The Bush Administration and the Mexican tuna industry suffered a sensitive defeat in a lawsuit regarding the change of the ‘Dolphin Safe’ definition for canned tuna. The case, which was started by the Earth Island Institute, and eight other environmental groups, targeted to overturn the decision by the Bush administration to change the definition. Federal Judge Henderson in San Francisco granted an injunction to implement the new definition, but also said he is still considering whether to allow the Mexican tuna fishing industry to intervene in the case.
On New Year's Eve 2002, Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans attempted to alter the meaning of "Dolphin Safe" to allow Mexico and other countries the ability to label their canned tuna as ‘Dolphin Safe’, despite the fact that they regularly set nets involving dolphins to catch the tuna that swim beneath. The Commerce Department’s new definition would allow tuna -caught by fisherman encircling dolphins with nets- to bear the label if observers certify none of the mammals were killed or seriously injured in the process.
In granting the injunction, Judge Henderson stated: "...this Court concludes that plaintiffs have (1) raised a serious question as to whether the Secretary relied on factors which Congress did not intend it to consider, and (2) shown that they are likely to succeed on their claim that the final finding is contrary to the best available scientific evidence..."
"This is a victory for dolphins, and a good start for our lawsuit," stated Mark J. Palmer, Assistant Director of Earth Island Institute's International Marine Mammal Project. "We can now go to trial over the next few months knowing that the integrity of the 'Dolphin Safe' tuna label will be protected by this injunction."
The injunction keeps in effect a 1990 standard that bars any tuna caught using dolphins as targets from carrying the dolphin-safe label. This designation has proved a key selling point for many U.S. shoppers.
In his decision, Henderson ruled environmental groups led by the Earth Island Institute were likely to prevail in arguments disputing the governments findings that this type of fishing does not adversely harm dolphin populations. A trial is set for later this year.
Representatives for the U.S. Justice Department could not immediately be reached for comment.
The latest fight over the tuna labels has also prolonged a bitter trade controversy that has frayed U.S.-Mexico commercial relations since 1991. Last year, Mexico threatened to plead its case before international trade bodies such as the WTO (World Trade Organization) if Washington did not lift what it called a "de facto embargo" on its tuna.
The judge is still considering whether to allow the Mexican tuna fishing industry to intervene in the case. The U.S. government agreed not to activate the new definition pending the judge's decision
Plaintiffs in the dolphin case included: Earth Island Institute, Samuel LaBudde, Humane Society of the United States, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), Defenders of Wildlife, International Wildlife Coalition, Animal Welfare Institute, Society for Animal Protective Legislation, Animal Fund, and Oceanic Society.