WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS384/8 
9 October 2009 
 
 (09-4891) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
UNITED STATES - CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) 
REQUIREMENTS 
 
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Canada
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 7 Octobe r 2009, from the delegation of Canada to the 
Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.  
_______________ 
 
  On 1 December 2008, the Government of Canada  ("Canada") requested consultations with the 
Government of the United States ("United States") concerning its measure requiring country of origin 
labelling ("COOL measure") in respect of certain products, pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes  ("DSU"), Article XXII 
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  ("GATT 1994 "), Article 14 of the Agreement on 
Technical Barriers to Trade ("TBT Agreement "), Article 11 of the Agreement on the Application of 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  ("SPS Agreement ") and Article 7 of the Agreement on Rules of 
Origin .  
 
 On 16 December 2008, consultations were held in Washington, DC with a view to reaching a 
satisfactory resolution of the matter. On 11 May 20 09, Canada requested supplemental consultations 
with the United States. These supplemental cons ultations were held in Washington, DC on 
5 June 2009. Unfortunately, the consul tations failed to settle the dispute. 
  Canada, therefore, requests the DSB to establish a panel to examine this matter with standard 
terms of reference, as set out in  Article 7.1 of the DSU and pursuan t to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, 
Article XXIII of the GATT 1994 , Article 14 of the TBT Agreement , Article 11 of the SPS Agreement  
and Article 8 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin . 
  The COOL measure covered in this request  consists of the following provisions:  
(i) the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended by the Farm, Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002 and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008;  
(ii) the Interim Final Rule on Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, 
Lamb, Chicken, Goat Meat, Perishable Ag ricultural Commodities, Peanuts, Pecans, 
Ginseng, and Macadamia Nuts, and publis hed on 1 August 2008  as 7 CFR Part 65 
and on Mandatory Country of Origin Labeli ng of Muscle Cuts of Beef (including 
Veal), Lamb, Chicken, Goat and Pork, Ground Beef, Ground Lamb, Ground Chicken, 
Ground Goat, and Ground Pork, published on 28 August 2008 as 9 CFR Parts 317 and 381;      WT/DS384/8 
Page 2  
 
  (iii) the Final Rule on Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, Lamb, 
Chicken, Goat Meat, Perishable Agri cultural Commodities, Peanuts, Pecans, 
Ginseng, and Macadamia Nuts, published on 15 January 2009 as 7 CFR Part 65;  
(iv) the letter to "Industry Representativ e" from the United States Secretary of 
Agriculture, Thomas J. Vilsack, of 20 February 2009;  and  
(v) any modifications, administrative guidance, directives or policy announcements 
issued in relation to items (i) through (iv) above. 
 The COOL measure is inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the TBT 
Agreement . In particular, Canada considers that the measure is inconsistent with the following 
provisions: 
 
(1) Article 2.1 because the measure as applie d results in less favourable treatment 
accorded to beef and pork produced from liv estock from Canada than for beef and 
pork produced from livestock born, raised a nd slaughtered in the United States.  The 
measure also results in less favourable tr eatment for Canadian livestock as compared 
with US livestock.  
(2) Article 2.2 because the measure creates an unnecessary obstacle to international trade, 
lacks a legitimate objective and is more tr ade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a 
legitimate objective if any such objective were to exist. 
(3) Article 2.4 because the measure is not based on the Codex General Standard for the 
Labelling of Prepackaged Foods , which is the relevant international standard .      
 Should the United States assert that the COOL measure is an SPS measure, then it is Canada's 
view that the COOL measure is inconsis tent with Articles 2, 5 and 7 of the SPS Agreement.  
  Canada also considers that the COOL measure is  inconsistent with the following provisions of 
the GATT 1994 : 
 
(1) Article III:4 because the measure as applied results in less favourable treatment 
accorded to beef and pork produced from liv estock from Canada than for beef and 
pork produced from livestock born, raised a nd slaughtered in the United States.  The 
measure also results in less favourable tr eatment for Canadian livestock as compared 
with US livestock.   
(2) Article IX:2 because the measure does not  reduce to a minimum difficulties and 
inconveniences which the measure causes.   
(3) Article IX:4 because the measure materia lly reduces the value of imported livestock 
from Canada.   
(4) Article X:3(a) because the laws, regulations , decisions and rulings that make up the 
measure are not administered in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner.   
 Canada also considers that the COOL measure is  a rule of origin and therefore inconsistent 
with Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin.  In particular, the COOL measure is inconsistent 
with:    WT/DS384/8 
 Page 3 
 
 
  (1) Article 2(b) because the measure is used  to pursue trade objectives directly or 
indirectly.    
(2) Article 2(c) because the measure creates  restrictive, distorting or disruptive effects on 
international trade by imposing unduly stri ct requirements related to processing as a 
prerequisite for the determination of country of origin.  
(3) Article 2(e) because the measure is not administered in a consistent, uniform, 
impartial and reasonable manner.  
(4) Article 2(j) because administrative action taken under the measure in relation to the 
determination of origin is not reviewab le promptly by judicial, arbitral or 
administrative tribunal or procedures.   
 The violations stated above nullify or impa ir the benefits accruing to Canada under those 
Agreements.  Moreover, the COOL measure also nulli fies or impairs the benefits accruing to Canada 
in the sense of Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994 .   
  Canada asks that this request be placed on the agenda of the next meeting of the DSB, 
scheduled to be held on 23 October 2009. 
 
__________