3 ms·

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

by eridius 11y ago

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 11y ago
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.pdf http://sitemaker.umich.edu/drwcasebook/files/tuna-dolphin_i.... ), 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. :(

by eridius 11y ago

thaumasiotes 11y ago

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.pdf http://sitemaker.umich.edu/drwcasebook/files/tuna-dolphin_i.... ), 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. :(