. /. WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
WT/DS384/12 
WT/DS386/11 28 March 2012 
 
 
(12-1654) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) 
REQUIREMENTS 
 
Notification of an Appeal by the United States 
under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules 
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),  
and under Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  
 
  The following notification, dated 23 March 201 2, from the Delegation of the United States, is 
being circulated to Members. 
 
_______________ 
 
  Pursuant to Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Rule 20 of the  Working Procedures for Appellate Review , the 
United States hereby notifies its decision to appeal  to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Reports of the Panel in United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) 
Requirements (WT/DS384/R and WT/DS386/R) ("Panel Repor ts") and certain legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel. 
 
1. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings and conclusion 
that U.S. country of origin labeling requirements
1 are inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the Agreement 
on Technical Barriers to Trade  (the "TBT Agreement").2  This conclusion is in error and is based on 
erroneous findings on issues of law and legal interpretations including: 
(a)  the Panel's finding that the U.S. COOL requirements treat imported livestock 
differently than domestic livestock.3   
 
(b)  the Panel's finding that the U.S. COOL requirements accord less favorable treatment 
to imported livestock than that accorded to domestic livestock by modifying the 
conditions of competition to the detriment of imported products.4   
 
                                                      
1The U.S. COOL requirements consist of the releva nt sections of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 
1946 (7 U.S.C.  1638-1638c) ("the COOL statute") and regulations promulgated by the United States 
Department of Agriculture’s Agricu ltural Marketing Service on January 15, 2009, entitled "Mandatory Country 
of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, Lamb, Chicken, Goat Meat, Wild and Farm-Raised Fish and Shellfish, Perishable Agricultural Comm odities, Peanuts, Pecans, Ginseng, and Macadamia Nuts, which are codified at 
7 C.F.R. Parts 60 and 65 ("2009 Final Rule").  See Panel Reports, para. 7.61.     
2See, e.g., Panel Reports, paras.7.420, 7.548, 8.3(b).  
3See, e.g. , Panel Reports, paras.7.295-7.296.    
4See, e.g. , Panel Reports, paras. 7.420, 7.548 WT/DS384/12 
WT/DS386/11 Page 2 
 
 
  2. The United States also requests the Appellate Body  to find that the Panel acted inconsistently 
with Article 11 of the DSU by failing to make an objective assessment of the facts related to these 
issues, specifically that segregation of livestock is "necessitated" by the COOL requirements, that 
commingling is not occurring on a widespread basis,  and that the COOL requirements resulted in a 
"price differential" between domestic and imported livestock,
5 and by using these faulty factual 
findings to support its conclusions with regard to  different treatment and less favorable treatment. 
3. The United States also seeks review of the Pa nel's findings and conclusion that the COOL 
requirements are inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.6  This conclusion is in error and 
is based on erroneous findings on issues of law and legal interpretations including:  
(a) with regard to section VII.D.3(b) of th e Panel Reports, the Panel's finding that the 
COOL measure is "trade restrictive" for purposes of Article 2.2.7   
 
(b) with regard to section VII.D.3(c) of the Panel Reports, the Panel's failure to consider 
all relevant information regarding the U. S. chosen level of fulfillment of the 
legitimate objective.8 
 (c) with regard to sections VII.D.3(d)-(e) of  the Panel Reports:  (1) the Panel's legal 
framework for determining whether a measure is "more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective";
9 (2) the Panel's finding that the COOL 
requirements do not fulfill the legitimate objective at the level the United States 
considers appropriate;10 and (3) the Panel's failure to require the complaining parties 
to meet their burden to prove that the measure is "more trade-restrictive than necessary" based on the availability of a signi ficantly less trade-restrictive alternative 
measure that also fulfills the objective at the level the United States considers 
appropriate.
11 
 
4. The United States also requests the Appellate Body  to find that the Panel acted inconsistently 
with Article 11 of the DSU by failing to make an objective assessment of the facts related to these 
issues, specifically the Panel's findings regarding the level at which the United States considers it 
appropriate to fulfill its objective.12   
The United States is providing a copy of this lette r directly to Canada, Mexico and to the third 
parties.  
 
 
__________ 
 
 
 
                                                      
5See, e.g. , Panel Reports, paras. 7.316, 7.327, 7.336, 7.352-353, 7.356, 7.364, 7.366-368, 7.379. 7.487, 
and 7.542.  
6See, e.g. , Panel Reports, para. 8.3(c).  
7See, e.g., Panel Reports, paras. 7.565-7.575.  
8See, e.g. , Panel Reports, paras. 7.590-7.620. 
9See Panel Reports, paras. 7.652, 7.666-7.670, 7.692-7.720. 
10See, e.g. , Panel Reports, paras. 7.692-7.720.  
11See Panel Reports, para. 7.719.  
12See, e.g. , Panel Reports, paras. 7.619-7.620, 7.715.