From paras. 117-118 of the the U.S. appellant submission in U.S. - COOL, here are two views of the scope of TBT 2.2. First, the view the U.S. doesn't like:
... In other words, the Panel finds that because the COOL measure does not contribute to its public policy goal enough – in a sense, perhaps, that it reflects ineffective public policy – the measure is inconsistent with the international obligations of the United States. ...
This finding of inconsistency reflects a fundamental misunderstanding by the Panel of the obligation imposed by Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, which provides that “technical regulations shall not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective . . .” Neither the text of Article 2.2, nor its relevant context, suggests that a WTO panel should step into the shoes of the Member to determine whether a measure is “good enough” at achieving the Member’s public policy objectives.
Second, the view the U.S. prefers:
Rather, a measure’s consistency with Article 2.2 is to be judged with regard to two questions: (1) whether the measure pursues an objective that is “legitimate”; and (2) whether the Member could have adopted a less trade-restrictive measure that fulfills the objective at the same level chosen by the United States.