Two women are suing Subway claiming the tuna used in the fast food chain’s sandwiches doesn’t contain fish.
The lawsuit, being pursued by Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin, from the US state of California, claims Subway isn’t using tuna in its tuna sandwiches and alleges fraud, The Washington Post reports.
Subway denies this and claims not only is it tuna but the fish is wild-caught “pure” tuna.
But Shalini Dogra, who’s representing the women, said the ingredient has been tested in a lab.
“We found that the ingredients were not tuna and not fish,” she told the Post.
Ms Dogra would not say what the lab identified the ingredient as.
The lawsuit claims “multiple samples” were taken to the lab and the ingredient is “a mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna, yet have been blended together by defendants to imitate the appearance of tuna”.
Katia Noll, senior director for global food safety and quality at Subway, told the Post the restaurants “receive pure tuna”.
Subway in Ireland in October made headlines around the globe when a court ruled the bread used in its sandwiches didn’t meet the definition of “bread”.
According to the Irish Independent, the Value-Added Tax Act 1972 states sugar, fat, and "bread improver" cannot add up to more than two per cent of the weight of the flour.
Subway bread in Ireland has a sugar content of 10 per cent of the weight of the flour included in the dough.
Do you have a story tip? Email: email@example.com.