Claim That Subway’s Tuna Is “Fake” or Contains No Actual Tuna Is Misleading

There’s an ongoing debate about Subway’s tuna sandwiches and wraps. Social media posts from 2025 continue sharing claims that suggested these products don’t contain real tuna. But after looking carefully at the legal documents, scientific evidence, and food safety regulations, we found that these viral claims are misleading and lack solid proof.

Social Media Posts

In 2025, people on social media have been sharing old stories from a 2021 lawsuit about Subway’s tuna. These posts spread claims that Subway’s tuna sandwiches don’t contain real tuna fish. They also reference earlier DNA test findings that suggested the presence of other meats like chicken and pork.

Source | Archive

Source | Archive

Fact Check

Origin of the Claim: The 2021 Lawsuit

The dispute started when two California residents filed a lawsuit in January 2021 at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. They claimed Subway’s tuna products weren’t actually tuna, but rather an artificial mixture designed to look and feel like tuna. The lawsuit accused Subway of false advertising by marketing these products as “100% tuna.”

The plaintiffs later updated their case with DNA test results from UCLA’s Barber Lab, which examined 20 samples from different Subway locations in Southern California. Their findings claimed:

• 19 samples had no tuna DNA
• All samples contained chicken DNA
• 11 samples had pork DNA, and 7 had cattle DNA

However, these claims were never proven in court. The case ended in July 2023 when one of the plaintiffs withdrew due to pregnancy-related health issues. The court dismissed the case “with prejudice,” meaning it cannot be filed again.

(Source: NBC, Reuters)

Analysis of the Lab Tests and Scientific Limitations

Although widely shared online, looking closely at the DNA test results from the lawsuit reveals important problems with how the testing was done:

DNA Degradation in Cooked Tuna

According to experts interviewed by the New York Times and USA Today, when tuna is cooked or processed, its DNA breaks down. This makes it very hard to detect tuna DNA using standard testing methods. Therefore, just because a test can’t find tuna DNA doesn’t mean there’s no tuna present.

When scientists test processed foods like this, the results can be unreliable and vary based on how the test is done and how the food samples are handled.

Contradictory Lab Results

A separate Inside Edition investigation in February 2021 analyzed tuna samples from three Subway restaurants in Queens, New York. Contrary to the UCLA claims, they found actual tuna DNA in all samples tested.

These different test results show why we can’t rely only on one type of DNA test for processed foods. To get more accurate results, scientists need to use multiple testing methods, like mass spectrometry and protein analysis, to properly identify what’s in the food.

Subway’s Defense and Transparency

Subway has consistently and publicly denied all allegations of misrepresentation, emphasizing that its tuna products are:

• Made with 100% real, wild-caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna
• Fully compliant with FDA labeling regulations
• Sourced through certified suppliers, such as Rema Foods, and tracked via Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP) catch certificates

In response to public doubt, the company launched a dedicated website, SubwayTunaFacts.com , to provide sourcing documentation, certification details, and scientific explanations debunking the claim.

The site also noted that cross-contamination may occur during sandwich assembly (e.g., shared cutting surfaces or utensils), potentially explaining trace DNA from other proteins like chicken or pork, especially when mayonnaise or nearby deli meats are involved.

Regulatory Oversight and Industry Context

FDA Guidelines and Tuna Labeling

The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) sets rules for what can be labeled as “tuna” and recognizes 15 different fish species that qualify. Subway’s products use two of these approved species, skipjack and yellowfin tuna, which are commonly found in both canned tuna and other packaged tuna products.

According to public records, the FDA has not issued any recalls, warnings, or citations regarding Subway’s tuna products. The FDA regularly monitors seafood products and investigates cases of potential seafood fraud across the industry.

Current Context and Evidence (2025)

As of June 2025, the controversy surrounding Subway’s tuna, stemming from a 2021 class-action lawsuit alleging the product contained little to no actual tuna, continues to generate limited public discussion. The lawsuit, dismissed with prejudice in July 2023, cited lab tests showing no detectable tuna DNA in most samples, but Subway maintained its tuna is 100% wild-caught skipjack and yellowfin, attributing other proteins to cross-contamination. Recent claim that Subway’s tuna has minimal fish DNA lacks credible evidence and rely on outdated allegations. No new lawsuits, regulatory actions, or FDA recalls have emerged in 2025, and consumer complaints on platforms like the Better Business Bureau focus on unrelated issues like service or pricing, not tuna quality. Public skepticism persists due to the lawsuit’s publicity, but no substantiated evidence supports the “fake tuna” claim.

Conclusion

Claims about Subway’s tuna containing “no actual tuna” lack scientific and legal support. While initial DNA tests raised questions, these tests were based on limited samples, were not confirmed by regulators, were contradicted by other testing results, and were affected by DNA breakdown during the cooking process.

Subway has provided documentation showing they follow FDA rules, which supports their side of the story. Additionally, the fact that the lawsuit was dropped in 2023 and no government agencies have taken action against Subway suggests these accusations are based on misunderstandings rather than real evidence.