Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Technology

Lawsuit Over Subway Tuna Now Says Chicken, Pork, Cattle DNA Were Detected 136

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
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." From a report: 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. Further reading, from last year: Irish Court Says Subway Bread Is Too Sugary to Be Called 'Bread'.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lawsuit Over Subway Tuna Now Says Chicken, Pork, Cattle DNA Were Detected More

Lawsuit Over Subway Tuna Now Says Chicken, Pork, Cattle DNA Were Detected

Comments Filter:

  • a second helping of info, pls? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jm007 ( 746228 ) on Thursday November 11, 2021 @04:15PM (#61979391)

    not seeing a link but regardless... where do there samples come from? are they testing if from an upopened bucket of tuna paste? now that would be gross enough w/out any extra hoof or beak parts

    or maybe they had a sandwich made in-shop and then took it to the lab?

    have you ever been to a Subway? all those open air ingredients combined w/ nihilistic sandwich engineers makes for a tasty chimera-wich

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      starting to sound like one of them chinese wet markets we better shut Subway down before another virus "escapes"

    • Re:a second helping of info, pls? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Thursday November 11, 2021 @04:38PM (#61979477)

      I don't have the link to the original Slashdot post handy, but the samples were from sandwiches they bought.

      So, not straight out of the can of tuna. From a tub sitting next to chicken, pork and beef, handled by people who spent hours touching chicken, pork and beef and then packaged in the same place they package chicken, pork and beef.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        I don't think it can be explained by contamination. According to other articles they found 0% tuna DNA in it.

        https://www.cbsnews.com/news/s... [cbsnews.com]

        The lawsuit alleges that while it contains various ingredients, none of them are tuna. It's not just that they found other stuff in there, it's that they ONLY found other stuff, and no tuna at all.

        • When tuna is canned, it's cooked at a temperature high enough to break down DNA.

          Also, this is a different lawsuit, and that lawsuit was thrown out for the poor testing.

    • There's a lot of mayo in tuna spread. So right away there eggs could be your chicken. There's also oil or some similar thing like say lard . So pig or beef fat might be used. But all the eggs do is supply a protein emollient and that too might be from pig or beef rendering .

      Do it's possible that the tuna part really is 100% tuna. It's just that tuna spread isn't all tuna and that's normal too.

    • Who would be shocked to find chicken DNA in tuna salad that is mixed with mayonnaise? Unless it's some special vegan mayo, then it's made with eggs and oil. Eggs contain chicken DNA.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Aubz ( 7986666 )
      Salmon have been genetically modified, look up AquAdvantage salmon https://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/1... [cnbc.com]. Genetically modified salmon have escaped confinement, https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]. So I wonder if some varieties of Tuna have been modified as well as both Tuna and Salmon are factory farmed and would present an attractive opportunity for "improvement" for businesses looking to improve yields on their investments. If Tuna escaped confinement and mixed with the natural population perhaps that is what

      • Or, you know, the person making the sub didn't change gloves after previously making a sub with different meats.

        It doesn't take a grand conspiracy theory to explain cross contamination.

        • I was at a Subway once, and the woman ahead of me asked if the Subway person could change their gloves first, describing herself as a "spiritual vegetarian". I have no idea what a spiritual vegetarian is, but if you don't want any cross-meat contamination, that seems like a sensible way to avoid most of it. And I'd imagine vegetarians don't have a huge number of other eat-out options.

          But I'd imagine a lab is going to find minuscule bits of other meat regardless. I mean, the meats are sitting in open tubs

  • I haven't eaten at Subway in quite a few years; but, when I've been to Jimmy Johns, I've seen lots of giant cans of Starkist Tuna. Is Subway sourcing its own tuna rather than buying from a supplier?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      Having eaten at Jimmy Johns I'd hope that's the limit of shitty fast food delis but having also eaten at Subway I will tell you it's not.

      Subway is cheap and one can have a very veggie heavy sandwich and yeah, that will be fairly healthy if you choose the rest of the sandwich right. Their proteins are utter shit though and said crap proteins are exactly how they make their product so cheap.

  • Contamination is a thing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Thursday November 11, 2021 @04:18PM (#61979407)

    So, tuna that sits right next to containers of meat from chickens, pigs and cattle have traces of chicken, pork and cattle in it.

    Golly. How shocking.

    • Yeah, this has been silly from the start and it keeps getting more bizarre. Wait until you test the meat in a cooked Big Mac and see what you find. Protip: It will include human DNA.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      PCR is sensitive enough to find viral nucleic acids on a nasal swab. If you *weighed* the virus in the sample, you'd have to measure it in daltons.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by stikves ( 127823 )

      It only tells Muslims, Jews, and vegetarians to avoid the place.

      I could almost never get them to use clean environment to make a sandwich. Looking back, it did not matter, since all the tomatoes were probably pre-dipped in bacon grease anyway.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kriston ( 7886 )

      You forgot turkey. The "Cold Cut Combo" is all turkey meat.

    • There was a similar lawsuit a few years ago with Subway's chicken. https://www.vice.com/en/articl... [vice.com]

    • Yeah, I know who "shocking" must be that "contaminated" tuna has a... 0% of tuna and 100% of chicken, pork and cattle.

      You know, next time you buy tomato sauce and you find it's 100% cucumber, banana, lemon and peppermint, do NOT complain.

      • Finding traces of contaminants is not the same as finding "0% tuna".

        The 0% tuna lawsuit was thrown out because of a "minor" problem in their methodology: When tuna is canned, it's heated to a high enough temperature to break down DNA.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      In this case though they are saying that it's not just contamination, there actually 0% tuna in there.

      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/s... [cbsnews.com]

      Or at least so little that DNA testing didn't find any that could be determined to belong to a tuna fish.

      • When tuna is canned, it is heated to a temperature high enough to denature DNA.

        That lawsuit was thrown out over this "minor" problem with their methodology.

  • I don't believe it (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jiro ( 131519 ) on Thursday November 11, 2021 @04:26PM (#61979433)

    No article link, but here's one: https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]

    Even if it's possible there's something to the lawsuit, the first two lawsuits were clearly absurd. The first one claimed there's no tuna whatsoever in the tuna, which is not only something that's impossible to get away with, but they refused to release the lab tests.

    In the second lawsuit, they claimed it "was not 100 percent sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna" which is curiously specific wording. Are they really claiming that sustainable tuna have different DNA from unsustainable ones? And does that mean that they suddenly admit that the lab tests do show tuna when they claimed they didn't the first time? They didn't release the lab tests for this one either.

    At this point, I'd assume either 1) they're suing only for the publicity and don't believe anything's wrong, or 2) they're fanatics who don't understand that no evidence means no evidence. It's possible that they have evidence the third time, but I wouldn't bet on it.

    • More Absurd (Score:5, Informative)

      by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Thursday November 11, 2021 @04:44PM (#61979505)

      The most absurd part of their lawsuit is that Subway ships their tuna pre-cooked. Pulling useful DNA from cooked protein is nearly impossible, as heating it de-natures the DNA.

      So, yes, they are factually correct in stating that no tuna DNA was detected. I would wager the lab results showed that no DNA was detected at all.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rgmoore ( 133276 )

        AFAIK, the tuna Subway uses- the tuna most people use- hasn't just been cooked; it's been pressure cooked at temperatures substantially above 100ÂC. Meanwhile, I would expect the tuna salad on their sandwiches to contain chicken DNA, since it's made with mayonnaise that contains egg. It's also entirely possible that the sandwiches have been contaminated with DNA from other foods in the place, like cold cuts. Anyone who does these kinds of tests can tell you cross contamination is a constant problem,

        • You think someone is slathering that tuna and mayo slop with cold cuts?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by rgmoore ( 133276 )
            No, but they don't have to "slather" anything with anything to get cross contamination. If someone touched cold cuts and then prepared the tuna without changing their gloves, it would be enough to cause cross contamination. Of if they reached across the tuna to grab the cold cuts and some juices from the cold cuts dripped into the tuna. Or they used the same knife to tuck the tuna into the sandwich they had previously used to do the same thing with cold cuts without thoroughly washing it.

            If they were r

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          Not to mention that it's really not a great amount of cross contamination. It doesn't take much for PCR to detect it.

      • They were able to test chicken from other fast food restaurants and verify it was 88% chicken while Subway's "chicken" was less than 50% in some cases, the rest was soy protein. https://www.vice.com/en/articl... [vice.com]

      • These guys are going after small potatoes, subway ...

        They should test crude oil and coal and prove there is no dinosaur DNA in it and sue every one calling oil Fossil Fuel.

        • I dunno if it's still true, but not long ago Subway was the largest US fast food chain by number of shops: 25,908 locations to McDonald's 14,000-something in 2019.

          Potatoes maybe not so small. But I'd bet you can sue if they're smaller than advertised.

      • as heating it de-natures the DNA.
        FTFY: de-natures proteins

        It is perfectly possible to DNA test cooked food (or humans).
        For humans that is interesting to identify victims of fires or plane crashes + fires.

        Sure: if you cook it long enough the remaining DNA might be very few, but usually not few enough for a PCR and then analysis.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kriston ( 7886 )

      Funny how they claim "chicken, pork, and cattle" DNA but no turkey DNA. The "Cold Cut Combo" is all turkey meat.

      And I never heard of DNA being successfully sourced from cooked or rendered meat and vegetables.

      • And I never heard of DNA being successfully sourced from cooked or rendered meat and vegetables.
        I guess that is so, because you never were interested in it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by youngone ( 975102 )
      There is no such thing as sustainable fishing, particularly when the catch is top predators like tuna.
      The fishing industry uses slave labour to strip mine the world's oceans, and at some point during the lifetime of our children or grandchildren the top predators will be jellyfish, just like 500 million years ago.

  • nbsp; ... its tuna products said lab testing shows they contain animal proteins such as chicken, pork and cattle, and not the advertised "100% tuna." ...

    How much other animal proteins? Negligible? Sounds like someone's being a dick about that 100% thing. Do they also complain about store-bought tuna packed in water, 'cause that's not 100% tuna either. Or are they, for some reason, just having a grudge against Subway?

    Also, how many of us have seen retail products labeled with with something like, "This product was processed in a facility that also processes [something else] ..." Of course, it's possible that that some cattle simply wandered too far into

    • Re:Uh huh ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Thursday November 11, 2021 @04:43PM (#61979501)

      Of course, it's possible that that some cattle simply wandered too far into the shore near some *very* hungry tuna ...

      Or the tuna sandwiches they tested were prepared on a counter where they're handling chicken, pork and beef, from a tub that sits next to tubs of chicken, pork and beef, and wrapped in an area where they wrap chicken, pork and beef, by people who have spent hours handling chicken, pork and beef.

      Wonder how that chicken, pork and beef could possibly have gotten there.

      • Of course, it's possible that that some cattle simply wandered too far into the shore near some *very* hungry tuna ...

        Or the tuna sandwiches they tested were prepared on a counter where they're handling chicken, pork and beef, from a tub that sits next to tubs of chicken, pork and beef, and wrapped in an area where they wrap chicken, pork and beef, by people who have spent hours handling chicken, pork and beef.

        Wonder how that chicken, pork and beef could possibly have gotten there.

        I agree, that's an *obvious* answer -- that plaintiffs should have considered. Since they didn't I was just offering something their conspiracy/vendetta addled brains might latch onto... :-) It seems clear that this whole round of lawsuits is simply to harass Subway, for some reason.

        • Obviously the magic forcefields emitted from the dust of ground up unicorns to prevent food cross contamination were on the blink.

            I blame GUUBMFFI (Ground Up Unicorn Based Magic Force Field Incorporated) for this screw up.

  • At least its dolphin safe!

    https://youtu.be/bvobh3_nLE0 [youtu.be]
  • No chicken, pork or beef in there, soiree!

    Also I haven't pooped since 1974, is that normal?

  • I expect better scientific rigor... (Score:4, Informative)

    by JDShewey ( 1060926 ) on Thursday November 11, 2021 @04:27PM (#61979441)
    ...out of a frontpage /. article. Someone has already pointed out the obviousness of finding other meats out of something that might be tested out of a sandwich out of obvious and understandable DNA cross-contamination, but did anyone bother to read the USA Today fact check referenced? It's pretty compelling this lawsuit is frivolous and the test was bad science possibly taken out of context.
  • I went into a subway recently... the new menu got rid of my old favorite and the new items are less meat for more money. Didn't even toast it. Maybe it's just pandemic inflation, but company seems to be deathspiraling.

  • This is an argument for Tort reform (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Whateverthisis ( 7004192 ) on Thursday November 11, 2021 @04:34PM (#61979465)
    This whole case is just nonsense, and the damage that Subway is taking to it's image because of this is extremely unfortunate.

    By the way editors, there's no link to read other than the previous article, so here: https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/new-lawsuit-over-subway-tuna-says-chicken-pork-cattle-dna-were-detected-2021-11-11/

    There's no way a "marine biologist" as stated in the Reuters write up could collect 20 samples of tuna from a Subway of all places and determine if their tuna was real tuna or not. First of all, tuna is red. The reason it looks brown in cans and the bags used to make tuna salad is that it's cooked twice, once in a convection oven before final packing, and again in a tort oven. That cooking process utterly destroys DNA, because it's very thoroughly cooked. On top of that, chicken and pork are very lightly cooked. Often they are salted heavily and cooked just to the point where any bacteria or pathogens would be eliminated. That's enough to damage DNA, but not destroy it. DNA also floats around like crazy; it's everywhere. Everything sheds it; that's why labs that do proper DNA medical testing for example require tight environmental control, because you can very easily contaminate a sample and create confusing results.

    Odds are that Subway would not allow these fools to test their supply chain's tuna, so it's most likely the samples came from buying a tuna sandwich from a Subway. Given that DNA floats just about everywhere, if the tuna happened to be sitting next to an open bin of say grilled chicken or sliced ham, like you would find at every lunch counter on the planet, you would get the results they found.

    But unfortunately for Subway, it makes for sensational headlines to turn this into a scandal to generate more clicks and sell more ad space in your newspaper, despite this being the most laughable attempt at a class action shakedown ever.

    Too bad we have so many lawyers in Congress, maybe if we had fewer we could see actual tort reform rather than this kind of thing which amounts to little more than a legal form of protection racketeering.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

      Maybe they're using the same PCR test cycles they use for COVID. Pretty soon everyone is going to be testing positive for pork.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by smap77 ( 1022907 )

      I guess those pesky plaintiffs will have to take it to court?

      Next your going to complain that all those people who don't eat pork should just shrug it off that they thought they were eating Tuna but actually just letting Subway violate their religious beliefs? I mean... if the court actually determines that there is pork in the 100% Tuna.

      • It is silly to go court over this. If you trust your God, trust your God will punish the wrong doer.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by smap77 ( 1022907 )

          So... you're saying that if I trust my God, I don't need courts? or governments that have courts? or groups of people who make decisions that affect me?

          or that courts are just silly in the first place?

          I do like that 3 posters actually did suggest that those people should just shrug it off. Ask yourself, "What would it take to make me offended that someone put in my food?" Now go eat that and shrug it off.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by EvilSS ( 557649 )
        If your beliefs are so strict that some DNA cross-contamination is a problem for you, you should just avoid anyplace that handles or sells pork products, period.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bws111 ( 1216812 )

        If Subway is not claiming the tuna is 'kosher' or 'halal' (and they are not), then people who stick to those religious diets should not be eating it anyway. And before you say 'allergies', you can bet there is a prominently displayed sign warning about cross-contamination of allergens.

        • If Subway is not claiming the tuna is 'kosher' or 'halal' (and they are not), then people who stick to those religious diets should not be eating it anyway.
          Are you some kind of idiot?
          Tuna is by definition kosher and halal. Why the funk do you require an extra claim for that?
          If it is _really_ contaminated as in _mixed intentionally with significant amounts of pork or what ever_ : then it is plain and simply fraud.

          Why would anyone be required or be expected to disclaim:
          Yes, this tuna contains no pork
          Yes, this

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jabuzz ( 182671 )

            I have witnessed a Rabbi come an sit watching artificial food dies being manufactured to ensure they are Kosher. We are talking E102, E110 etc. (aka Yellow No. 5/No. 6) both of which are petroleum based azo dyes. How the hell they can be anything but Kosher heaven only knows.

            So at least as far as Kosher goes, while tuna is basically Kosher by definition; if it is handled in the way it is in a Subway outlet then it is no longer strictly Kosher. I would be surprised if the same was not also true for Halal. Th

          • No, you obnoxious ass. The fish itself may be kosher 'by default', but there is no guarantee that prepared, ready to eat tuna is kosher. Simply using the same utensil that has ever touched non-kosher food (unless ritually cleaned and inspected by a rabbi) renders it non-kosher.

  • if they get away with an footlong being under that they can get away with this.

    • I'm sure I'm wrong about this, but my opinion only a 1-dimensional dimwit would care about, well, 1 dimension out of 3.

      The bread comes in 3 dimensions. Some are wider, and some are taller, due to inconsistencies - the least of which being a minimum wage teenager attempting to following proper thawing, proofing, and baking while concurrently serving customers.

      If the bread wasn't exactly 12 inches one direction, odds are it was a bit wider the other direction. Either way, it was less that you are paying fo

  • The case seems to be hidden behind the PACER system (not sure how that serves the public interest), so you can't see the actual filings (please, prove me ignorant.)

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news... [yahoo.com]
    "The Nov. 8 lawsuit relies on testing by a marine biologist of 20 tuna samples taken from 20 Subway restaurants in southern California"

    • The case seems to be hidden behind the PACER system (not sure how that serves the public interest), so you can't see the actual filings (please, prove me ignorant.)

      Well who can resist a request like that. Always check RECAP to see if someone's uploaded to there. For cases that make it to national news, that's usually a yes.
      Here you go. [courtlistener.com] But it's not any more illuminating. They did apparently just do DNA tests and are claiming 0% tuna DNA (which would be entirely denatured by cooking) but an unstated quantity of the other animal DNA (which wouldn't be, and could be cross-contamination).

  • Why not the Cold Cut Combo? That sandwich has three different deli meats that are all turkey in disguise.

    And why didn't these so-called "DNA Tests" detect turkey DNA?

  • Over a CBC Marketplace investigation into Subway's chicken;

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/busine... [www.cbc.ca]

    CBC is not intimidated and has not retracted the original story though;

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/busine... [www.cbc.ca]

  • And possibly non-tuna news.

    So, is Subway tuna suitable for vegetarians?

    Is a hotdog a sandwich?

    Is this article relevant to anyone in any way? Apparently, it's suitable for Slashdot but, I think they got it off Fark.

  • Cattle goes "moo".

    Beef does not.

    (Usually.)

  • Did they get behind the counter and get the tuna out of the bag? Because if not, I would think buying a sandwich isn't going to be a good way because your test could get contaminated.

    So I would call into question how they acquired the samples in the first place.

  • "...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."

    There's moving the goalposts, and then there's relocating them to another stadium.

  • I presume if their legal case is found to have no merit they get hammered with Subways costs ?

  • DNA tests are exquisitely sensitive. Unless the DNA test shows no tuna, then even 0.000001% contamination by something else will show up. What I want to know is how much rat and mouse DNA is in there.

  • Why does this not surprise one bit?

    The animal feed industry is worse- shredded cow parts mixed into cow feed, turning cattle into unsuspecting cannibals, and other such nightmares.

        I wonder if all of this has anything to do with the amount of mentally unbalanced people in our society today. Or are we just going to ignore this and continue to lay the blame on lead paint?

  • Try some logic (Score:3)

    by TRRosen ( 720617 ) on Saturday November 13, 2021 @09:26PM (#61985511)

    Does anyone really think that subway is going to sneak beef into the tuna? Thatâ(TM)s like sneaking Fillet mignon into a McDonaldâ(TM)s hamburger.

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn

Close