237. Before commencing our analysis of the issues of law and legal interpretations raised in this appeal, we provide an overview of the measures at issue and briefly outline certain pertinent facts and background information, as identified by the Panel. For additional details in this regard, recourse should be had to the Panel Reports.

238. Before the Panel, Canada and Mexico challenged the following five measures: (i) the “COOL statute”; (ii) the “2009 Final Rule (AMS)”; (iii) the “Vilsack letter”; (iv) the “Interim Final Rule (AMS)”, and (v) the “Interim Final Rule (FSIS)”. The Panel assessed the first two of these instruments—the COOL statute and its implementing regulations, that is, the 2009 Final Rule (AMS)—together as the “COOL measure”. The Panel determined, however, “that the Vilsack letter should be considered as a separate measure distinguishable from the COOL statute and the 2009 Final Rule (AMS)”, and the complainants have not appealed such finding. The Panel decided not to make findings or recommendations on the Interim Final Rule (AMS) or the Interim Final Rule (FSIS), because they had expired prior to the establishment of the Panel. This is also not appealed. The principal measure at issue in this appeal is the COOL measure.