This article in HealthNewsDigest.com describes how the "dolphin safe" label on tuna has been subtly changed:

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) today strongly criticized the Bush Administration for a decision to weaken the definition of the well-known "dolphin safe" label. This move will substantially increase chasing, harassing and netting of dolphins by fisheries in many countries in South America including Mexico.

Want to lay the blame on Bush? There's more to it, of course...

This controversy dates back to 1997, when the Clinton Administration agreed to help Mexico sell dolphin-deadly tuna in the United States. With backing from Congressional Republicans, the administration proposed an end to the U.S. embargo on dolphin-deadly tuna. Recognizing that American consumers would not purchase tuna without the familiar "dolphin safe" label, the Mexican fishing industry pressured the U.S. to change its definition of "dolphin safe" to permit fishing methods that include chasing, harassing and encircling dolphins to catch the tuna they associate with in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean.

The U.S. agreed to this change as long as the tuna bearing the "dolphin safe" label did not result in observed dolphin deaths. The U.S. developed a scheme of placing an observer onboard each tuna boat to certify that nodolphins died in fishing for tuna to be labeled "dolphin safe."

However, with each set involving miles of nets, hundreds of dolphins and tons of tuna in one net, it?s nearly impossible for a single individual to be certain that no dolphins died. At sea for six months at a time, observers are subject to pressure and even harassment by the crew, whose livelihood depends on bringing home the higher-priced "dolphin safe" tuna that can be sold in European, and now American, markets.

There's a little bit of good news here:

The large American tuna producers, including StarKist, Bumble Bee and Chicken of the Sea, have agreed to abide by the original definition of the "dolphin safe" label.

Media Bias discussion:

1. The article "blasts" the Bush administration for weakening the "dolphin safe" label. What explanation was given for blaming Bush for a law signed by Clinton in 1997?
2. Why did the Humane Society wait so long (five years, one administration change) to speak up on such an allegedly important issue?
3. This story made the "Project Censored" 25 top unreported stories for 1997. Why would the press not report on an environmentally damaging bill initiated and signed into law by a Democratic administration, but then report on a private lawsuit regarding the same bill against a Republican administration?