Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2021/01/28/lawsuit-alleges-subway-tuna-sandwich-contains-no-tuna-or-fish-for-that-matter.html
…
6 Likes
Okay, but what was in the “concoction”?
13 Likes
You can tune a piano, but you can’t tunafish.
You’re welcome.
40 Likes
“Carbon, as in that black stuff in my water filter? Hydrogen, as in the gas that made the Hindenburg explode? Oxygen, as in that terrible cable network? I don’t want chemicals in my food!”
If past foofaraw regarding Subway is any indicator, that is.
12 Likes
That’s Impossible™ !!!
Wouldn’t they be charging twice as much if that were true?
4 Likes
That is so not fair!
They must identify whatever the I-Can’t-Believe-It’s-Not-Tuna is!
5 Likes
I don’t mean to defend Subway but I find it more plausible that someone made shit up to file a fraudulent lawsuit than that Subway this blatantly defrauded customers.
19 Likes
The “Sub” in Subway is for substitution.
8 Likes
Well -according to one lab - their ‘chicken’ is only 50% chicken.
Yet another reason not to eat there. The “steak” there looks more like cat food.
6 Likes
Whatever it is in those sandwiches sure does give me tuna breath whenever I happen to eat one.
8 Likes
I’ve had their tuna subs. I’d be willing to buy that they’re substituting another variety of fish, but I doubt it’s wholly artificial.
9 Likes
It has a tuna flavor and a tuna mouthfeel. I too find it more likely that this is a frivolous lawsuit than it is that Subway is using something that so perfectly mimics the flavor and texture of Tuna.
This will get tossed out because I am sure some lab will do a DNA test on the sandwich (boy, never thought I’d write that) and it’ll be: surprise! Fish.
I would believe they aren’t using Tuna though. There’s a lot of tuna-like fishes which are cheaper which restos use in the US. Escolar is a notable one, and frankly I’d be raving mad if Subway was using that in its tuna subs.
8 Likes
First it was Subway bread isn’t bread now Subway tuna isn’t tuna?
Is Subway real at all?
21 Likes
Flashbacks to my misspent youth!
11 Likes
8 Likes
It’s not a tuna!
15 Likes
Considering the GI side-effects of that particular fish, I agree, that would be cause for outrage. I have eaten their tuna sub and not spent the following day on the pot, so I am guessing not?
4 Likes
Just change the spelling to Toona, like crab with a “K”, and you’re off the hook.
7 Likes
Yeah, that was my immediate question, and one that’s not being answered. I mean, how do you fake tuna? They say it’s not fish at all, so then it couldn’t just be a substitution with something cheaper, which raises questions of how they give it a fishy taste. Texturally, I was thinking perhaps “chicken,” but they’ve been accused of not having chicken in their chicken products (or rather, it only being half chicken, half… something else). Some sort of textured soy or wheat gluten isn’t going to make much of a tuna imitation. Perhaps it’s a multi-level deception, where they use soy/wheat protein to bulk up their chicken, and the chicken they save then masquerades as tuna… Oh, but then they’d have to add the seafood taste via some other product that isn’t a fish. Some sort of invertebrate that’s normally considered waste, like jellyfish. Yes, this overly-complicated scheme seems very likely…
I hear they’re not even underground at all!
12 Likes
for those who didn’t follow the link, the problem with escolar is not just it’s the wrong fish (which I wouldn’t care about) but that it tends to give people the runs
5 Likes
