Apparently the WTO just issued a ruling banning the labelling of Tuna as “dolphin safe” because its an “arbitrary technical barrier to trade”.
What happens if a private company in the US simply ignores this and keeps selling their product with the “dolphin safe” label? Can the WTO directly fine the company, can they force the US government to fine them? Does the TPP actually change this dramatically or is it overblown?
I don’t know, but it seems a safe assumption that national regulatory bodies of countries bound by membership in an organization enforce agreed rules in each jurisdiction.
Maybe the ruling is against U.S. laws like the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA, 16 U.S.C. 1385).
There are independent, voluntary labeling programs, but the government looks to have its hand in this one.
I believe the other trading partners would have the right to raise tariffs or ban imports on that tuna. Or possibly on other U.S. imports too.
P.S. I was right: http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story098/en/
Well I hope this gets well and truly tested in court. “Dolphin Safe” labelling has dramatically reduced the amount of bycatch since it was introduced, its a popular program with the public and its effective.
It’s asinine that in theory with the TPP International Trade Agreements can override local laws and even potentially the constitution. As I read the article the ruling even bans voluntary labelling? How is that even possible? Any chance someone can take a crack at this as a first amendment violation? AFAIK Companies also have rights to free speech under the first and if they want to describe their products as safe for dolphins they should certainly be able to do that.
So what does happen if an international trade agreement is in violation of the constitution? Who wins? (other than the lawyers making millions litigating it of course)
Federal laws and treaties override local laws, though the Constitution of course is different.
The government can regulate things like that more than other speech. Google “commercial speech.”
Its outrageous that a trade agreement could overrule good laws or practices like this. But it’s legal.
The Constitution is the “highest law of the land.” Treaties are a second level of authority, on a par with federal legislation.
Right, so what happens if a ruling of the WTO is ruled unconstitutional? Endless sanctions because of a ruling which the constitution says can’t be enforced? Seems like a broken system to me.
A ruling of the WTO cannot be “ruled unconstitutional” in the manner you suggest, since no private actor would have standing to challenge it. Assuming the US does not modify its labeling laws, other countries can now impose tariffs on dolphin-safe-labeled tuna. That’s it. In all probability, they won’t; they’ll use this as a bargaining chip in some other trade dispute.
I have some familiarity with the WTO dispute resolution process, but I am not clear on whether they have any jurisdiction on items that are not introduced into international trade.
So, for example, let’s say a tuna producer wishes to keep labeling its cans as “dolphin safe” and those products are only sold in the U.S. For cans intended for international trade, maybe they make a different label that is in compliance with the WTO regulations. Does anyone know whether this is a common practice?
How does that work? A private business that is forbidden to label their products as “dolphin safe” could certainly lose sales both domestically and internationally when competing with other countries that are not a party to this trade agreement (who are free to keep labelling their products). Why would they have no standing? To be clear what I’m saying is, suppose the US modifies its labelling laws to comply with the WTO ruling. A company then challenges the US labelling law and its ruled unconstitutional. You then have the situation where the WTO is saying one thing must be done, but it can’t be enforced because laws that attempt to enforce it are unconstitutional.
They’re not forbidden from doing that. They can do that all they want. The WTO ruling does not affect private actors. Now, if the US government chooses to ban such labeling in compliance with the WTO ruling, a tuna canner can challenge that action, but that is not a dispute involving the WTO; it’s a dispute between the canner and the US government.
Doesn’t matter if they are being sold internationally or not; the point of the WTO rules is to ensure fair competition between domestic and foreign goods as well as between competing foreign manufacturers. In the WTO’s view, even US-only dolphin-labeled tuna is a violation since it competes with tuna imports.
Just a point of information: I noticed, just a few months ago, that the tuna fish I buy (Bumble Bee brand) is no longer labeled with the “dolphin safe” words or logo.
Makes sense, thanks.
The U.S. would have to go renegotiate I guess. Or just take the hit.
It’s not outrageous. It’s the whole purpose of trade agreements.
And to be clear, the WTO is not ruling that a Dolphin Safe label is prohibited. It ruled that the US banned some practices and not others without justification for the disparate treatment.
I don’t think this means that tuna can’t be labelled as dolphin safe. Before, you had to do X, Y, and Z to label your tuna as dolphin safe. That test is now gone. So you can label your tuna dolphin safe even if you don’t do X, Y, and Z. Dolphin safe is now a meaningless phrase similar to calling tuna “Healthy” or “Wholesome”.
I guess I was just assuming that pretty much all tuna is “dolphin safe” now. Is that not the case? I don’t eat tuna (can’t stand the taste) so I haven’t seen a can of tuna since I was a kid living with my parents.
Besides the click-bait title, nowhere in the article or the linked sources does it actually say the voluntary dolphin-safe labels are banned. Instead it look like Mexico wants to use the labels on their tuna and thinks the US requirements for including it unfairly discriminate against Mexico.
Specifically, many or most Mexican tuna fishing is done by encircling dolphins in a net to catch surrounding tuna (tuna and dolphins are often found together), and tuna caught this way cannot include the label. While pretty much everyone involved agrees this is harmful to dolphins, Mexico argues that other fishing methods that are allowed can also be as harmful, and that this requirement discriminates against Mexico specifically. Best I could tell is this argument hasn’t gotten Mexico very far.
Mexico also claims discrimination, more understandably, in the way that certain requirements vary from location to location. Fishermen at most tuna fisheries are only required to have the captain vouch that dolphins were not harmed, where as in Mexico’s most popular fishery, you need a statement from the captain and an independent witness on the boat to get the label.
So what we have here is the potential eroding of the force and meaning of a dolphin safe label. Still awful, though not as bad as banning it altogether.
Here is the official ongoing case:
I recall during the mad cow scare, the feds forbade beef producers from running their own mad cow tests; the cynics said this was because they did not want to have anyone detect and publicize the existence of more positive tests, which would cause Japan to extend their import bans. I can also see that they did not want a “this product double tested” option which would create a premium category and raise the costs for everyone who wanted to be part of that “club”.
So certainly the feds can dictate things like what is appropriate labels. Whether they want to or do dictate the omission of dolphin-safe labelling - good question? (If there’s no law regarding what is or is not categorized as “dolphin safe” then what’s to stop anyone from making the claim? )
Decades ago, the US tried to ban the hunting of some migratory birds and SCOTUS ruled that nothing in the constitution gave Congress that authority. Then a treaty was signed with Canada banning the killing of migratory birds and this was upheld as an instance of treaty making powers. Make of that what you will.
One objection to the various free-trade agreements is that tie a country’s hands in instances like this.