WT/DS384/26  
 
20 August 2013  
(13-4488)  Page: 1/3  
  Original: English  
 
 UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING 
(COOL) REQUIREMENTS 
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY CANADA 
Request for the Establishment of a Panel 
 The following communication, dated 19 August 2013, from the delegation of Canada to the 
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
  
On 23 July 2012, the Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") adopted the Appellate Body Report 
and the Report of the Panel, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, in United States – Certain 
Country of Origin Labelling  (COOL) Requirements  (WT/DS384) ( US – COOL (Canada) )
1. Both the 
Panel and the Appellate Body found that the COOL measure of the United States2 violated 
Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade  ("TBT Agreement") because it accorded 
imported livestock treatment less favourable than that accorded to like domestic livestock. The 
DSB recommended that the United States bring its COOL measure into conformity with its 
obligations under the TBT Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  
("GATT 1994").  
At the DSB meeting of 31 August 2012 the United  States indicated its intention to comply 
with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB
3. This statement confirmed the contents of a 
letter from the United States to the same effect, dated 21 August 20124.  
 
An arbitration conducted under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
Governing the Settlement of Disputes  ("DSU") determined that the reasonable period of time for 
the United States to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings was ten months from 
23 July 2012, the date of the DSB's adoption  of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports5. Therefore, 
the United States was under an obligation to bring itself into compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB by 23 May 2013.  
                                               
1 Dispute Settlement Body, Minutes of Meeting of 23 July 2012, WT/DSB/M/320 (of 
28 September 2012). See Appellate Body Report, US – COOL (Canada) , WT/DS384/AB/R, 29 June 2012; Panel 
Report, US – COOL (Canada) , WT/DS384/R, 18 November 2011. 
2 The "COOL measure" on which the Panel and the A ppellate Body made findings comprised: (1) the 
COOL statute (i.e. the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 , as amended by the "2002 Farm Bill" and the "2008 
Farm Bill" (60 Stat. 1087, United States Code, Title 7, Section 1621 et seq. , as amended)) (see Appellate Body 
Report, US – COOL (Canada) , at para. 1(a) and footnotes 4 and 5 thereto; Panel Report, US – COOL (Canada) , 
at paras. 7.77-7.82); and (2) the COOL regulations (i.e . 2009 Final Rule (AMS) – Mandatory Country of Origin 
Labeling of Beef, Pork, Lamb, Chicken, Goat Meat, W ild and Farm-Raised Fish an d Shellfish, Perishable 
Agricultural Commodities, Peanuts, Pecans, Ginseng, and Macadamia Nuts (7 CFR Parts 60 and 65), 74 Fed. 
Reg. 2658-2707, 15 January 2009)) (see Appellate Body Report, US – COOL (Canada) , at para. 1(b) and 
footnote 6 thereto; Panel Report, US – COOL (Canada) , at para. 7.85). The Panel, in para. 7.61 of its Report, 
"consider[ed] it appropriate to examine the relevant elements of both the COOL  statute and the 2009 Final 
Rule (AMS) pertaining to the COOL requirements for meat  products 'as an integral part' of one single COOL 
measure." 
3 Dispute Settlement Body, Minutes of Me eting of 31 August 2012, WT/DSB/M/321 (of 
7 November 2012). 
4 The letter was circulated as document WT/DS384/19. 
5 WT/DS384/24, of 4 December 2012. WT/DS384/26 
 
- 2 - 
 
   
On 23 May 2013, the Agricultural Marketing Serv ice of the US Department of Agriculture 
introduced amendments (through the issuance of a Final Rule) to the COOL regulations of the United States, with legal effect as of the same date ("2013 Final Rule")
6. These amendments 
brought about significant changes to the COOL measure in respect of the labelling of muscle cuts 
of meat, in that these amendments (1) abolished the possibility of commingling, during a production day, muscle cuts derived from livestock born and/or raised in different countries, and of 
marketing these muscle cuts under a common label; and (2) require references on the label of 
muscle cut covered commodities to the country where the animal concerned was born, to the country or countries in which the animal was raised, and to the country in which the animal was slaughtered.     
 
The "amended COOL measure" consists of: 
 
1) the COOL Statute – The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.), as 
amended by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002  (Section 10816 of 
Public Law 107-171) (2002 Farm Bill) and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
2008 (Section 11002 of Public Law 110-246) (2008 Farm Bill); 
 
2) the 2009 Final Rule (AMS) – Mandatory Co untry of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, 
Lamb, Chicken, Goat Meat, Wild and Farm-Raised Fish and Shellfish, Perishable 
Agricultural Commodities, Peanuts, Pecans, Ginseng, and Macadamia Nuts (7 CFR 
Parts 60 and 65), 74 Fed. Reg. 2658-2707, 15 January 2009; 
 
3) the 2013 Final Rule – Mandatory Country of Origin Labelling of Beef, Pork, Lamb, 
Chicken, Goat Meat, Wild and Farm-Raised Fish and Shellfish, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, Peanuts, Pecans, Ginseng, and Macadamia Nuts (7 CFR Parts 60 and 
65), 78 Fed. Reg. 31367-31385, 24 May 2013; and, 
 
4) any modifications or amendments to instruments listed in (1) through (3) above, 
including any further implementing guidance, directives, policy announcements or any 
other document issued in relation to those instruments.  
 
The expanded labelling requirements of the am ended COOL measure will result in increased 
segregation and cost for firms using animals born or raised outside of the United States, or the 
meat produced from them. Therefore, the amended COOL measure will have an effect that is diametrically opposed to what is necessary to brin g the United States into compliance: instead of 
removing the discrimination against Canadian livestock, the amended COOL measure will increase 
the discrimination that was previously found by the Panel and the Appellate Body
7. 
 
The amended COOL measure has failed to bring the United States into compliance with its 
obligations under the WTO Agreement. In particular, Canada considers that the amended COOL 
measure is inconsistent with the following provisions:  
1) Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement becaus e it continues to accord cattle and hogs 
imported from Canada treatment less favourable than that accorded to like US cattle and hogs; 
 
2) Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 because it mo difies the conditions of competition in the 
US market to the detriment of cattle and hogs imported from Canada as compared to like US cattle and hogs; and 
 
                                               
6 Amendments to 7 CFR Parts 60 and 65 (Mandatory Co untry of Origin Labelling of Beef, Pork, Lamb, 
Chicken, Goat Meat, Wild and Farm-Raised Fish and Shel lfish, Perishable Agricult ural Commodities, Peanuts, 
Pecans, Ginseng, and Macadamia Nuts), issued on 23 May 2013 and published in 78 Fed. Reg. 31367-31385, 
24 May 2013. 
7 In response to an invitation for written comm ents on the proposed amendments to the COOL 
regulations (released as a "Proposed Rule" on 8 March 2013 and published in 78 Fed. Reg. 15645-15653, 
12 March 2013), the Government of Canada, in a written communication, dated 10 April 2013, expressed its 
view that the (then proposed) amendments would not bring the United States into compliance with its WTO obligations.  WT/DS384/26 
 
- 3 - 
 
  3) Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement becaus e it creates an unnecessary obstacle to 
international trade, as it is more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create. 
 
In addition, the amended COOL measure nullifies or impairs benefits Canada was entitled to 
expect in respect of exports of its cattle an d hogs under Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994. 
 
On 10 June 2013, Canada and the United States reached an understanding in this dispute on 
"Agreed Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding" ("Sequencing Agreement"). According to paragraph 2 of the Sequencing Agreement, Canada is not 
required to hold consultations with the United St ates before requesting the establishment of an 
Article 21.5 panel. The Sequencing Agreement was previously notified to the DSB
8.  
 
Considering that there is disagreement between  Canada and the United States as to the 
existence or consistency with the covered agreements of a measure taken to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, Canada requests that a panel be established under Articles 6 and 21.5 of the DSU, Article 14 of the TBT Agreement, and Article XXIII of the 
GATT 1994, with standard terms of reference as se t out in Article 7.1 of the DSU. In accordance 
with Article 21.5 of the DSU, the DSB should refer this matter to the original Panel, if possible.  
Canada asks that this request be placed on the agenda of the next meeting of the DSB, 
scheduled to be held on 30 August 2013. 
  
__________  
                                               
8 WT/DS384/25, of 13 June 2013.