In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed a law requiring the Department of Agriculture to develop country of origin label (“COOL”) requirements for fresh meats, fish, fruits, and vegetables sold to American consumers. It was a time of public concern over“mad cow” disease that had been found in some foreign cattle, and there were calls from consumer groups and many in government demanding that consumers be told the source of their food. After several years of public hearings, deliberations, and amendments to the rules, the COOL requirements went into effect in early 2009. Only meat from animals that were born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States could be labeled as products of the United States. Complex rules governed the labeling of meats sold from non-U.S. animals. Because of the need to segregate animals throughout the feeding and packing process, the record keeping requirements, and a mandatory animal identification system, U.S. importers found it too expensive, time consuming, and difficult to purchase imported animals. Potential fines were $1,000 per violation. Mexico and Canada filed a complaint at the WTO claiming that the rules caused price suppression in livestock of foreign origin. The United States argued that all health and safety regulation comes at some cost, and that the added costs here were not a result of discrimination. In 2012, a dispute panel ruled that the COOL requirements treated foreign livestock “less favorably” than domestic livestock, and thus violated Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. On appeal, how did the Appellate Body rule? United States—Certain Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Requirements, WT/DS384/AB/R; WT/DS386/AB/R (2012). Is this a technical regulation under the TBT Agreement? Was the discrimination against foreign livestock “arbitrary and burdensome,” or was it a “legitimate regulatory distinction?”