Recent comments by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Administrator for Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Ron DeHaven regarding live cattle imports from Canada have left some in Washington wringing their hands about yet another heated debate in the beef industry.

DeHaven recently mentioned that APHIS, the USDA agency responsible for dealing with the bulk of investigation, tracking and monitoring of BSE and other foreign animal disease, is considering a modification to the rule that prevents cattle over 30 months of age from moving across our northern border. DeHaven commented that pending the results of the a comprehensive risk assessment and a careful examination of safety standards, the Department would publish such a rule changing in the next six to eight months.

If this is sounding familiar - it should. It wasn't too long ago that APHIS and USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) went through a similar process to restore trade between Canada and the U.S. in regards to live cattle under 30 months of age and boxed beef. It would be hard to think about that protracted process, not to mention lawsuits, that were involved in that process without shaking your head.

Reopening the border to the young live cattle has not been easy and the wounds it caused within the different camps in the U.S. beef industry have been slow to heal, both on the countryside and also in Congress.

DeHaven's comments have sparked a critical response from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) and the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund (RCALF) are likely to follow. NCBA indicated its strong concerns with opening the market to these older cattle because they argue there is still a gap in scientific uniformity between Canada and the U.S., particularly in monitoring and ensuring animal health.

And perhaps it's a good point. Perhaps we should revisit the scenario from earlier this year where cattle over 30 months as well as pregnant cattle were brought into the U.S. from Canada and then reconsider DeHaven's proposal. And on top of that, there is not a consistent method in place to track both American and Canadian cattle.

Secretary Johanns has been forthright about instituting a grassroots program for animal identification, though the process has been slow by necessity, it has begun to take shape with a handful of independent initiatives across the country, including a proposal from NCBA. Without an animal identification program in place, the question remains: Is it wise to expand the number and diversity of cattle coming across the Canadian border? Furthermore, would this rule complicate or simplify the existing regulatory struggles in ensuring the health and identification of cattle that are already allowed across the border?

But before we go down that road, to USDA's defense, it is a forward-thinking proposal and depending upon how much faith you have in free-market economics, having fewer barriers to trade, particularly in North America, could only lend itself to greater potential for profitability and competition for the U.S. beef industry. In the long run, this is the sort of thing that has the potential to foster industry growth, but like anything in agriculture, patience lends itself to success. A little impatience could do more harm than good.

Aside from industry voices, this issue will most surely become a topic of debate and discussion within the Congress as lawmakers wrestle with the food safety and health related to bird flu, but also with the continuing realities of BSE and the safety and trade implications that surround the disease.

Hopefully DeHaven and Secretary Johanns will take this as a warning sign to cool their heels on this proposal, and exercise some patience.