Introduction

351. We turn now to the appeals relating to the Panel's finding that the COOL measure is inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. In ruling on the claims raised by Canada and by Mexico under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, the Panel found that the COOL measure is “trade-restrictive”; that the objective pursued by the United States through the COOL measure is “to provide consumer information on origin”; and that this objective is “legitimate” within the meaning of Article 2.2. Ultimately, the Panel sustained the claims of the complainants and found that “the COOL measure violates Article 2.2 because it does not fulfil the objective of providing consumer information on origin with respect to meat products”.

352. Each of the participants challenges aspects of the Panel's interpretation of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement and the application of its chosen legal framework to the COOL measure. The United States requests us to reverse the Panel's ultimate conclusion that the COOL measure is inconsistent with Article 2.2, whereas both Canada and Mexico request us to uphold this finding. In the event that we accept the United States' appeal and reverse the Panel's finding that “the COOL measure violates Article 2.2 because it does not fulfil the objective of providing consumer information on origin with respect to meat products”, both Canada and Mexico request us to complete the analysis and find that the COOL measure is inconsistent with Article 2.2 because it is more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective.