In 1990, the federal government started the Dolphin-Safe Tuna program in the United States, which was intended to cut down on the unnecessary slaughter of dolphins by fishing interests in the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) region, which is roughly west of Mexico and South America.

It turns out that in the ETP, dolphins tend to swim with schools of tuna. Therefore the preferred method of catching tuna in those waters is called “setting on dolphins,” wherein ships chase down dolphins, and encircle them with large nets. The nets scoop up the dolphins and the tuna together and the dolphins are discarded. Since the Dolphin-Safe labels were adopted both here and internationally, the number of dolphins killed by this type of fishing has dropped by 97%.

Some species of dolphins are endangered, and it would seem to be a good thing that one of the top predators in the oceans is protected from needless killing. The fishing industry in Mexico, Venezuela and Columbia, however, continue to kill dolphins as part of their tuna fishing methodology. In 2008, Mexico appealed to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and asked that body to declare that the Dolphin-Safe Tuna labels are discriminatory against Mexico.

Initially the regulations for obtaining a Dolphin-Safe Tuna label pertained only to tuna taken in ETP waters, because outside that area, dolphins tend not to swim with schools of tuna. In 2013, the U.S. Department of Commerce broadened the regulations to include tuna from all oceans, but that did not sway the WTO. On November 13, the WTO issued its final determination on the matter, and said that, yes, while “setting on dolphins” does kill and harm these mammals, the Dolphin-Safe labeling arrangement is discriminatory to the Mexican fishing industry according to the terms of trade agreements signed in the 1990s.

Now, therefore, Mexico may be able to impose penalties on the U.S. and other countries who want to offer Dolphin-Safe Tuna to their residents and, therefore, U.S. taxpayers might have to pay a penalty to be able to purchase tuna harvested in a sustainable fashion.

The Earth Islands Institute operates a dolphin and tuna monitoring program, which according to their website, “is the largest private environmental monitoring program in the world. We maintain agreements with more than 500 tuna companies around the world, including all major tuna processors.” David Phillips, director of the Institute’s Marine Mammal Project, said, “Time and time again the WTO has shown it doesn’t care about wildlife, the environment, or truth in labeling.”

It’s not clear what the outcome of this will be. Before taking any action, the Mexican fishing industry will have to determine how much money the dolphin-safe program cost it. Critics say there is absolutely no demand in the U.S. for tuna caught by setting on dolphins as long as there is a viable alternative in place,

But the more important issue here is that unelected and unaccountable officials in the WTO can override U.S. laws that seek to protect wildlife and by extension the environment. This whole WTO process is known as an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), and it has become increasingly popular with multinational companies.

As we have written several times in this space, if the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is adopted by the U.S. Congress next spring, and the other participating countries, it will greatly expand the opportunity for ISDS settlements that will have the authority to overturn laws meant to protect public health and the environment in a bid to protect “expected future profits” from products that may pose a danger to the public.

Even without TPP, corporations are using already established international trade agreements to gain profits. The huge tobacco conglomerate Philip Morris sued Australia for passing a law requiring that cigarettes be sold in plan packaging, which research shows leads to a decline in the number of smokers in a country. Australia eventually won the matter in court, but that was after Australian taxpayers forked out more than $50 million in legal expenses.

At the local level, a large multinational company could ride roughshod over local fracking bans, buy-local campaigns, attempts to keep junk food out of public schools, and many other commonsense laws.

The dolphin-tuna issue points precisely to the problem with TPP and other trade agreements adopted in the past: they are tilted in favor of big, multinational businesses, and have ignored the interests of consumers, who are most responsible for economic growth.

It should not be too much to ask our national lawmakers to come up with a way to ensure that U.S. laws meant to protect public health and the environment and wildlife can’t be overruled by multinational companies, and that consumers should not be forced to pay extra taxes because they want to live in a safe and healthy world.