UNITED STATES - CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) REQUIREMENTS
Document: Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Canada
Date: 9 October 2009
Document codes: WT/DS384/8
Complainant: Canada
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, EU, Guatemala, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Taiwan
Dispute stage: Implementation & Compliance
Agreements cited: Art. 2.1, 2.2, 2.4  Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. 2, 5, 7  Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)Art. IX:2, IX, X:3(a)  GATT 1994Art. 2(b), 2(c), 2(e), 2(j)  Rules of Origin

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 consultations 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;

(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 inconsistent 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:

(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.