4 ms·
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 water
by tristanj 11y ago
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/225211/q/WT/DS/381ABRW.pdf https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/DDFDocuments/225...
- kingkawn 11y agoAre there dolphins in the tuna or aren't there. That's it.
- awakeasleep 11y agoDolphins can be caught and killed in the nets, but then discrded. The issue isn't whether you're eating canned dolphin.
- tristanj 11y agoThis 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 11y agoThis 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.
- eridius 11y agoAnd I don't come here to read comments that mindlessly parrot the form of their parrot, especially when they're not providing anything of substance.
- tristanj 11y agoHe 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.
- kingkawn 11y agoNo for real we just don't want to eat dolphins and you want everyone to care enough about how that happens that we forget that the actual point is to not eat Dolphins.
- codezero 11y agoSince the US is the largest consumer of the tuna catches the laws are very relevant to the US. Check out this link included in the article: https://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?Division=PRD&ParentMenuId=228&id=1408 https://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?Division=PRD&ParentMen...
- briandear 11y agoSo the Mexicans are opposed to dolphin safe practices? Perhaps a Mexican Tuna boycott would be useful from the Sierra Club. US tuna companies that are dolphin safe could label their Tuna "not Mexican tuna" and consumers could sort this out quickly (assuming Dolphin safe labeling actually made a difference in consumer behavior.) I am not sure why there just can't be a rule to make all tuna dolphin safe. The animal industry practices in many countries around the world are just horrific. Shark fin soup for instance, Halal butchering practices, tuna fishing. Dog farming in Korea (where they often blowtorch the fur and kill the animal by dipping it, alive and conscious into vats of boiling water; the fear and adrenaline, they say, positively favors the meat.) Yet we have a big conference in Paris about human CO2 emissions (which have a negligible effect on the climate, but a huge effect on the world economy), but never seem to have any international cooperation on environmental issues that can actually be solved: the treatment of animals within industrial processes. It's almost as if countries don't actually care about the actual environment but instead want to enact "environmental" policies that actually serve to redistribute wealth instead of making a quantifiable difference in the ecosystem. Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy.." I say we should be aggressively campaigning for things like dolphin safe, cage free, etc, instead of trying to advance the religion of global warming. I mention this because te Sierra Club used to actually be on the leading edge about these sorts of issues but around the early 1990s started getting infiltrated by the climate warrior crowd.
- pc86 11y agoI'll be honest even after reading that I have no idea what you were trying to say, or what global warming has to do with dolphin safe tuna fishing.