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".
This 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
The world is not binary. I don't come here to read comments like yours.
This 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.
No 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.
So 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.
WTO and TPP globalization's aim is to rollback consumer and environmental protections to the least-common denominator, making it cheaper and easier for businesses to thumb their noses at safety, antropogenic climate change and species extinction. WTO could have set the bar to a sensible, consistent level, but instead decided that sensible and responsible measures which stopped dolphin deaths were unimportant.
While this is disappointing outcome, I hope more HN readers will take up the "save the dolphins, stop TPP" rally. For all of the tech community's outcry against the TPP's pro-DRM, pro-copyright provisions and blatant disregard for users' rights, nothing is going to help sway public opinion like a "save the <cute animal>" appeal.
> Most of us want to know that the food we purchase and serve to our families does not come at the expense of wildlife.
I suspect this is correct but I do not share this sentiment, and in fact, I find it absurd. Most people only want to harm specifically raised and genetically modify living things for their entire miserable lives in captivity OR make sure that only a very select group of free living things is killed due to a narrow sense of cultural aesthetics.
I don't think we should rush out and needlessly murder dolphins, but the average person may notice that label, but removing it would likely have little to no bearing on consumer selection which is driven primarily by advertising.
>I don't think we should rush out and needlessly murder dolphins, but the average person may notice that label, but removing it would likely have little to no bearing on consumer selection which is driven primarily by advertising.
So you're discounting the advertising advantage of saying "We don't kill dolphins like the other guys"? That's strange. I'm old enough to remember when dolphin-safe tuna was a cause celeb. Advertising you were dolphin-safe had big time marketing push. I think even Charlie the Tuna got in on the act. For a more contemporary example, we can look at GMOs and "organic" food. There's no science saying that GMOs are dangerous or that "organic" food is healthier or safer, but that doesn't stop them from being a market differentiator that drives sales.
How narcissistic! Trade politics block the fishermen from making use of the occasional dolphin that gets caught in the net. Why toss the meat when it could be used to feed starving people? It's this kind of moralism that keeps everyone down.
"Dolphins are a common by-catch in tuna fisheries, especially in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, as they commonly swim with schools of yellowfin tuna. The dolphins, who swim closer to the surface than tuna, may be used as an indicator of tuna presence. Labeling was originally intended to discourage fishing boats from netting dolphins with tuna.
The tuna fishery in the Eastern Tropical Pacific is the only fishery that deliberately targets, chases, and nets dolphins, resulting in estimates of 6-7million dolphins dying in tuna nets since the practice was introduced in the late 1950s, the largest directed kill of dolphins on Earth.[9] With the onset of the Dolphin Safe label program, started in the US in 1990 but soon spreading to foreign tuna operations, the deaths of dolphins has decreased considerably, with official counts, based on observer coverage, of around 1,000 dolphins per year.[9] However, research by the US National Marine Fisheries Service has shown that chasing the dolphins causes baby dolphins to fall behind the pod, resulting in a large "cryptic" kill, likely damaging populations of dolphins, as the young starve or are eaten by sharks while the main pod is held by the nets.[10][11] Thus, claims that tuna fishing can continue to chase and net dolphins and not cause harm are not backed by scientific research."
This is not a problem with random by-catch. The issue was the systematic netting of dolphin pods due to their close association with tuna.
As I point out in my longer comment lower down, forbidding dolphin tracking causes much worse problems with random bycatch:
> If you do the math on this (and you don’t have to because the Environmental Justice Foundation already did), you find that one saved dolphin costs 25,824 small tuna, 382 mahi-mahi, 188 wahoo, 82 yellowtail and other large fish, 27 sharks and rays, 1 billfish, 1,193 triggerfish and other small fish, and 0.06 sea turtles.
> You and I can argue about the relative value of dolphins vs. triggerfish all day, but the important take-home message here is that we are protecting animals that are not endangered at the expense of dozens of other species, and some of those other species are endangered.
I completely agree with you but the issue is not so much the problem with dolphins but that an industry can force the removal of labeling that help consumers make (somewhat) informed choices.
The silver lining in this cloud is that the removal of the labels means that it is inappropriate for people concerned about dolphins or the marine environment in general to be eating tuna at all, though, sadly, I don't think that is going to happen as a result of this.
The issue could also be with advocacy and protection-minded lobbying groups petitioning for actions that would have ultimately caused more harm in their second-order effects than the good in their primary goal.
Well, the endangered species are endangered either because
1. human involvement
2. natural selection
So I don't see that as a valid argument for not protecting dolphins. It's not really their fault.
Also, we consistently overprotect one not endangered animal (humans) at the expense of all other species.
I would expect humans to protect humans. There aren't any hippos out their attempting to preserve humanity. Hippos look after hippos at the expense of all other species. I can't see how we 'overprotect'
Hippos look after hippos at the expense of all other species.
Interesting claim. How do hippos know about the affairs of all other species, let alone the hippos in the next valley? I think you're overanthropomorphising.
> we consistently overprotect one not endangered animal (humans) at the expense of all other species
This isn't even true. Environmentalists in rich countries have managed to get lions and tigers (and probably crocodiles, but I can't affirm that from personal knowledge) protected despite the objections of the humans living nearby who hate being eaten.
> The first thing that popped into your head was probably “ban tuna fishing”, which is a more politically correct way of saying “make it impossible for the world’s poor to have healthy balanced diets”. It’s just not feasible to ban purse seine fishing. If you’re interested in helping by “voting with your wallet”, you can support sustainably-caught tuna, which is caught with a rod and reel and has almost no bycatch, but this method makes tuna so much more expensive that it’s not a large-scale solution.
I would guess it's because tuna is a very cheap source of lots of protein: 100g of tuna is 29g protein for a fraction of a buck (canned). I'm pretty sure that's the cheapest source of protein available (in $/g). eggs are not as cheap, and they don't keep anywhere as long as a stack of canned tuna.
In places I've lived recently, canned tuna isn't the cheapest source, though it's cheap-ish. Canned chicken is cheaper in most of the USA. Even fresh or frozen meats can be cheaper, e.g. chicken in the USA, or pork in Denmark. As well as lower-end sausages and other processed meats. Plus, nearly all vegetable sources of protein, like beans or lentils, are cheaper than those.
I would also not suggest canned tuna as a staple protein, because of its high mercury levels. It's okay to eat occasionally, but eating ~10 cans/week as your main source of protein isn't a good idea. The safe consumption quantity for a typical adult is in the range of 2-3 cans per week of chunk-light, or 1 can/week of albacore.
Hemp seed has 36g of protein per 100g and is a lot cheaper and environmentally more sustainable to produce, contains omega acids in the perfect ratio for humans (but dose not have the same bio-availability), dose not have high levels of mercury (that's more of a problem with farmed fish not wild).
This seems like one optimal protein source, since we could also squeeze out its oil and use it for diesel fuel. Then, Spirulina, can act as another protein source which can also provide bio-available essential fatty acids.
Here in the UK, if you don't mind buying in larger cans, salmon gives you practically the same protein for your money. Example from the most popular supermarket chain:
Not that I want to tell you what to do or not to do in your own kitchen but please be very careful with canned fish from larger cans, use the whole can at once or transfer the contents to another container that you can properly close.
I think lentils, chickpeas, soy and co. are the cheapest protein. In general in Italy canned tuna (granted it's solid and in olive oil) is never cheaper than 10 euro/kg, and can be as expensive as 35 euro/kg. That's more expensive than fresh chicken, pork and many cuts of beef.
Some really good threads on fermented foods have come up recently (1,2,3). In relation to these healthy, cost-effective protein sources, this legume, soy, afaict, needs fermentation before ingestion (0). See # What Soy Products are Good For You?
But that's not factually true. Take your pick of most legumes. They're cheaper, have more than enough protein as well as other nutrients, are more environmentally sustainable and don't require killing sentient creatures...
> Take your pick of most legumes. They're cheaper, have more than enough protein as well as other nutrients, are more environmentally sustainable and don't require killing sentient creatures...
Most legumes have a pretty high carb-to-protein ratio, and are also incomplete proteins. (Also, there's probably no reasonable definition of sentience that includes all animals and excludes all plants.)
> Most legumes have a pretty high carb-to-protein ratio, and are also incomplete proteins.
>> The reason for the bean/grain combo is nutrition and protein. When you combine beans and grains, their different amino acid makeups form to combine complete proteins. They also each contain different nutrients and grains are higher in calories. There's a reason that some grain was always the staple of the local diet, whether wheat, barley, rice, corn or whatever. "Bread is the staff of life."
>> You'll live better on a bean/grain combo than just beans along. Ask the native Americans.
> Most legumes have a pretty high carb-to-protein ratio, and are also incomplete proteins.
This is a red herring, based on misinformation about nutrition. It is not hard to fulfill your daily protein needs and get in all your essential amino acids and maintain a healthy calorie intake while eating a diet of legumes, grains, and vegetables. It can be done for a fraction of the price of a omnivore's diet and can be a lot better nutritionally than downing tuna every day (i.e., there's more opportunities for variety).
> there's probably no reasonable definition of sentience that includes all animals and excludes all plants.
There are a few, but it actually is largely irrelevant. If you stop eating animals you also consume less plants. Every time you eat an animal you have to consider that in order to raise that animal it had to eat a lot of plants that you could've been eating instead. Raising animals is massively inefficient energy-wise, which is why our plant consumption goes down when people stop eating meat.
So really there's no need to draw a "sentience line" in the sand. Assuming everything is sentient, vegetarian diets are better for both plants and animals. But even if it were necessary to draw this sort of line, it would make a fair deal of sense to say that anything without a nervous system is at least relatively less likely to be sentient. There are some arguments for plant sentience due to their limited molecular signalling responses to harmful stimuli, but there is definitely a lot less evidence to support that hypothesis than there is to support the hypothesis that tuna are sentient.
> “ban tuna fishing”, which is a more politically correct way of saying “make it impossible for the world’s poor to have healthy balanced diets”.
This is not true necessarily. More tuna mean less median fishes, and less median fishes eating mean more anchovies and small fishes alive, thus pound for pound, more food for humans. After the overfishing of tuna in europe anchovies collapsed almost at the same time.
Or just cut way down, as a student tuna was pretty much a staple for me, but these days I have made a concious choice to eat it only about once every couple of months.
> If you do the math on this (and you don’t have to because the Environmental Justice Foundation already did), you find that one saved dolphin costs 25,824 small tuna, 382 mahi-mahi, 188 wahoo, 82 yellowtail and other large fish, 27 sharks and rays, 1 billfish, 1,193 triggerfish and other small fish, and 0.06 sea turtles.
These numbers aren't consistent with the table, and the link doesn't seem to have the relevant data. According to the numbers in the table, a dolphin costs 138 mahi-mahi. The other numbers become similarly smaller, when comparable.
> You and I can argue about the relative value of dolphins vs. triggerfish all day, but the important take-home message here is that we are protecting animals that are not endangered at the expense of dozens of other species
If that's the important take-home message, it sounds like the writer has already made up his mind about the relative value of dolphins to other species. And it sounds like I disagree with him. I think dolphins are more intelligent than most species, and have more moral worth, and killing hundreds or thousands of other fish to save one dolphin sounds like a potentially good trade.
The writer seems to want to frame this as charismatic versus non-charismatic, but the fact remains that I care about dolphins more than other species, and I don't care that they aren't endangered.
(I'm mostly vegetarian, but even before that, I avoided tuna because I didn't know how much to trust the dolphin-safe label.)
> and some of those other species are endangered.
Which ones, specifically? Mahi-mahi and wahoo aren't, at least. The rest of that list seem to be broad categories with no single conservation status.
Is this a case of "we're protecting a single dolphin at the expense of lots of other non-endangered fish, and also 5% of an endangered turtle"?
The moral worth of an animal is not just a question of whether its species is endangered though. Dolphins seem much more likely to be conscious than the other species you list.
The intensional definition [1] is quite large, but thankfully most people have easy access to an extension [1] of the concept. So here is an extensional definition:
Moral worth is the function you run inside your head that says you prefer to let a thousand earthworms die to save one dolphin.
Mmm just for the record if you look at neuroscientific and cognitive science evidence it's actually a pretty safe bet that all of those marine creatures are sentient... intelligence and the capacity to feel are pretty separate.
We can't be absolutely sure that anyone except for ourselves suffer (not even other humans) because of the other minds problem, but essentially all the scientific evidence we have suggests that humans and other creatures are sentient if they have basic nervous systems and begin to display behaviors consistent with suffering.
Some of my sources: Studied neuro and cog sci myself, just chatted last night with a PhD candidate in neuro who agrees with me, have taken classes with the former longstanding editor of Brain and Behavioral Science who I believe would also agree. There are cog sci journals out there dedicated to this stuff.
lmm said conscious, not sentient, and (regardless of the specific definitions of those words) was almost certainly talking about something more than the ability to suffer.
I subscribe to a train of thought that says it's wrong to kill a person; it's okay to kill a cow, but wrong to torture one; and I'm not sure if anything done to a mosquito could count as torture. I think dolphins are around the same level as humans. I think tuna and many other fish are probably between cows and mosquitos, closer to cows, but I haven't read or thought about that one very hard.
Whatever it is that separates cows from humans, also seems to separate cows from dolphins. It's not sentience, according to your definition of the word, but it's what lmm was talking about.
It sounds to me like you've decided that some species matter more than others based on your own arbitrary perceptions rather than rational or empirical reasoning. It's okay to kill a cow but not a dolphin. Why? Is that just because you've taken your own beliefs as ground truth and reasoned your way from there?
Consciousness is poorly defined, so I don't know exactly what you're getting at there, but one definition is sentience. At any rate, I believe it's fair to say that a sentient being can be described as conscious due to their ability to feel and subjectively process experiences.
Why does consciousness matter if you believe they are sentient? Are you perhaps conflating intelligence with consciousness? Do you believe that it matters more when an intelligent animal suffers than it does when a less intelligent animal suffers? Why? Do they not both suffer? Can the same be said for people with low IQs? Their suffering matters less than mine?
How do you reconcile that slaughterhouse conditions are torturous, even the ones that "ethical farmers" use? That we have video footage that indicate the animals know they are going to die and evidence to suggest the entire process is distressing and painful? That the process by which they are "humanely" anaesthetized/killed (e.g., bolt gun) is still by far not the most humane way to kill animals?
How about the fact we have every reason to believe pigs are incredibly intelligent despite the way we treat them (I'm talking Chimpanzee-level intelligence here — http://animalstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...)? What is this "thing" you believe separates them from dolphins?
Are you sure you are not simply working off of your own unchallenged beliefs that you were raised with by your parents and taking those as ground truth?
It sounds like you've decided I'm wrong, and now you're trying to tell me what mistake I've made, without attempting to understand what I actually believe or why I believe it. AKA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
As such, I'm going to reply, but then I'm done. You're irritating, and I'm not interested in having a prolonged discussion with you.
I'm not conflating consciousness with the ability to suffer, or with intelligence. I don't know exactly what it is. But far as I understand, humans and dolphins and some other species seem to be aware of their own existence, in a way that cows aren't. (The mirror test is one tool we use to try to judge this.) Humans and dolphins are capable of wanting not to die, in a way that cows aren't. That's what makes it wrong to kill humans and dolphins. Meanwhile, humans and dolphins and cows are capable of suffering, in a way that rocks and (I assume) mosquitos aren't. That's what makes it wrong to torture a human or dolphin or cow, and impossible to torture a rock or mosquito.
> How do you reconcile that slaughterhouse conditions are torturous
Reconcile with what? I specifically said it's wrong to torture a cow. I don't like slaughterhouses. I'm mostly vegetarian.
I didn't say anything about pigs, because I don't know where I'd place them. My understanding is that they seem to be somewhere between cows and dolphins, probably closer to cows.
The right answer is that dolphins are important because they are superpredators at the top of the trophic chain, and its effect over the other species is very relevant. Both dolphins and sharks are of similar importance.
> It can be difficult for people who have never seen it in action to appreciate the scale of modern commercial fisheries. Commercial fishermen aren’t out on the high seas with handheld rods and reels catching one fish at a time. The nets that tuna fishermen use, which are called purse seines, are miles long. With a net that size, it’s pretty much impossible to catch only tuna. Those nets also catch anything that happens to be swimming near the tuna. These unfortunate animals, killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, are called bycatch.
> There are three ways that tuna schools can be located. The first is to search for them directly using surface ships and small aircraft, which is inefficient, time-consuming, and not always effective (you can’t see tuna from the surface if they’re deep enough or if weather conditions aren’t ideal). The second is to attract tuna using floating objects, which we’ll discuss in more detail shortly. The third is to follow dolphins- for unknown reasons, dolphins in the Eastern Tropical Pacific are often found associated with schools of large tuna.
> Because finding dolphin-associated schools of tuna was extremely easy (unlike tuna, dolphins have to return to the surface where they are easy to spot), it was the preferred method for decades. The Eastern Tropical Pacific Tuna Fishery had a high rate of dolphin bycatch. According to NOAA’s Southwest Fisheries Service Center, an estimated six million dolphins were killed during the forty or so years that purse seining around dolphin-associated tuna schools took place. That’s approximately 150,000 dolphins per year, which is by far the largest cetacean bycatch of any fishery in history. However, it is important to note that mortality from being tuna bycatch did not mean that dolphins were endangered. The two primary species involved are spinner dolphins (data deficient) and spotted dolphins (least concern).
> A massive PR campaign led by the Earth Island Institute resulted in making it illegal to sell tuna caught from dolphin-associated schools in the United States. Dolphin-safe tuna was born.
> Now that fishermen could no longer use what was previously the most common method for catching tuna, they needed to change strategies. They turned to using floating objects (sometimes called FAD’s or fish aggregating devices) to attract tuna to a known location. One of the strangest known behaviors exhibited by open-ocean animals is their tendency to aggregate around any solid object that floats. This might have something to do with the fact that many open-ocean animals go their entire lives without seeing any sort of hard surface. This method is extremely effective for aggregating tuna, but it also aggregates many other species. Setting a purse seine around a dolphin-associated tuna school results in catching primarily large adult tuna (the target size because they have more meat per unit effort and because they have reproduced already) and dolphins (which are not endangered) . Setting a purse seine around a floating object results in all sorts of bycatch, including endangered sea turtles, open ocean shark species which are already in serious trouble, and high numbers of small tuna (which have not yet reproduced).
> A simple glance at the table above shows that while dolphins bycatch goes down, every other studied species (except “unidentified bony fishes”, “other sailfishes”, and marlins) has much higher bycatch rates in “floating object” tuna fishing than in “dolphin associated” tuna fishing. In other words, while better for dolphins, “dolphin-safe” tuna is disastrous for almost everything else.
> If you do the math on this (and you don’t have to because ...
I am not sure I understand the TPP connection here.. The ruling wasn't made under TPP as that's not even in force. So I fail to understand the anti-TPP propaganda here.. This dolphin ruling would have happened with or without TPP.
I am not defending TPP at all, but this ruling has nothing to do with it. It seems like a bit of a propaganda ploy to connect the two. Will saying no to TPP undo this ruling? Nope.
> The WTO decided the label violated WTO rules slated for replication in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), [...] The ruling shows how so-called “trade” rules go far beyond trade and interfere with environmental policies that protect wildlife.
So basically, it's saying that if you think this WTO ruling is bad, you should think the TPP is even worse, because among all the other bad stuff in the TPP, it also will enforce anti-informed-consumer anti-environmental decisions like this.
It's pretty funny to describe dolphin-safe tuna as an informed-consumer measure. Consumers can see the dolphin-safe logo, but they have no idea what it means. They support it reflexively, out of blind moral panic; it survives specifically because consumers are near-totally uninformed.
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.
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.... ), 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. :(
Your comment completely ignores the fact that the US policy did have measurable effect: "The “dolphin-safe” label has contributed to an incredible 97 percent reduction in dolphin deaths since the 1980s in Pacific waters".
Whether consumers are stupid or not isn't even remotely relevant.
The fishing of Tuna itself is morally questionable. We are busy wiping out the oceans of life. Tuna fish are at the top of the food chain, fishing Tuna has been likened to hunting tigers.
Comments like yours give me reason to look forward to the day humans become extinct.
We're not meant to rule over nature, we're meant to be part of it. We are part of it. Damaging the capacity of the planet to support life will ultimately cause us problems, and that includes draining the oceans of its wildlife.
Being part of nature comes with no moral qualifications. The fact that can't "live outside nature" implies that everything you do is living inside nature, whether you find it morally repugnant or not. We have (social) responsibilities to each other and to ourselves, and that includes taking care of our environment, but we do not have any metaphysical responsibility to nature itself, including such things as "not ruling over it."
I don't see how that question has any bearing on anything at all. Your word choices in this discussion are strongly indicative of a none-too-thought-out black-vs-white worldview.
Don't ask me why I would want to rule. Perhaps I would like to rule over your mind to destroy this propensity for dumb questions to be asked of me. The world would be a better place for it.
If you answered the question you'd have seen why it was relevant, but if you'd rather not then allow me to elaborate.
Imagine someone is fascinated by seeing a butterfly moving between the plants in their garden. Does the person own the butterfly? Naturally, it has no allegiance to any person. Can they own the butterfly? The only ownership possible appears to result in the butterfly being held captive, either alive or dead. The captivity robs both the person and the butterfly, the butterfly is robbed of its freedom, and the person is robbed of the joy of seeing the butterfly live naturally, which is what they may have found fascinating in the first place.
This is a hard thing to explain, because it requires a different mindset. If someone is of the ownership mindset then it doesn't matter to them what existed before that ownership, or what happens after their ownership. However, with a less individualistic mindset, different values emerge. For example, is a tree worth more than the paper it can produce?
In a scenario where you use land to grow food, if you don't own the land you can't say you control it. How this that the case? You can state you control it without owning it, and use that land to grow food. However, that control only lasts if only one person has access to the land. If I decide to dig up all of your crops and use the land for my own use, then do you really have control of the land? No. Neither would I in this scenario, anyone could undo the changes I made as well.
Ownership enables exclusive control. When it comes to managing resources, there is no reliable control without exclusive control.
In other words, in this case, there's no point in making the distinction between ownership and control.
Many tuna species do need help, but that's a really hyperbolic comparison:
A) Every single species of tiger is at least IUCN Endangered, and many are Critically Endangered, or Extinct. [1]
B) Whereas tuna species have a spectrum of IUCN ratings from Least Concern to Critically Endangered, with "Near Threatened" looking like the mean, and with no extinction of any tuna species witnessed yet in documented human history.[2]
C) Tuna are high predators, but are rarely apex predators like tigers. (For example, predators of albacore: [3][4])
D) I can only find one example of tuna extirpation: the North Atlantic Bluefish.[5] Whereas tiger territories have diminished 93%.[2]
Well the analogy may be hyperbolic and loose, the point is that very little attention is given comparatively to the wiping out of oceanic life, which is very large in scale. We are fishing the ecology into extinction very rapidly.
>But today, for the fourth time in four years, ...
In these trade agreements, some countries are more equal than others. The US probably has the trade power to continue to ignore the WTO ruling. The US has done so repeatedly in the past with other issues.
Well the real truth is, when on a world stage our values may clash with the values of another and we won't always get our way. There was a recent dust up over labeling of beef sold in the US with regards to foreign sources.
To be honest I see no reason why the labeling is not permitted so as to allow more consumer choice. Origin and such are valuable tools for smart consumer purchasing. That they run afoul of what lax rules other countries want should not be a consideration.
What is next? Ruling that preference given to some foods based on their original origin will be tossed? It is the logical conclusion that many rules in the EU which do protect certain products will be ended too.
99 comments
[ 6.3 ms ] story [ 247 ms ] threadHere is a pdf of the case: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/DDFDocuments/225...
The world is not binary. I don't come here to read comments like yours.
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.
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.
I suspect this is correct but I do not share this sentiment, and in fact, I find it absurd. Most people only want to harm specifically raised and genetically modify living things for their entire miserable lives in captivity OR make sure that only a very select group of free living things is killed due to a narrow sense of cultural aesthetics.
I don't think we should rush out and needlessly murder dolphins, but the average person may notice that label, but removing it would likely have little to no bearing on consumer selection which is driven primarily by advertising.
What had an effect was that the US forbade tuna that didn't fulfill the dolphin-safe requirements. The label itself is incidental to that.
So you're discounting the advertising advantage of saying "We don't kill dolphins like the other guys"? That's strange. I'm old enough to remember when dolphin-safe tuna was a cause celeb. Advertising you were dolphin-safe had big time marketing push. I think even Charlie the Tuna got in on the act. For a more contemporary example, we can look at GMOs and "organic" food. There's no science saying that GMOs are dangerous or that "organic" food is healthier or safer, but that doesn't stop them from being a market differentiator that drives sales.
"Dolphins are a common by-catch in tuna fisheries, especially in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, as they commonly swim with schools of yellowfin tuna. The dolphins, who swim closer to the surface than tuna, may be used as an indicator of tuna presence. Labeling was originally intended to discourage fishing boats from netting dolphins with tuna.
The tuna fishery in the Eastern Tropical Pacific is the only fishery that deliberately targets, chases, and nets dolphins, resulting in estimates of 6-7million dolphins dying in tuna nets since the practice was introduced in the late 1950s, the largest directed kill of dolphins on Earth.[9] With the onset of the Dolphin Safe label program, started in the US in 1990 but soon spreading to foreign tuna operations, the deaths of dolphins has decreased considerably, with official counts, based on observer coverage, of around 1,000 dolphins per year.[9] However, research by the US National Marine Fisheries Service has shown that chasing the dolphins causes baby dolphins to fall behind the pod, resulting in a large "cryptic" kill, likely damaging populations of dolphins, as the young starve or are eaten by sharks while the main pod is held by the nets.[10][11] Thus, claims that tuna fishing can continue to chase and net dolphins and not cause harm are not backed by scientific research."
This is not a problem with random by-catch. The issue was the systematic netting of dolphin pods due to their close association with tuna.
> If you do the math on this (and you don’t have to because the Environmental Justice Foundation already did), you find that one saved dolphin costs 25,824 small tuna, 382 mahi-mahi, 188 wahoo, 82 yellowtail and other large fish, 27 sharks and rays, 1 billfish, 1,193 triggerfish and other small fish, and 0.06 sea turtles.
> You and I can argue about the relative value of dolphins vs. triggerfish all day, but the important take-home message here is that we are protecting animals that are not endangered at the expense of dozens of other species, and some of those other species are endangered.
The silver lining in this cloud is that the removal of the labels means that it is inappropriate for people concerned about dolphins or the marine environment in general to be eating tuna at all, though, sadly, I don't think that is going to happen as a result of this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/business/monsanto-sues-dai...
Hormones, btw, which are illegal in the EU.
a) making these illegal b) once forced to legalise, labelling it as such
I may be getting confused with another case, but I recall some trade episode as such
Also, we consistently overprotect one not endangered animal (humans) at the expense of all other species.
Interesting claim. How do hippos know about the affairs of all other species, let alone the hippos in the next valley? I think you're overanthropomorphising.
This isn't even true. Environmentalists in rich countries have managed to get lions and tigers (and probably crocodiles, but I can't affirm that from personal knowledge) protected despite the objections of the humans living nearby who hate being eaten.
> The first thing that popped into your head was probably “ban tuna fishing”, which is a more politically correct way of saying “make it impossible for the world’s poor to have healthy balanced diets”. It’s just not feasible to ban purse seine fishing. If you’re interested in helping by “voting with your wallet”, you can support sustainably-caught tuna, which is caught with a rod and reel and has almost no bycatch, but this method makes tuna so much more expensive that it’s not a large-scale solution.
I would also not suggest canned tuna as a staple protein, because of its high mercury levels. It's okay to eat occasionally, but eating ~10 cans/week as your main source of protein isn't a good idea. The safe consumption quantity for a typical adult is in the range of 2-3 cans per week of chunk-light, or 1 can/week of albacore.
Tuna -- 26.4g protein for 0.55GBP (48g/GBP): http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=283723541
Salmon -- 84.8g for 1.80GBP (47g/GBP): http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=258098027
And the salmon is from Alaska, where the fishery is well managed and sustainable.
a) is really surprising - someone above said that made tuna much more expensive, which is also what I'd intuitively expect;
b) seems to put it ethically around the same level as the salmon.
0: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/09/1... 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9699993 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10603067 3: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10524582
Most legumes have a pretty high carb-to-protein ratio, and are also incomplete proteins. (Also, there's probably no reasonable definition of sentience that includes all animals and excludes all plants.)
>> The reason for the bean/grain combo is nutrition and protein. When you combine beans and grains, their different amino acid makeups form to combine complete proteins. They also each contain different nutrients and grains are higher in calories. There's a reason that some grain was always the staple of the local diet, whether wheat, barley, rice, corn or whatever. "Bread is the staff of life."
>> You'll live better on a bean/grain combo than just beans along. Ask the native Americans.
from _MikeK_, via http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=181260
Also..
>> Every time legumes like beans, lentils, and peanuts are combined with grains like wheat, rice, and corn, a complete protein is born.
from http://greatist.com/health/complete-vegetarian-proteins
This is a red herring, based on misinformation about nutrition. It is not hard to fulfill your daily protein needs and get in all your essential amino acids and maintain a healthy calorie intake while eating a diet of legumes, grains, and vegetables. It can be done for a fraction of the price of a omnivore's diet and can be a lot better nutritionally than downing tuna every day (i.e., there's more opportunities for variety).
> there's probably no reasonable definition of sentience that includes all animals and excludes all plants.
There are a few, but it actually is largely irrelevant. If you stop eating animals you also consume less plants. Every time you eat an animal you have to consider that in order to raise that animal it had to eat a lot of plants that you could've been eating instead. Raising animals is massively inefficient energy-wise, which is why our plant consumption goes down when people stop eating meat.
So really there's no need to draw a "sentience line" in the sand. Assuming everything is sentient, vegetarian diets are better for both plants and animals. But even if it were necessary to draw this sort of line, it would make a fair deal of sense to say that anything without a nervous system is at least relatively less likely to be sentient. There are some arguments for plant sentience due to their limited molecular signalling responses to harmful stimuli, but there is definitely a lot less evidence to support that hypothesis than there is to support the hypothesis that tuna are sentient.
This is not true necessarily. More tuna mean less median fishes, and less median fishes eating mean more anchovies and small fishes alive, thus pound for pound, more food for humans. After the overfishing of tuna in europe anchovies collapsed almost at the same time.
These numbers aren't consistent with the table, and the link doesn't seem to have the relevant data. According to the numbers in the table, a dolphin costs 138 mahi-mahi. The other numbers become similarly smaller, when comparable.
> You and I can argue about the relative value of dolphins vs. triggerfish all day, but the important take-home message here is that we are protecting animals that are not endangered at the expense of dozens of other species
If that's the important take-home message, it sounds like the writer has already made up his mind about the relative value of dolphins to other species. And it sounds like I disagree with him. I think dolphins are more intelligent than most species, and have more moral worth, and killing hundreds or thousands of other fish to save one dolphin sounds like a potentially good trade.
The writer seems to want to frame this as charismatic versus non-charismatic, but the fact remains that I care about dolphins more than other species, and I don't care that they aren't endangered.
(I'm mostly vegetarian, but even before that, I avoided tuna because I didn't know how much to trust the dolphin-safe label.)
> and some of those other species are endangered.
Which ones, specifically? Mahi-mahi and wahoo aren't, at least. The rest of that list seem to be broad categories with no single conservation status.
Is this a case of "we're protecting a single dolphin at the expense of lots of other non-endangered fish, and also 5% of an endangered turtle"?
The link has exactly the data it was supposed to have, and a citation to where it came from.
https://web.archive.org/web/20081110012913/http://www.ejfoun...
Moral worth is the function you run inside your head that says you prefer to let a thousand earthworms die to save one dolphin.
Hope this helps.
[1]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/nh/extensions_and_intensions/
We can't be absolutely sure that anyone except for ourselves suffer (not even other humans) because of the other minds problem, but essentially all the scientific evidence we have suggests that humans and other creatures are sentient if they have basic nervous systems and begin to display behaviors consistent with suffering.
Some of my sources: Studied neuro and cog sci myself, just chatted last night with a PhD candidate in neuro who agrees with me, have taken classes with the former longstanding editor of Brain and Behavioral Science who I believe would also agree. There are cog sci journals out there dedicated to this stuff.
I subscribe to a train of thought that says it's wrong to kill a person; it's okay to kill a cow, but wrong to torture one; and I'm not sure if anything done to a mosquito could count as torture. I think dolphins are around the same level as humans. I think tuna and many other fish are probably between cows and mosquitos, closer to cows, but I haven't read or thought about that one very hard.
Whatever it is that separates cows from humans, also seems to separate cows from dolphins. It's not sentience, according to your definition of the word, but it's what lmm was talking about.
Consciousness is poorly defined, so I don't know exactly what you're getting at there, but one definition is sentience. At any rate, I believe it's fair to say that a sentient being can be described as conscious due to their ability to feel and subjectively process experiences.
Why does consciousness matter if you believe they are sentient? Are you perhaps conflating intelligence with consciousness? Do you believe that it matters more when an intelligent animal suffers than it does when a less intelligent animal suffers? Why? Do they not both suffer? Can the same be said for people with low IQs? Their suffering matters less than mine?
How do you reconcile that slaughterhouse conditions are torturous, even the ones that "ethical farmers" use? That we have video footage that indicate the animals know they are going to die and evidence to suggest the entire process is distressing and painful? That the process by which they are "humanely" anaesthetized/killed (e.g., bolt gun) is still by far not the most humane way to kill animals?
How about the fact we have every reason to believe pigs are incredibly intelligent despite the way we treat them (I'm talking Chimpanzee-level intelligence here — http://animalstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...)? What is this "thing" you believe separates them from dolphins?
Are you sure you are not simply working off of your own unchallenged beliefs that you were raised with by your parents and taking those as ground truth?
As such, I'm going to reply, but then I'm done. You're irritating, and I'm not interested in having a prolonged discussion with you.
I'm not conflating consciousness with the ability to suffer, or with intelligence. I don't know exactly what it is. But far as I understand, humans and dolphins and some other species seem to be aware of their own existence, in a way that cows aren't. (The mirror test is one tool we use to try to judge this.) Humans and dolphins are capable of wanting not to die, in a way that cows aren't. That's what makes it wrong to kill humans and dolphins. Meanwhile, humans and dolphins and cows are capable of suffering, in a way that rocks and (I assume) mosquitos aren't. That's what makes it wrong to torture a human or dolphin or cow, and impossible to torture a rock or mosquito.
> How do you reconcile that slaughterhouse conditions are torturous
Reconcile with what? I specifically said it's wrong to torture a cow. I don't like slaughterhouses. I'm mostly vegetarian.
I didn't say anything about pigs, because I don't know where I'd place them. My understanding is that they seem to be somewhere between cows and dolphins, probably closer to cows.
Compare http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=6539 (a marine biology blog), which I'll quote from at length:
> It can be difficult for people who have never seen it in action to appreciate the scale of modern commercial fisheries. Commercial fishermen aren’t out on the high seas with handheld rods and reels catching one fish at a time. The nets that tuna fishermen use, which are called purse seines, are miles long. With a net that size, it’s pretty much impossible to catch only tuna. Those nets also catch anything that happens to be swimming near the tuna. These unfortunate animals, killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, are called bycatch.
> There are three ways that tuna schools can be located. The first is to search for them directly using surface ships and small aircraft, which is inefficient, time-consuming, and not always effective (you can’t see tuna from the surface if they’re deep enough or if weather conditions aren’t ideal). The second is to attract tuna using floating objects, which we’ll discuss in more detail shortly. The third is to follow dolphins- for unknown reasons, dolphins in the Eastern Tropical Pacific are often found associated with schools of large tuna.
> Because finding dolphin-associated schools of tuna was extremely easy (unlike tuna, dolphins have to return to the surface where they are easy to spot), it was the preferred method for decades. The Eastern Tropical Pacific Tuna Fishery had a high rate of dolphin bycatch. According to NOAA’s Southwest Fisheries Service Center, an estimated six million dolphins were killed during the forty or so years that purse seining around dolphin-associated tuna schools took place. That’s approximately 150,000 dolphins per year, which is by far the largest cetacean bycatch of any fishery in history. However, it is important to note that mortality from being tuna bycatch did not mean that dolphins were endangered. The two primary species involved are spinner dolphins (data deficient) and spotted dolphins (least concern).
> A massive PR campaign led by the Earth Island Institute resulted in making it illegal to sell tuna caught from dolphin-associated schools in the United States. Dolphin-safe tuna was born.
> Now that fishermen could no longer use what was previously the most common method for catching tuna, they needed to change strategies. They turned to using floating objects (sometimes called FAD’s or fish aggregating devices) to attract tuna to a known location. One of the strangest known behaviors exhibited by open-ocean animals is their tendency to aggregate around any solid object that floats. This might have something to do with the fact that many open-ocean animals go their entire lives without seeing any sort of hard surface. This method is extremely effective for aggregating tuna, but it also aggregates many other species. Setting a purse seine around a dolphin-associated tuna school results in catching primarily large adult tuna (the target size because they have more meat per unit effort and because they have reproduced already) and dolphins (which are not endangered) . Setting a purse seine around a floating object results in all sorts of bycatch, including endangered sea turtles, open ocean shark species which are already in serious trouble, and high numbers of small tuna (which have not yet reproduced).
> A simple glance at the table above shows that while dolphins bycatch goes down, every other studied species (except “unidentified bony fishes”, “other sailfishes”, and marlins) has much higher bycatch rates in “floating object” tuna fishing than in “dolphin associated” tuna fishing. In other words, while better for dolphins, “dolphin-safe” tuna is disastrous for almost everything else.
> If you do the math on this (and you don’t have to because ...
I am not defending TPP at all, but this ruling has nothing to do with it. It seems like a bit of a propaganda ploy to connect the two. Will saying no to TPP undo this ruling? Nope.
> The WTO decided the label violated WTO rules slated for replication in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), [...] The ruling shows how so-called “trade” rules go far beyond trade and interfere with environmental policies that protect wildlife.
So basically, it's saying that if you think this WTO ruling is bad, you should think the TPP is even worse, because among all the other bad stuff in the TPP, it also will enforce anti-informed-consumer anti-environmental decisions like this.
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.... ), 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. :(
Whether consumers are stupid or not isn't even remotely relevant.
We're not meant to rule over nature, we're meant to be part of it. We are part of it. Damaging the capacity of the planet to support life will ultimately cause us problems, and that includes draining the oceans of its wildlife.
At that point, we can always eat each other and keep our population in control.
Also, cannibalism isn't particularly good for our health...
http://www.healthmap.org/site/diseasedaily/article/spotlight...
Don't ask me why I would want to rule. Perhaps I would like to rule over your mind to destroy this propensity for dumb questions to be asked of me. The world would be a better place for it.
Imagine someone is fascinated by seeing a butterfly moving between the plants in their garden. Does the person own the butterfly? Naturally, it has no allegiance to any person. Can they own the butterfly? The only ownership possible appears to result in the butterfly being held captive, either alive or dead. The captivity robs both the person and the butterfly, the butterfly is robbed of its freedom, and the person is robbed of the joy of seeing the butterfly live naturally, which is what they may have found fascinating in the first place.
This is a hard thing to explain, because it requires a different mindset. If someone is of the ownership mindset then it doesn't matter to them what existed before that ownership, or what happens after their ownership. However, with a less individualistic mindset, different values emerge. For example, is a tree worth more than the paper it can produce?
In a scenario where you use land to grow food, if you don't own the land you can't say you control it. How this that the case? You can state you control it without owning it, and use that land to grow food. However, that control only lasts if only one person has access to the land. If I decide to dig up all of your crops and use the land for my own use, then do you really have control of the land? No. Neither would I in this scenario, anyone could undo the changes I made as well.
Ownership enables exclusive control. When it comes to managing resources, there is no reliable control without exclusive control.
In other words, in this case, there's no point in making the distinction between ownership and control.
A) Every single species of tiger is at least IUCN Endangered, and many are Critically Endangered, or Extinct. [1]
B) Whereas tuna species have a spectrum of IUCN ratings from Least Concern to Critically Endangered, with "Near Threatened" looking like the mean, and with no extinction of any tuna species witnessed yet in documented human history.[2]
C) Tuna are high predators, but are rarely apex predators like tigers. (For example, predators of albacore: [3][4])
D) I can only find one example of tuna extirpation: the North Atlantic Bluefish.[5] Whereas tiger territories have diminished 93%.[2]
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuna#True_tuna_species
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger#Subspecies
3 http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/2011/bularz_noah/interactions...
4 https://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?ParentMenuId=136&id=11...
5 https://www.google.com/search?q=tuna+extirpation
In these trade agreements, some countries are more equal than others. The US probably has the trade power to continue to ignore the WTO ruling. The US has done so repeatedly in the past with other issues.
To be honest I see no reason why the labeling is not permitted so as to allow more consumer choice. Origin and such are valuable tools for smart consumer purchasing. That they run afoul of what lax rules other countries want should not be a consideration.
What is next? Ruling that preference given to some foods based on their original origin will be tossed? It is the logical conclusion that many rules in the EU which do protect certain products will be ended too.