On New Year's Eve, the last day it could rule on the subject, the Bush Administration decided to weaken the "Dolphin Safe" label and allow tuna caught by deliberately chasing, harassing and encircling dolphins to be sold under the coveted label.

How could the administration justify including these deadly fishing practices, thought to kill thousands of dolphins a year, under the "Dolphin Safe" label? Because on the same day, December 31, the Commerce Department's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announced to Congress that the intentional chasing and encircling of dolphins with purse seine nets has "no significant adverse impact" on already depleted dolphin populations in the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) Ocean.

The finding disregards studies conducted by the government's own scientists, studies that indicate that dolphin populations in the ETP are seriously depleted and not recovering. According to an August 2002 study, the most recent, the primary causes of this continuing population decline include the severe stress caused by chasing and encircling, and the separation of mothers from dependent calves.

"The HSUS and our members feel it is dishonest and unconscionable to trick consumers into believing that tuna labeled 'Dolphin Safe' was caught without harming any dolphins when in reality dolphins may be intentionally encircled or chased as long as an observer does not see any that are dead or severely injured," says Kitty Block, special counsel to The HSUS's United Nations and Treaties department.

"The administration has clearly based its decision on politics without taking into account the scientific evidence, the best interests of the U.S. public and U.S. tuna producers, or U.S. laws protecting dolphins," Block adds.

The HSUS has again joined with the Earth Island Institute and other groups to challenge this decision; together, we're charging that the scientific evidence clearly refutes the finding. In addition, The HSUS will launch a public education campaign, and we urge consumers to avoid the government-sanctioned label and only to buy from the large American tuna producers such as StarKist, Bumble Bee, and Chicken of the Sea, which remain committed to abiding by the original definition of the "Dolphin Safe" label.

UPDATE: In August 2004, U.S. Federal Judge Thelton Henderson ruled in our favor and upheld the Dolphin Safe standards, stating that the U.S. government ignored the advice of its own scientists when it attempted to weaken the label. This case was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and again the Department of Commerce's attempt to weaken the definition of the well known and trusted "dolphin-safe" label was rejected in April 2007.

Background

The U.S. government has been trying for years now to weaken the familiar "Dolphin Safe" label by legally allowing tuna fisheries, predominantly Mexican tuna fisheries, to intentionally chase and encircle dolphins as long as an on-board observer does not report seeing any dolphin mortality or serious injuries. However, with each set involving miles of nets (which can trap hundreds of dolphins and tons of tuna in one net), it is nearly impossible for a single individual to determine exactly that no dolphins died. At sea for months at a time, observers are subject to pressure and even harassment by the crew, whose livelihood depends on bringing home the higher-priced "Dolphin Safe" tuna.

These attempts to prevent dolphin mortality have done little. The August report suggests that thousands of dolphins are still killed in tuna nets each year. If the label is weakened and the market increased, hundreds or thousands more could die. Consumers will be fooled into believing that their commercial tuna has been caught in a manner that has not caused any deliberate harm to these beloved marine mammals. And dolphin populations will decline again at a faster rate.

In the late 1980s, U.S. consumer pressure led to the development of the "Dolphin Safe" label for canned tuna. The label meant that the tuna inside each marked can was caught without intentionally chasing, harassing, capturing, or killing dolphins. All the major U.S. tuna companies adopted the label. What's more, the entire U.S. tuna fleet became "Dolphin Safe," and consumers felt confident that they could eat tuna without causing harm to any dolphins.

But in the mid-1990s, Mexico threatened action against the United States on the grounds that U.S. dolphin-protection laws violate the free trade requirements of the World Trade Organization. U.S. legislation now allows the importation of "dolphin deadly" tuna from Mexico, but this is not good enough for Mexico. The country's officials want the coveted and trusted "Dolphin Safe" label, and they don't want to change their deadly fishing practices to get it.

The U.S. has been working hard to appease the Mexican tuna industry, in order to promote trade with the country, by agreeing to weaken the "Dolphin Safe" label. In 1999, the U.S. released an initial study showing that intentional chasing and encircling practices had "no significant adverse impact" on dolphin populations in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean despite clear evidence of declining populations. At the same time, the Secretary of Commerce moved to change the label definition. In a lawsuit filed by The HSUS, Earth Island and other groups, a federal judge ruled that the secretary's decision was arbitrary and capricious, and that the proposed new label was not to be used. A subsequent appeal affirmed the lower court decision.

The U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prepared the August report on the status of dolphin populations in the ETP based on scientific research conducted from 1997 to 2002. The Commerce Department was required by Congress to make a finding based on this study. The deadline was Dec. 31, 2002. The study clearly indicates that these dolphin populations are seriously depleted and are not recovering, and that the purse seine industry is responsible. The Bush Administration's New Year's Eve finding contradicts this scientific evidence.

Updated May 16, 2007