Labelling cans of tuna 鈥榙olphin-friendly鈥� has proved so ineffective
that the labels should be removed, says the Whale and Dolphin Conservation
Society, which set up the labelling scheme in Britain. So far, no one has
complied with the request.
In a letter sent to tuna importers last August, the WDCS says: 鈥楴o one
currently trading in tuna can be completely confident that the tuna being
bought, or the canneries being dealt with, are in fact 鈥榙olphin-friendly鈥�.鈥�
It goes on to demand that tuna producers 鈥榗ease the printing of labels carrying
鈥榙olphin-friendly鈥� statements or logos immediately, and remove any such
labelling from existing cans鈥�.
But not one company has responded. Tony Dwerihouse of John West, Britain鈥檚
biggest importer of tuna, says: 鈥業n August WDCS contacted us and said they
weren鈥檛 totally happy with the dolphin-friendliness of our products and
asked us to remove the labels. But you can鈥檛 take these things off willy-nilly
and we didn鈥檛 think they were justified in making this request.鈥�
Advertisement
In 1990, the WDCS made an agreement with most of the country鈥檚 importers.
Only two companies belonging to the industry association, BACFID, which
represents 75 per cent of companies, did not sign up. Any company that signed
up to the WDCS scheme 鈥榤ust be dolphin-friendly鈥� says Walter Anzer, of BACFID.
According to Greenpeace, tens of thousands of dolphins are killed each
year by tuna fleets. They die entangled in the 鈥榳all of death鈥� drift nets
or are killed by boats using a technique called 鈥榮etting-on-dolphins鈥�, where
dolphins are rounded up in order to catch schools of tuna that swim beneath
them.
The WDCS launched its labelling scheme in a blaze of publicity. Canners
that joined the scheme agreed to buy tuna caught by methods other than drift
netting or setting-on-dolphins. Under the agreement, they have to keep records
of fishing methods, and dates and locations of the catches, and to allow
representatives of the society to inspect the canneries. Signatories to
the scheme agreed to stop buying from any suppliers who broke the agreement.
The scheme has been controversial from the start, partly because the
WDCS has been secretive about the terms of the agreement. Wildlife Link,
a coalition of 10 wildlife organisations, including the World Wide Fund
for Nature (WWF), the RSPCA, the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA)
and Greenpeace, has never accepted that 鈥榗ompanies which label their tuna
鈥榙olphin-friendly鈥� have first substantiated the claim鈥�.
Sales of tinned tuna rose 4.1 per cent in 1991, and a long-term growth
of 5 per cent a year is forecast by Princes, another leading importer. Andy
Ottaway of Greenpeace attributes the increase to the labelling scheme. 鈥楽ales
are up because dolphin-friendly labels lead to massive consumer complacency
by making people think the problem has been solved. It hasn鈥檛. The sad fact
is that dolphin-friendly labels were a commercial decision by companies
looking to protect their profits, not dolphins.鈥�
Dwerihouse says: 鈥楴o one has put the dolphin-friendly claim on their
cans unless they feel justified in making the claim. At the end of the day,
importers put labels on their cans based on the strength of their own work
with the canneries.鈥�
After the failure of its current labelling system, the WDCS is now developing
a new scheme, with the Earth Island Institute, the group that oversees the
American 鈥榙olphin-safe鈥� scheme.
But David Bowles of the EIA is not convinced that such schemes protect
dolphins. He calls for a scheme with government support, backed by European
Community laws and a powerful monitoring body. Ottaway agrees: 鈥極nly when
we have a ban on dolphin-deadly tuna, linked to an international agreement,
will we really see dolphins being saved.
