SUBWAY® Subs: 12 Inches of Controversy
Now, this title might be a little strange, but once you look into it, the controversies surrounding SUBWAY®-brand sandwiches are incredibly interesting and humorous, and today I wish to present them to you as two mini-stories. The stories I will be covering are a) the time when Subway's foot-long sandwich wasn't a foot long and b) the time when the claim of their bread being "bread" was called into question. Enjoy.
Important Conversion Rates:
1 foot: 12 inches
12 inches: 30.5 centimeters
6 inches: 15.24 centimeters
1 inch: 2.54 centimeters
Controversy 1: Subway's sub-standard length:
Here's a fact: Subway's foot-long sandwiches are a foot long.
This seemingly obvious fact was put into question in 2013 when Australian Matt Corby posted an image that went viral online of him ordering a foot-long sandwich and putting a measuring tape to it, only to find out it measured 11 inches. He posted that image to the Subway Facebook page where it went viral, with the post being flooded with angry customers demanding to know why his sub was so short. This led to Subway hilariously claiming that the "'Footlong'" term is a registered trademark, and not intended to be an actual measurement of length." This case received loads of media attention, so much so that it resulted in a class-action lawsuit against Subway, and Subway chose to settle the case for half a million dollars, most of which is going to the plaintiff's lawyers, and some policy changes, like employees now having to measure each sub to make sure it's 12 inches long.
This story has been widely circulated online, but you may think the results of the lawsuit are unsatisfying for the short-sandwiched plaintiff. However, there are actually a couple of reasons why the results did not penalize Subway too much. The first is that the short sandwich was most likely an error on the restaurant branch, as a test by Doctor's Associates (the company that operates as Subway in the U.S.) found that most subs are at or above 12 inches, with exceptions being only 1/4 inch (0.625 cm) short; plus, errors may be made with the rising of the dough, which is a random process. Ingredient amounts are also standardized so you will always get the same amount of ingredients for every sub. The weight of the raw dough sticks used in making the subs are all the same—the dough sticks arrive at the restaurants frozen, and are then thawed, stretched, allowed to rise, and baked. Thus, the size and length of the sub are random and may turn out longer or shorter than 12 inches.
Since I was curious about whether the Subway sandwiches are actually a foot long and if these policy changes affect Japan, I went to my local Subway and ordered a foot long (a BLT, if you're wondering... it was pretty tasty). Then, I measured it, and it turned out to be 29cm long, about 1cm short, not enough to bother me or constitute a class-action lawsuit.
Controversy 2: When Subway's bread was deemed non-bread
This rather shocking case revolves around a 2020 judgment from the Irish Supreme Court that ruled that Subway's "Bread" isn't bread because it contains too much sugar. This case has received a good deal of media attention and has appeared on the radar of many, and while the articles and the Irish Supreme Court bring up excellent points, some believe that they don't tell the whole story. For more information, let's start from the beginning.
This whole case is founded on the basis of tax law, specifically, Value Added Taxes (VAT). The general aim behind VAT is to take the tax burden off of people buying groceries that are truly essential, thereby putting more burden on people splurging on things like sweets and fast food. Other countries have something similar to VAT: for example, almost every state in the U.S. has a variation of VAT laws. The challenge is defining what products VAT laws exempt and include, with terms such as "general groceries" and "food for home consumption" leaving room for interpretation.
Given this fact, big corporations like Subway stand to make more money if they can avoid taxes in legal grey areas, and in Ireland, they stand to save on taxes if they can convince the country to classify their sandwiches as VAT-exempt "staple foods". The logic here is that sandwiches are bread-based, and bread is a staple food, therefore buying a sandwich at a Subway is like getting bread at the grocery store, and shouldn't incur the VAT, claims Subway. The counterargument, from five of the Supreme Court justices, is that Subway's bread isn't bread.
Remember, Subway isn't just claiming that their bread is bread from a culinary standpoint, but also from a legal standpoint. They're claiming that their bread is a legally defined staple food, but the Irish Finance Act of 1985 states that "the total weight of sugar, fat and bread improver... shall not exceed 2% of the weight of the flour." This is the definition of bread the judges are ruling on, and if we look at Subway's bread, sugar makes up as much as 10% the weight of their bread. The ruling of the supreme court could have a ripple effect, as companies like Subway's competitor Quizno's are having the same problem. This also means that just because a product is called "bread," this doesn't mean it's a staple food; for example, banana bread is called bread but isn't technically bread. It's a dessert, and the same goes for cinnamon, lemon, and pumpkin bread, to name a few. If you think about it, many of these so-called bread have more in common with cake than with bread. This line between bread and cake is needlessly complicated to draw, so the Irish legal system made a simple definition for bread: the sugar, fat and bread content must not be higher than 2% than the flour content, by weight.
The Irish Supreme Court may have ruled that Subway's bread isn't bread, but that doesn't mean it's a good decision. I'm on Subway's side. Let me present my evidence. While the Irish Supreme Court may be following Irish law, Irish law is the outlier. If you take a look at neighboring Great Britain (you too, Northern Ireland), "The bread and flour regulations" of 1998 define bread in a much simpler way: it states that any food that "consists of a dough, made from flour and water, with or without other ingredients, which has been fermented by yeast or otherwise leavened and subsequently baked or partially baked" is bread. These are criteria that Subway definitely fulfills. Ireland did gain independence from Great Britain in the early 20th century, so they can define bread however they wish, but a set of old tax laws set in the '70s are starting to look a bit outdated and overly specific as if you look at breads all around the world, many breads that are considered staples in many parts of the world don't fit this definition. Take Japanese milk bread, a sugary staple in Japan, which is extremely sugary, and unlike other confectionary items like banana bread and cinnamon bread, is used as sandwich bread.
The Irish tax regulations' definition of bread doesn't match the way the world defines and uses the term bread. Even Ireland itself contradicts their own rules, as numerous other pieces of Irish legislation, such as the Irish health regulations of 1994, define bread more broadly. They state that "bread" includes the following and any part of the following: "Baps, bread-rolls, fancy bread, milk bread, malt bread and fruit bread." If you look at this definition, the Japanese milk bread that wasn't included in the Irish Finance Act of 1985 is specifically defined as bread in this Irish act passed by the Minister of Health and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. I'm not sure what you think, but that's who I'd be looking to first, rather than a tax commissioner, if I were looking for a definition of bread.
TLDR, according to the Irish tax law, Subway's bread is not bread, but it is most certainly bread in my definition of bread, and if Ireland disagrees, they can (rather hilariously) fight Ireland.
Information is taken from Towleroad, The Eater, Forbes, Restaurantbusinessonline, Wholegrainscouncil, Businessinsider, Food Theory, TheGuardian, European Union, World tax rates, The Bread and Flour Regulations 1998, Health Regulations Act, Finance Act 1985.