In an amended third lawsuit filed this year, the ongoing Subway tuna sandwich legal debacle is back on again. This time the plaintiff’s test results reveal that 19 of 20 tuna samples from Subway locations throughout Southern California had no detectable tuna DNA, with all the samples containing at least one other animal protein - such as chicken, pork, or cattle. The suit alleges Subway misled customers into buying premium-priced food dishes, based on the misrepresentation that their “tuna products” contained only tuna.
Gee, hard to believe that a company that would add a material used to make “yoga mats” into their bread flour, would misrepresent what’s in their tuna ingredients. Now, if I’m understanding this correctly, while it’s possible a Subway tuna sandwich might contain a minuscule amount of albacore, the rest is essentially what is commonly referred to as - “cat food.” And, while this scam might have fooled some, I seriously doubt it would’ve gotten past Grump Cat (RIP).
Anyway - now we’ve learned what they’ve been passing off as “real tuna” all this time, was actually just chicken, pork, or beef parts? Wow, I have to say I’m really shocked! Not because I didn’t already know Subway was run by crooks, but because those ingredients could at least be considered “actual food,” which is a helluva lot better than I what thought was in there. Hell, I figured their tuna was just sawdust, with a little mayo mixed in for consistency and flavor.
What I don’t get is, why try and pull off this scam in the first place? I mean, how expensive can it be for them to just head over to Walmart or Costco, and pick up a case or two of some cheap canned tuna? Yet, the greedy Subway bosses decide “ah, let’s go with cat food.” Oh, well! Hey, I got an idea, wonder if Subway might be able to distract everyone from this latest PR nightmare - by rehiring Jared? After all, that kind of maneuver always seemed to work pretty well for Trump.
If you’ve enjoyed what you’ve just read, please consider joining me at:
Comments
Post a Comment