No Tuna DNA Found In Subway Tuna Sandwiches After Analysis... We've Been Ripped Off....
- Thread starter Simply_Black
- Start date
Rick Ross Uses Subway's Tuna Controversy to Promote Wingstop's Thighstop
Details here.
Jersey Mike's USA - Authentic Sub Sandwich Franchise Since 1956
Jersey Mike's Subs makes a Sub Above - fresh sliced, authentic Northeast-American style sub sandwiches on fresh baked bread. Subs are prepared Mike's Way® with onions, lettuce, tomatoes, oil, vinegar and spices. More than 2,000 locations open and under development throughout the United States.
www.jerseymikes.com
Firehouse Subs
www.firehousesubs.com
Wow, so what now
Jersey is not ny... jersey could easily be any other region if it was not next to ny.. people over there be having accents and everything.. it easily could be south, Midwest, or west coast if it was not next to ny.. it really is diff from us
Point being bruh is what else will this apply to. What if they tested the roast beef and found no cow dna, or the turkey and found no turkey dna. Its fraudulent, hell the bread might be fucked up, the mayo might be fake and made out of some concoction out of china. I don't eat subway, never never liked the quality of their meat, all of it. Same of China Express. Meat taste like its overboiled.
I need to find the article I read a few years ago that stated the other "meats" on their menu was really processed turkey. They survived Jared and his hijinx, not too sure they're going to survive this.
I mean do you really expect real tuna from a $5 sandwich from a fast food joint.
I don't expect completely fake frakenfood.
Inside our hearts, we already know it’s no real meat at Subway.
I'd eat a unknown DNA tuna at Subway before I ever ate another trash sub at Jimmy Johns
Can I borrow your time machine so I can go to Subway with $5 too?
Rick Ross Uses Subway's Tuna Controversy to Promote Wingstop's Thighstop
Details here.www.xxlmag.com
Rick needs to holla at somebody about those small fun sized wings.
Subway CEO: We changed everything -- except our tuna
Subway restaurants are getting a makeover. But they're slapping on more than just a fresh coat of paint: Subway is updating its entire menu -- the biggest change in its history.
www.cnn.com
Lawsuit over Subway tuna now says chicken, pork, cattle DNA were detected
By Jonathan Stempel
The Subway restaurant logo is seen on a napkin in this illustration photo August 30, 2017. REUTERS/Thomas White/Illustration
Nov 11 (Reuters) - A new version of a lawsuit accusing Subway of deceiving the public about its tuna products said lab testing shows they contain animal proteins such as chicken, pork and cattle, and not the advertised "100% tuna."
Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin filed a third version of their proposed class action this week in the federal court in San Francisco, near their homes in Alameda County.
Subway said in a statement it will seek to dismiss the "reckless and improper" lawsuit.
The chain said the plaintiffs have "filed three meritless complaints, changing their story each time," and that its "high-quality, wild-caught, 100% tuna" was regulated strictly in the United States and around the world.
Since the case began in January, Subway has run TV ads and launched a website defending its tuna. It also revamped its menu but not its tuna, saying an upgrade wasn't needed.
The original complaint claimed that Subway tuna salads, sandwiches and wraps were "bereft" of tuna, while an amended complaint said they were not 100% sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna.
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar dismissed the second version last month, saying the plaintiffs did not show they bought Subway tuna based on alleged misrepresentations.
He did not rule on the merits, and gave the plaintiffs another chance to make their case.
The Nov. 8 lawsuit relies on testing by a marine biologist of 20 tuna samples taken from 20 Subway restaurants in southern California.
It said 19 samples had "no detectable tuna DNA sequences," while all 20 contained detectable chicken DNA, 11 contained pork DNA and 7 contained cattle DNA.
Many people cannot eat various meats because of diet or religious issues.
The complaint said the testing showed that Subway mislabeled its tuna products, and "duped" consumers into paying premium prices.
Amin said she ordered Subway tuna products more than 100 times from 2013 to 2019, and always checked the menu to ensure she would be eating "only tuna."
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for fraud and violations of California consumer protection laws.
The case is Amin et al v Subway Restaurants Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 21-00498.
Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Michael Perry and Rosalba O'Brien
www.reuters.com
By Jonathan Stempel
The Subway restaurant logo is seen on a napkin in this illustration photo August 30, 2017. REUTERS/Thomas White/Illustration
Nov 11 (Reuters) - A new version of a lawsuit accusing Subway of deceiving the public about its tuna products said lab testing shows they contain animal proteins such as chicken, pork and cattle, and not the advertised "100% tuna."
Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin filed a third version of their proposed class action this week in the federal court in San Francisco, near their homes in Alameda County.
Subway said in a statement it will seek to dismiss the "reckless and improper" lawsuit.
The chain said the plaintiffs have "filed three meritless complaints, changing their story each time," and that its "high-quality, wild-caught, 100% tuna" was regulated strictly in the United States and around the world.
Since the case began in January, Subway has run TV ads and launched a website defending its tuna. It also revamped its menu but not its tuna, saying an upgrade wasn't needed.
The original complaint claimed that Subway tuna salads, sandwiches and wraps were "bereft" of tuna, while an amended complaint said they were not 100% sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna.
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar dismissed the second version last month, saying the plaintiffs did not show they bought Subway tuna based on alleged misrepresentations.
He did not rule on the merits, and gave the plaintiffs another chance to make their case.
The Nov. 8 lawsuit relies on testing by a marine biologist of 20 tuna samples taken from 20 Subway restaurants in southern California.
It said 19 samples had "no detectable tuna DNA sequences," while all 20 contained detectable chicken DNA, 11 contained pork DNA and 7 contained cattle DNA.
Many people cannot eat various meats because of diet or religious issues.
The complaint said the testing showed that Subway mislabeled its tuna products, and "duped" consumers into paying premium prices.
Amin said she ordered Subway tuna products more than 100 times from 2013 to 2019, and always checked the menu to ensure she would be eating "only tuna."
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for fraud and violations of California consumer protection laws.
The case is Amin et al v Subway Restaurants Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 21-00498.
Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Michael Perry and Rosalba O'Brien
Lawsuit over Subway tuna now says chicken, pork, cattle DNA were detected
A new version of a lawsuit accusing Subway of deceiving the public about its tuna products said lab testing shows they contain animal proteins such as chicken, pork and cattle, and not the advertised "100% tuna."
Lawsuit over Subway tuna now says chicken, pork, cattle DNA were detected
By Jonathan Stempel
The Subway restaurant logo is seen on a napkin in this illustration photo August 30, 2017. REUTERS/Thomas White/Illustration
Nov 11 (Reuters) - A new version of a lawsuit accusing Subway of deceiving the public about its tuna products said lab testing shows they contain animal proteins such as chicken, pork and cattle, and not the advertised "100% tuna."
Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin filed a third version of their proposed class action this week in the federal court in San Francisco, near their homes in Alameda County.
Subway said in a statement it will seek to dismiss the "reckless and improper" lawsuit.
The chain said the plaintiffs have "filed three meritless complaints, changing their story each time," and that its "high-quality, wild-caught, 100% tuna" was regulated strictly in the United States and around the world.
Since the case began in January, Subway has run TV ads and launched a website defending its tuna. It also revamped its menu but not its tuna, saying an upgrade wasn't needed.
The original complaint claimed that Subway tuna salads, sandwiches and wraps were "bereft" of tuna, while an amended complaint said they were not 100% sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna.
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar dismissed the second version last month, saying the plaintiffs did not show they bought Subway tuna based on alleged misrepresentations.
He did not rule on the merits, and gave the plaintiffs another chance to make their case.
The Nov. 8 lawsuit relies on testing by a marine biologist of 20 tuna samples taken from 20 Subway restaurants in southern California.
It said 19 samples had "no detectable tuna DNA sequences," while all 20 contained detectable chicken DNA, 11 contained pork DNA and 7 contained cattle DNA.
Many people cannot eat various meats because of diet or religious issues.
The complaint said the testing showed that Subway mislabeled its tuna products, and "duped" consumers into paying premium prices.
Amin said she ordered Subway tuna products more than 100 times from 2013 to 2019, and always checked the menu to ensure she would be eating "only tuna."
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for fraud and violations of California consumer protection laws.
The case is Amin et al v Subway Restaurants Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 21-00498.
Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Michael Perry and Rosalba O'Brien
Lawsuit over Subway tuna now says chicken, pork, cattle DNA were detected
A new version of a lawsuit accusing Subway of deceiving the public about its tuna products said lab testing shows they contain animal proteins such as chicken, pork and cattle, and not the advertised "100% tuna."
Wtf?
They used to use the bouillabaisse for a toilet.
Seinfeld (1989) - S04E16 The Shoes clip with quote They used to use the bouillabaisse for a toilet. Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote. Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share. Easily move forward or backward to get to the perfect clip.
getyarn.io
Ohhh. So THAT'S why all their shit tasted the same mo matter what you ate lol
They survived Jared and his hijinx, not too sure they're going to survive this.
.....................
Tuna isn't something that I'd eat at a restaurant anyway. Just doesn't seem right. Same as spaghetti