How should the panel rule on State F's request for a finding that State E's legislation violates the latter's obligations under GATT 1994? What are things that impact the decision?

If, State E, concerned that its nationals are being poisoned by chemical growth stimulants fed to livestock to make them grow faster and heavier, enacted legislation that forbids its livestock producers from using these stimulants and also forbids the sale of any meat from such animals within its territory. The law also forbids the importation of any animal fed a growth stimulant or any product from such an animal. Because it is impossible to detect the growth stimulant either in live animals or in their meat, the legislation requires importers to certify that the animals (or the animals from which an animal product is derived) have never been fed a growth stimulant.

The livestock producers in State F have been using growth stimulants for many years to grow larger animals at lower cost, and they believe any possible health risk to consumers is insignificant. State F's Ministry of Health also agrees that growth stimulants pose little risk to consumers, and it encourages its livestock producers to use them. Because State F's livestock producers are no longer able to export their animals or the products from those animals to State E, they have asked their government to take action through the WTO on their behalf. Both State E and State F are members of the WTO. Consultation with State E proved unsuccessful, so State F asked the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body to appoint a Dispute Settlement Panel. This has been done.