example, avoid red meat or don’t eat pork because of their beliefs."
“The plaintiffs’ latest attempt to state a claim against Subway is just as meritless as their prior attempts,” Mark C. Goodman, an attorney representing Subway, tells the Post. “These claims are false and will be proven to be completely meritless if the case gets past the pleading stage.”
- KC's View:
Seems to me that this ought to be an easy case to decide. Science is science, tests are tests, and if there is any animal protein in the tuna fish other than tuna, Subway ought to be found guilty. Simple as that.
What also ought to be simple is that the company's entire credibility and value proposition ought to be thrown into doubt. Subway may not even be able to survive, and I'm not sure it should.
And if there's only tuna in the tuna?
Well, then … the plaintiffs not only ought to shut the hell up, but also ought to be forced all of Subway's legal bills.