UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING REQUIREMENTS
Document: Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Mexico
Date: 13 October 2009
Document codes: WT/DS386/7
Complainant: Mexico
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, EU, Guatemala, India, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Peru, Taiwan
Dispute stage: Implementation & Compliance
Agreements cited: Art. III, X:3(a), IX  GATT 1994Art. 2, 12  Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. 2, 5, 7  Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)Art. 2  Rules of Origin

UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
LABELLING REQUIREMENTS

Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Mexico

 The following communication, dated 9 October 2009, from the delegation of Mexico to the
Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.

 On 17 December 2008 and 7 May 2009 Mexico requested consultations with the United
States 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 , concerning the mandatory
country of origin labelling (COOL) provisions adopted by the United States.

 Mexico held consultations with the United St ates on 27 February 2009 and on 5 June 2009.
Unfortunately, the consultations failed to resolve the dispute.

 Accordingly, Mexico respectfully request s the establishment of a panel pursuant 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.

A. M
EASURES AT ISSUE
The measures relating to the COOL provisions adopted by the United States include:

(i) The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.), as amended by the
Farm, Security and Rura l Investment Act of 2002 (Section 10816 of Public
Law 107-171) and the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Section 11002 of
Public Law 110-246).
(ii) Interim Final Rule – Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, Lamb,
Chicken, Goat Meat, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, Peanuts, Pecans,
Ginseng, and Macadamia Nuts (published in 73 Federal Register 45106,
1 August 2008).

(iii) Final Rule – Mandatory Country 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)
1.
(iv) Interim Final Rule – Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Muscle Cuts of Beef
(including Veal), Lamb, Chicken, Goat and Pork, Ground Beef Ground Lamb,
Ground Chicken, Ground Goat, and Ground Pork (9 CFR Parts 317 and 381,
published in 73 Federal Register 50710, 28 August 2008).
(v) Letter from Thomas Vilsack, Secretary of Ag riculture (United States Department of
Agriculture, USDA), to Industry Representativ es (20 February 2009), cited in USDA
News Release No. 0045.09, "Vilsack Announces Implementation of Country of Origin
Labeling Law" (20 February 2009).
(vi) Any modification or amendment to measu res (i) through (v) above, including any
further implementing guidance, directives of policy announcements or any other
document issued in relation to those measures.
 Cuts of beef and ground beef are among the commodities subject to the COOL measures.
Mexico exports live cattle to the United States, where it is subsequently fed and processed into cuts of
beef and ground beef.

 Various aspects of the COOL measures, incl uding the labelling requirements, the rules of
origin, the record-keeping requirements and the mech anisms for implementing the measures have in
several ways adversely affected trade in Me xican cattle and cattle products, for example by
(i) discriminating against Mexican cattle and cattle products; (ii) increasing costs for exporters,
importers and processors; (iii) reducing prices of Mexican cattle; and (iv) generally speaking
restricting trade.

B. L
EGAL BASIS
 Mexico holds that the aforementioned meas ures are inconsistent with the following
obligations of the United States, as explained below:

(i) Mexico considers the US COOL measures to be inconsistent with the obligations of
the United States under Article III of the GATT 1994. In particular, the COOL
measures are inconsistent with Article III. 4 of the GATT 1994 to the extent that they
accord Mexican products treatment less favourab le than that accorded to products of
US origin.
(ii) The COOL measures are established and app lied in a manner that is not "uniform,
impartial and reasonable" and are therefore inconsistent with the obligations of the
United States under Article X.3(a) of the GATT 1994.
(iii) The COOL measures are inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under
Articles 2 and 12 of the TBT Agreement, for the following reasons:
(a) Mexican products are accorded treatme nt less favourable than that accorded
to like products of U.S. origin, contrary to Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement;

1 Originally published in 74 Federal Register 2658 (15 January 2009).

(b) The measures have the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to
international trade and are more trade- restrictive than necessary to fulfil a
legitimate objective, contrary to Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement;
(c) The measures are not based on an existi ng international standard, contrary to
Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement;
(d) Contrary to Article 12.1 and 12.3 of the TBT Agreement, the United States, in
the preparation and application of the COOL measures, (i) did not take into
account the special development, financial and trade needs of Mexico, as a
developing country; and (ii) created an unnecessary obstacle to exports from
Mexico as a developing country.
(iv) Should the United States assert that the COOL measures are sanitary or phytosanitary
measures, then it is Mexico's view that the COOL measures are inconsistent with
Articles 2, 5 and 7 of the SPS Agreement.
(v) The COOL measures are inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under
Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, for the following reasons:
(a) The rules of origin of the COOL me asures are used as instruments to pursue
trade objectives, contrary to Article 2(b) of the Agreement on Rules of Origin;
(b) The rules of origin of the COOL measures themselves create restrictive,
distorting, or disruptive effects on international trade, contrary to Article 2(c)
of the Agreement on Rules of Origin;
(c) The rules of origin of the COOL measu res are more stringent than the rules of
origin applied to determine whether or not a good is domestic, contrary to
Article 2(d) of the Agreement on Rules of Origin; and
(d) The rules of origin of the COOL measures are not administered in a
consistent, uniform, impartial and reasonable manner, c ontrary to Article 2(e)
of the Agreement on Rules of Origin.
(vi) In the event that certain aspects of the COOL measures should fall within the scope of
Article XI of the GATT 1994, they are incons istent with the obligations of the United
States under this Article, for the following reasons:
(a) The United States did not reduce to a minimum the difficulties and
inconveniences which the measures cause to the commerce and industry of
Mexico, as an exporting country, in violation of Article IX.2 of the
GATT 1994;
(b) The COOL measures were not adopted in such a way as to permit compliance
without seriously damaging Mexican products, materially reducing their
value, or unreasonably increasing their cost, in violation of Article IX.4 of the
GATT 1994.
 Mexico holds that the above violations cannot be justified under any of the covered
Agreements.

 The COOL measures also appear to nu llify or impair, within the meaning of
Article XXIII.1(b) of the GATT 1994, one or more be nefits accruing to Mexico, either directly or
indirectly, under the Marrakesh Agreement Establis hing the World Trade Organization, or to impede
the attainment of one of its objectives.

 For the aforementioned reasons, Mexico respectfully requests the establishment of a panel
with standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7 of the DSU.

 Mexico also requests that this matter be include d in the agenda for the next regular meeting of
the Dispute Settlement Body on 23 October 2009.