I have had enough of Subway’s lies.
First there was the lie about it being a foot long. Like sure, tiny variables between batches of bread, from the humidity of the room to the growing season of the wheat, can affect the way the bread rises, thus affecting the size of the final loaf. Sure, I’ll give you that one.
Then, there was that court case about how they can’t even legally call their “bread” bread. Ireland’s Supreme Court ruled that the sheer amount of sugar in the bread meant that it was, culinarily speaking, more skin to a pastry of some sort, and had no business calling itself bread (the distinction being that bread is considered a staple within Irish tax law, and Subway’s sugarloaf should be subject to a luxury tax). This isn’t even that much of a surprise, since fast food always finds secret ways to cram extra sugar into things for… some reason. Also, Subway’s bread has always been a little too flimsy and sad and it doesn’t even have like a real crust on it? So like, “oh, Subway’s weird bread is weird?” This isn’t a surprise.
The latest in Subway’s latest sandwich deception? Their tuna salad doesn’t even have tuna in it.
The chain is being sued after an independent lab took samples from several locations in California and found that the tuna salad was an amalgamation of things made to simulate the taste and texture of tuna. As of the writing of this, they haven’t disclosed exactly what’s in there, for any potential number of reasons including they just haven’t figured it out yet.
Subway has, of course, taken great offense to the accusation. They’ve even gone as far as to release a promotion for 15% off tuna subs with the code “ITSREAL,” which is definitely not suspicious and also happens to be roughly the markup of the tuna compared to a standard coldcut sub.
Is it worth mentioning that the two plaintiffs in the case are basically two random Karens (wait, one of them is literally named Karen, lmao)? Maybe, but these companies love to spin these kinds of lawsuits around to make the plaintiffs look frivolous and sue-happy. Remember that old lady that got third-degree burns from McDonald’s coffee, who McDonald’s PR team then turned into a laughing stock by getting everyone on the planet to say “yeah, of course the coffee’s hot, why do they need a warning label for that?”
Also, another much less well-known Subway scandal occurred in 2017 when CBC found that their chicken was only about 50% chicken, with the rest being soy and other additives. Subway was able to quickly sweep this under the rug, however, because apparently no one cares about what a Canadian news outlet has to say?
Subway’s been a dying chain these past couple of years, but what’s it gonna take to put the final nail in its coffin? Their food was never even that good to begin with, can’t we just put them out of their misery already?