>Subway has responded by saying any product that is not tuna in its tuna products would most likely be the result of cross-contact as one of its employees prepares a sandwich.
>But even if that is the case, the “100% tuna” claim might still be inaccurate, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar said.
>“Although it is possible that Subway’s explanations are the correct ones, it is also possible that these allegations refer to ingredients that a reasonable consumer would not reasonably expect to find in a tuna product,” Tigar said.
That would set a rather interesting precedent if this goes further and not just with food stuffs.
>>Subway has responded by saying any product that is not tuna in its tuna products would most likely be the result of cross-contact as one of its employees prepares a sandwich.
>>But even if that is the case, the “100% tuna” claim might still be inaccurate, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar said.
>>“Although it is possible that Subway’s explanations are the correct ones, it is also possible that these allegations refer to ingredients that a reasonable consumer would not reasonably expect to find in a tuna product,” Tigar said.
That would set a rather interesting precedent if this goes further and not just with food stuffs.
(post is archived)