WASHINGTON – The HSUS today strongly criticized the Bush Administration for a decision to weaken the definition of the well-known “dolphin safe” label. This move will substantially increase chasing, harassing and netting of dolphins by fisheries in many countries in South America including Mexico.

“This fishing method would allow harming and even killing thousands of dolphins each year in tuna nets,” said Kitty Block, special counsel to The HSUS’ United Nations and treaties department. “President Bush and Commerce Secretary Don Evans have reversed long-standing U.S. policy that had maintained high standards for dolphin protection and ignored a report supported by their own scientists. For the first time in over a decade, dolphin-deadly tuna will be sold in the United States – and what makes this so unconscionable is that this tuna will be misleadingly labeled ‘dolphin safe’.”

In response to this decision, The HSUS, along with other environmental and animal protection groups, is moving forward with a lawsuit against the Bush Administration and is planning a massive public education campaign about the change in the definition of “dolphin safe.” The HSUS is urging consumers who buy tuna to pay close attention to manufacturers and country of origin. The large American tuna producers, including StarKist, Bumble Bee and Chicken of the Sea, have agreed to abide by the original definition of the “dolphin safe” label.

“The good news is that American consumers will have a choice,” said Block. “The bad news is that dolphin-deadly tuna will be difficult for the well-intentioned but uninformed consumer to distinguish fom truly dolphin-safe tuna.”

This controversy dates back to 1997, when the Clinton Administration agreed to help Mexico sell dolphin-deadly tuna in the United States. With backing from Congressional Republicans, the administration proposed an end to the U.S. embargo on dolphin-deadly tuna. Recognizing that American consumers would not purchase tuna without the familiar “dolphin safe” label, the Mexican fishing industry pressured the U.S. to change its definition of “dolphin safe” to permit fishing methods that include chasing, harassing and encircling dolphins to catch the tuna they associate with in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean.

The U.S. agreed to this change as long as the tuna bearing the “dolphin safe” label did not result in observed dolphin deaths. The U.S. developed a scheme of placing an observer onboard each tuna boat to certify that no dolphins died in fishing for tuna to be labeled “dolphin safe.”

However, with each set involving miles of nets, hundreds of dolphins and tons of tuna in one net, it’s nearly impossible for a single individual to be certain that no dolphins died. At sea for six 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 that can be sold in European, and now American, markets.

Nonetheless, Congress agreed to the proposal. An amendment by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who had led the fight against the change, required the U.S. Department of Commerce to study dolphin populations, with a finding of “no significant adverse impact” on dolphin populations required before the tuna could be labeled “dolphin safe” in the U.S. An initial study released in 1999 found “no significant adverse impact” despite clear evidence of declining populations and the Secretary of Commerce moved to change the label definition. In a lawsuit brought by HSUS, Earth Island Institute and other groups, a federal judge ruled that the secretary’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. That lawsuit maintained the original dolphin-safe label until today’s decision, which was made following additional studies by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

Primary results of the NMFS study show:

• Northeastern offshore spotted dolphins are at 20% and eastern spinner dolphins at 35% of population levels before the tuna fishery began setting nets on dolphins in the late 1950s.

• One model predicts recovery in 78 years for northeastern offshore spotted dolphins and in 65 years for eastern spinner dolphins. A second model, equally supported by the data, predicts that neither stock would recover in 200 years.

• The tuna fishery is cited as one of the major reasons for this lack of recovery in dolphin populations. The tuna fishery is responsible for deaths caused by separating calves from mothers and stress resulting from chasing and encircling dolphins.

“A finding of no significant adverse impact is simply indefensible based on these findings,” said Block. “We will be challenging that decision in court.”