This editorial appears in the Dec. 6, 2009, Yakima Herald-Republic.

When it comes to a system for tracking meat and dairy cattle, the U.S. still has a long way to go before it matches what's taking place in Australia and Canada.

This nation's voluntary approach to tracking diseased livestock has few admirers and many critics. There's a lot to be learned from the approaches taken by the Aussies and Canadians. The question is: Will our federal government take heed?

Australia has created a mandatory system of tracking animals, from birth to death and every sale in between. It's a laborious process that requires the cooperation of packers and ranchers, but it appears to be getting the job done. Every one of the 28 million cattle in Australia now wears an ear tag with a special identification code that can be electronically scanned and the information transmitted to a nationwide database.

With 65 percent of its beef headed for export, Australia has much to gain -- and much to lose -- if consumers fear its meat is contaminated.

Maintaining consumer confidence has been the name of the game for beef producers across the world ever since mad cow disease, which causes chronic degeneration of an animal's nervous system, started showing up in England during the 1990s. To rid itself of mad cow, England destroyed 4.3 million head of cattle.

In the U.S., mad cow disease and the Yakima Valley made headlines in December 2003 with the discovery of a diseased animal on a Mabton dairy. The cow's origin was eventually traced to Canada, but officials were never able to locate the diseased cow's herd, which may have eaten the same tainted food. That is critical, because the only known way for cattle to get mad cow disease is by eating feed containing tissues from infected animals.

The effects of this single mad cow in Mabton were immediate and costly. Japan, Korea and other nations slapped a ban on beef imported from the U.S. Japan's 18-month ban cost U.S. beef producers roughly $1.5 billion, while Korea's prohibition cost an estimated $1.6 billion over two years.

Since 2004, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has tried to establish a program that mirrors what Australia developed. But instead of tracking cattle with ease and bringing a measure of confidence to its system, the USDA has succeeded mostly in gaining critics for its one-process-fits-all approach.

Unlike Australia's mandatory requirements, the USDA's approach is purely voluntary. So far, its National Animal Identification System has only 37 percent of the livestock producers taking part.

And while the Australia tracking system is overseen by a privately operated, producer-owned company, the USDA has opted for a nationwide government-run operation.

To improve its chances of success, the USDA might consider blending what Australia has done with what Canada has developed. Our neighbors to the north created a less-burdensome system that offers what is called a "bookend" approach, tracking just the birth and death or slaughter of an animal. To fill in the rest of an animal's history, producers and owners are required to keep records on sales and movement of cattle.

Few beef producers in Canada believe the USDA will ever achieve up-to-date tracking information with its nationwide system. It's better to leave that responsibility, critics argue, to individual states overseeing privately run operations with uniform standards for information retrieval so animals can be tracked.

By taking the best of what Australia and Canada have to offer with respect to tracking animals destined for human consumption, the USDA could increase its chances of convincing others that what it has already spent -- about $147 million -- was worth the price.

* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Bob Crider, Spencer Hatton and Karen Troianello.