
The WTO rules against “dolphin-safe” labels on tuna - walterbell
http://www.sierraclub.org/compass/2015/11/wto-just-dealt-blow-us-consumers-and-dolphins
======
smackay
There seems to be some misunderstanding on why dolphin-safe came into
existence. From the wikipedia article,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_safe_label](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_safe_label):

"Dolphins are a common by-catch in tuna fisheries, especially in the Eastern
Tropical Pacific Ocean, as they commonly swim with schools of yellowfin tuna.
The dolphins, who swim closer to the surface than tuna, may be used as an
indicator of tuna presence. Labeling was originally intended to discourage
fishing boats from netting dolphins with tuna.

The tuna fishery in the Eastern Tropical Pacific is the only fishery that
deliberately targets, chases, and nets dolphins, resulting in estimates of
6-7million dolphins dying in tuna nets since the practice was introduced in
the late 1950s, the largest directed kill of dolphins on Earth.[9] With the
onset of the Dolphin Safe label program, started in the US in 1990 but soon
spreading to foreign tuna operations, the deaths of dolphins has decreased
considerably, with official counts, based on observer coverage, of around
1,000 dolphins per year.[9] However, research by the US National Marine
Fisheries Service has shown that chasing the dolphins causes baby dolphins to
fall behind the pod, resulting in a large "cryptic" kill, likely damaging
populations of dolphins, as the young starve or are eaten by sharks while the
main pod is held by the nets.[10][11] Thus, claims that tuna fishing can
continue to chase and net dolphins and not cause harm are not backed by
scientific research."

This is not a problem with random by-catch. The issue was the systematic
netting of dolphin pods due to their close association with tuna.

~~~
thaumasiotes
As I point out in my longer comment lower down, forbidding dolphin tracking
causes much worse problems with random bycatch:

> If you do the math on this (and you don’t have to because the Environmental
> Justice Foundation already did), you find that one saved dolphin costs
> 25,824 small tuna, 382 mahi-mahi, 188 wahoo, 82 yellowtail and other large
> fish, 27 sharks and rays, 1 billfish, 1,193 triggerfish and other small
> fish, and 0.06 sea turtles.

> You and I can argue about the relative value of dolphins vs. triggerfish all
> day, but the important take-home message here is that we are protecting
> animals that are not endangered at the expense of dozens of other species,
> and some of those other species are endangered.

~~~
smackay
I completely agree with you but the issue is not so much the problem with
dolphins but that an industry can force the removal of labeling that help
consumers make (somewhat) informed choices.

The silver lining in this cloud is that the removal of the labels means that
it is inappropriate for people concerned about dolphins or the marine
environment in general to be eating tuna at all, though, sadly, I don't think
that is going to happen as a result of this.

~~~
CaptainZapp
Remember when Monsanto sued a small dairy in Maine, because they wanted to
label their milk as hormone free?

[http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/business/monsanto-sues-
dai...](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/business/monsanto-sues-dairy-in-
maine-over-label-s-remarks-on-hormones.html)

Hormones, btw, which are illegal in the EU.

~~~
user_0001
IIRC then didn't the US gov / Monsanto take to court the EU for

a) making these illegal b) once forced to legalise, labelling it as such

I may be getting confused with another case, but I recall some trade episode
as such

------
tristanj
From my reading, the WTO ruled correctly is this case. In 1990, the US passed
a dolphin-protection law that added strict requirements to fish caught in US
waters. The “dolphin-safe” certificate was designed with this in mind.
Depending on where the fish is caught (in the "Eastern Tropical Pacific Zone"
(ETP) or "Other fisheries"), there are more stringent or lax requirements. For
the ETP zone, an example requirement is that a captain must receive
training/certification on dolphin safe practices and also verify the _entire_
haul of fish was caught using dolphin-safe practices. Fish caught in the
"Other fisheries" are subject to less stringent requirements. Since much of
Mexico’s tuna are caught in the ETP zone, they argue that they are unfairly
being held up to US standards. Other countries, in “Other fisheries” zones,
are held to a lower requirement. If Mexican tuna are sold to other countries,
then they fulfill multiple unnecessary requirements and are at a disadvantage
to other countries. Futhermore, it would segment their fishing industry into
"US approved" and "Non-US approved" because certification must be applied to
the _entire_ haul of fish, not a portion of a haul. There's a lot of text
after this but the court determined this certification is unfair and is
considered "less favorable treatment".

Here is a pdf of the case:
[https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/DDFDocuments/225...](https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/DDFDocuments/225211/q/WT/DS/381ABRW.pdf)

~~~
kingkawn
Are there dolphins in the tuna or aren't there. That's it.

~~~
tristanj
This is one of the worst possible replies you could make. You are trying to
polarize the conversation, which will shut down all future debate on the
topic. This technique is abused in politics and used to justify the military,
counter-terrorism, and spying. Please read
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)

The world is not binary. I don't come here to read comments like yours.

~~~
jack9
This is one of the worst possible replies you could make.

The label is binary (insofar as it is applied or not to a product). The
questions are about who determines what "safe" means and where. Your
solipsistic attempt to frame his comment as an argument (that some comment
might shut down all future debate!), which is never made, is trolling. I don't
come here to read comments like yours.

~~~
tristanj
He honestly could put more effort into his comment. It's give + take: if I
write something honest and thoughtful, I expect something like that back.

------
Doches
While this is disappointing outcome, I hope more HN readers will take up the
"save the dolphins, stop TPP" rally. For all of the tech community's outcry
against the TPP's pro-DRM, pro-copyright provisions and blatant disregard for
users' rights, nothing is going to help sway public opinion like a "save the
<cute animal>" appeal.

------
bro-stick
WTO and TPP globalization's aim is to rollback consumer and environmental
protections to the least-common denominator, making it cheaper and easier for
businesses to thumb their noses at safety, antropogenic climate change and
species extinction. WTO could have set the bar to a sensible, consistent
level, but instead decided that sensible and responsible measures which
stopped dolphin deaths were unimportant.

~~~
bro-stick
[https://theintercept.com/2015/11/24/wto-ruling-on-dolphin-
sa...](https://theintercept.com/2015/11/24/wto-ruling-on-dolphin-safe-tuna-
labeling-illustrates-supremacy-of-trade-agreements/)

------
briandear
I am not sure I understand the TPP connection here.. The ruling wasn't made
under TPP as that's not even in force. So I fail to understand the anti-TPP
propaganda here.. This dolphin ruling would have happened with or without TPP.

I am not defending TPP at all, but this ruling has nothing to do with it. It
seems like a bit of a propaganda ploy to connect the two. Will saying no to
TPP undo this ruling? Nope.

~~~
eridius
The TPP connection is this:

> _The WTO decided the label violated WTO rules slated for replication in the
> Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), [...] The ruling shows how so-called
> “trade” rules go far beyond trade and interfere with environmental policies
> that protect wildlife._

So basically, it's saying that if you think this WTO ruling is bad, you should
think the TPP is even worse, because among all the other bad stuff in the TPP,
it also will enforce anti-informed-consumer anti-environmental decisions like
this.

~~~
thaumasiotes
It's pretty funny to describe dolphin-safe tuna as an informed-consumer
measure. Consumers can see the dolphin-safe logo, but they have no idea what
it means. They support it reflexively, out of blind moral panic; it survives
specifically because consumers are near-totally uninformed.

~~~
eridius
Well, it _is_ information, it's just not a lot of information. And the point
doesn't really have anything to do with whether dolphin-safe tuna is actually
a good idea (side note: I read your big comment already), because the WTO
decision would be identical even if dolphin-safe tuna was unarguably amazing
for everyone (except the tuna fisheries) and had no alleged bycatch issues
whatsoever.

~~~
thaumasiotes
There is currently a controversy over whether it's proper to mandate labeling
for "blood diamonds". The position I incline to, which as far as I know is
also currently the winning position, is that it isn't proper to mandate this,
even under the pretext of "informed consumers", largely because the actual
purpose (and function!) of the labeling mandate is to express official
stigmatization of the goods subject to mandatory "disclosure". I think the
analogy to mandatory dolphin-safety labeling is sound.

But! The WTO decision _doesn 't even address this issue_. Voluntary dolphin-
safety labeling is fine with everyone ("asbestos free!") and doesn't concern
them here. What they've just ruled on is US law that _prohibits the sale_ of
dolphin-associated tuna. There are no informed-consumer issues implicated.

So, while you've characterized the ruling as "anti-informed-consumer [and]
anti-environmental", I don't see that it actually is either one.

EDIT:

From reading the WTO ruling, I appear to have badly mischaracterized it.
Prohibitions on dolphin-unsafe tuna do exist in the US, but the WTO ruling
states that, as concerns it, "The original tuna measure did not make the use
of a dolphin-safe label obligatory for the importation or sale of tuna
products in the United States, although the preferences of retailers and
consumers are such that the dolphin-safe label has 'significant commercial
value', and access to that label constitutes an 'advantage' on the US market
for tuna products." This "advantage" appears to be what is at issue.

In an earlier report (linked from the Sierra Club article,
[http://sitemaker.umich.edu/drwcasebook/files/tuna-
dolphin_i....](http://sitemaker.umich.edu/drwcasebook/files/tuna-
dolphin_i.pdf) ), I read that "Section 101(a)(2) of the MMPA also states that
'The Secretary of Treasury shall ban the importation of commercial fish or
products from fish which have been caught with commercial fishing technology
which results in the incidental kill or incidental serious injury of ocean
mammals in excess of United States standards'. This prohibition is mandatory."

The easiest way I see to reconcile those is to note that section 101(a)(2) of
the MMPA is not part of the "original tuna measure" that Mexico challenged
(they challenged section 1385). However, I don't feel like opining any
further; this is a rat's nest. :(

------
Synaesthesia
The fishing of Tuna itself is morally questionable. We are busy wiping out the
oceans of life. Tuna fish are at the top of the food chain, fishing Tuna has
been likened to hunting tigers.

~~~
scott_karana
Many tuna species _do_ need help, but that's a really hyperbolic comparison:

A) Every single species of tiger is at _least_ IUCN Endangered, and many are
Critically Endangered, or Extinct. [1]

B) Whereas tuna species have a spectrum of IUCN ratings from Least Concern to
Critically Endangered, with "Near Threatened" looking like the mean, and with
no extinction of any tuna species witnessed yet in documented human
history.[2]

C) Tuna are high predators, but are _rarely_ apex predators like tigers. (For
example, predators of albacore: [3][4])

D) I can only find one example of tuna extirpation: the North Atlantic
Bluefish.[5] Whereas tiger territories have diminished _93%_.[2]

1
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuna#True_tuna_species](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuna#True_tuna_species)

2
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger#Subspecies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger#Subspecies)

3
[http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/2011/bularz_noah/interactions...](http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/2011/bularz_noah/interactions.htm)

4
[https://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?ParentMenuId=136&id=11...](https://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?ParentMenuId=136&id=1173)

5
[https://www.google.com/search?q=tuna+extirpation](https://www.google.com/search?q=tuna+extirpation)

~~~
Synaesthesia
Well the analogy may be hyperbolic and loose, the point is that very little
attention is given comparatively to the wiping out of oceanic life, which is
very large in scale. We are fishing the ecology into extinction very rapidly.

------
thaumasiotes
I wasn't expecting to see so much approval of dolphin-safe fishing from the
Sierra Club...

Compare
[http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=6539](http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=6539)
(a marine biology blog), which I'll quote from at length:

> It can be difficult for people who have never seen it in action to
> appreciate the scale of modern commercial fisheries. Commercial fishermen
> aren’t out on the high seas with handheld rods and reels catching one fish
> at a time. The nets that tuna fishermen use, which are called purse seines,
> are miles long. With a net that size, it’s pretty much impossible to catch
> only tuna. Those nets also catch anything that happens to be swimming near
> the tuna. These unfortunate animals, killed for being in the wrong place at
> the wrong time, are called bycatch.

> There are three ways that tuna schools can be located. The first is to
> search for them directly using surface ships and small aircraft, which is
> inefficient, time-consuming, and not always effective (you can’t see tuna
> from the surface if they’re deep enough or if weather conditions aren’t
> ideal). The second is to attract tuna using floating objects, which we’ll
> discuss in more detail shortly. The third is to follow dolphins- for unknown
> reasons, dolphins in the Eastern Tropical Pacific are often found associated
> with schools of large tuna.

> Because finding dolphin-associated schools of tuna was extremely easy
> (unlike tuna, dolphins have to return to the surface where they are easy to
> spot), it was the preferred method for decades. The Eastern Tropical Pacific
> Tuna Fishery had a high rate of dolphin bycatch. According to NOAA’s
> Southwest Fisheries Service Center, an estimated six million dolphins were
> killed during the forty or so years that purse seining around dolphin-
> associated tuna schools took place. That’s approximately 150,000 dolphins
> per year, which is by far the largest cetacean bycatch of any fishery in
> history. However, it is important to note that mortality from being tuna
> bycatch did not mean that dolphins were endangered. The two primary species
> involved are spinner dolphins (data deficient) and spotted dolphins (least
> concern).

> A massive PR campaign led by the Earth Island Institute resulted in making
> it illegal to sell tuna caught from dolphin-associated schools in the United
> States. Dolphin-safe tuna was born.

> Now that fishermen could no longer use what was previously the most common
> method for catching tuna, they needed to change strategies. They turned to
> using floating objects (sometimes called FAD’s or fish aggregating devices)
> to attract tuna to a known location. One of the strangest known behaviors
> exhibited by open-ocean animals is their tendency to aggregate around any
> solid object that floats. This might have something to do with the fact that
> many open-ocean animals go their entire lives without seeing any sort of
> hard surface. This method is extremely effective for aggregating tuna, but
> it also aggregates many other species. Setting a purse seine around a
> dolphin-associated tuna school results in catching primarily large adult
> tuna (the target size because they have more meat per unit effort and
> because they have reproduced already) and dolphins (which are not
> endangered) . Setting a purse seine around a floating object results in all
> sorts of bycatch, including endangered sea turtles, open ocean shark species
> which are already in serious trouble, and high numbers of small tuna (which
> have not yet reproduced).

> A simple glance at the table above shows that while dolphins bycatch goes
> down, every other studied species (except “unidentified bony fishes”, “other
> sailfishes”, and marlins) has much higher bycatch rates in “floating object”
> tuna fishing than in “dolphin associated” tuna fishing. In other words,
> while better for dolphins, “dolphin-safe” tuna is disastrous for almost
> everything else.

> If you do the math on this (and you don’t have to because the Environmental
> Justice Foundation already did), you find that one saved dolphin costs
> 25,824 small tuna, 382 mahi-mahi, 188 wahoo, 82 yellowtail and other large
> fish, 27 sharks and rays, 1 billfish, 1,193 triggerfish and other small
> fish, and 0.06 sea turtles.

> Last summer, I went on NPR’s “The Pat Morrison Show” to discuss this issue
> with a representative from the Earth Island Institute, the organization most
> responsible for dolphin-safe tuna policies. I had expected him to
> acknowledge that the bycatch was a problem, but that it was still important
> to protect dolphins because they’re intelligent mammals (or something like
> that). Instead, he argued that there was no bycatch of endangered species
> taking place under dolphin safe tuna policies, and he accused me of
> perpetuating the propaganda of evil fishermen who “just want to kill
> dolphins”. Yikes.

> A conscious choice to go back to a previously-banned fishing method that
> kills large numbers of charismatic animals puts a bad taste in my mouth, but
> the fact is that fishing for dolphin-associated schools of tuna catches
> primarily non-endangered dolphins and adult tuna. Dolphin-safe tuna fishing
> is killing dozens of species, many of whom are endangered, and threatening
> the integrity of entire ecosystems.

Dolphin-safe tuna might be the most straightforward example in the world of
political posturing for its own sake, _in direct opposition to the avowed
goals of the organizations that support it_. And here's the Sierra Club
decrying a step towards clawing it back.

~~~
christophilus
This is a really good share. Thanks for posting it in full.

------
vonklaus
> Most of us want to know that the food we purchase and serve to our families
> does not come at the expense of wildlife.

I suspect this is correct but I do not share this sentiment, and in fact, I
find it absurd. _Most people only want to harm specifically raised and
genetically modify living things for their entire miserable lives in captivity
OR make sure that only a very select group of free living things is killed due
to a narrow sense of cultural aesthetics_.

I don't think we should rush out and needlessly murder dolphins, but the
average person may notice that label, but removing it would likely have little
to no bearing on consumer selection which is driven primarily by advertising.

~~~
facepalm
Except the article claims dolphin deaths fell sharply when the label was
introduced, so it does seem to have an effect.

~~~
philh
vonklaus is talking about consumer response to the label, not government
response.

What had an effect was that the US forbade tuna that didn't fulfill the
dolphin-safe requirements. The label itself is incidental to that.

~~~
facepalm
OK hadn't read that, sorry.

------
Klasiaster
At first I thought they would call it a misguiding label. Because for real
protection of sea life best is to stop buying sea fish.

------
upofadown
>But today, for the fourth time in four years, ...

In these trade agreements, some countries are more equal than others. The US
probably has the trade power to continue to ignore the WTO ruling. The US has
done so repeatedly in the past with other issues.

~~~
Shivetya
Well the real truth is, when on a world stage our values may clash with the
values of another and we won't always get our way. There was a recent dust up
over labeling of beef sold in the US with regards to foreign sources.

To be honest I see no reason why the labeling is not permitted so as to allow
more consumer choice. Origin and such are valuable tools for smart consumer
purchasing. That they run afoul of what lax rules other countries want should
not be a consideration.

What is next? Ruling that preference given to some foods based on their
original origin will be tossed? It is the logical conclusion that many rules
in the EU which do protect certain products will be ended too.

------
mmaunder
I wonder how the tuna feel about this decision.

~~~
usrusr
The bigger the dolphin scare, the more tuna for Japan.

------
throwaway533634
How narcissistic! Trade politics block the fishermen from making use of the
occasional dolphin that gets caught in the net. Why toss the meat when it
could be used to feed starving people? It's this kind of moralism that keeps
everyone down.

~~~
runholm
Read the article. You are way off.

