On the recordJanuary 29, 1997
last week, Senators Stevens and Breaux introduced a bill S. 39, that would significantly weaken protections for dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean by rewriting-- gutting--the ``dolphin safe'' tuna labeling law that Senator Biden and I wrote and urged into law in 1990. Today, the $1 billion U.S. canned tuna market is a dolphin safe market. Consumers know that the dolphin safe label means that dolphins were not chased, harassed, captured, or killed. Our definition of dolphin safe became law for all the right reasons. Those reasons are still valid today: First, for the consumers, who were opposed to the encirclement of dolphins with purse seine nets and wanted guarantees that the tuna they consume did not result in harassment, capture, and killing of dolphins; second, for the U.S. tuna companies, who wanted a uniform definition that would not undercut their voluntary efforts to remain dolphin-safe; third, for the dolphins, to avoid harassment, injury and deaths by encirclement; and fourth, for truth in labeling. Our law has been a huge success. Annual dolphin deaths have declined from 60,000 in 1990 to under 3,000 in 1995. Why mess with success? The Stevens-Breaux bill would permit more dolphins to be killed than are killed now. The bill promotes the chasing and encirclement of dolphins, a tuna fishing practice that is very dangerous to dolphins.
Source
govinfo.gov




