Long, long ago, when I was in college studying psychology, we learned about the carrot or stick approach. Since my professor was a big fan of B.F. Skinner, he referred to it as positive and negative reinforcement.

The concept is simple, and one that every parent of a toddler knows too well. There are two ways to get people to do something, or, in the case of toddlers, stop doing something: reward them or punish them.

Hundreds of clinical studies have shown that people, animals and toddlers respond better and are happier to be rewarded than punished. Unfortunately, the members of Congress and the occupants of the White House apparently did not take any psychology classes.

During the past six months, there has been a wholesale change in the approach the government is taking toward food, agricultural and environmental programs. Instead of rewarding people, the new programs being rolled out focus on mandates and penalties. In addition, the underlying reason for many of these programs is based on a particular social agenda.

Take, for example, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act. This is currently before the House and is the result of a long campaign by some activist groups and certain columnists of the New York Times who are convinced that the use of antibiotics in livestock production poses a threat to human health.

While there is no credible and conclusive scientific evidence to back up their allegations, they persist in calling for the elimination of such animal health tools by livestock producers.

The legislation calls for an FDA review of already approved drugs for livestock.
Any product not reviewed in the next two years would be pulled from the market.

Dr. Jen Greiner, Director of Science and Technology for the National Pork Producers Council, estimates this would cost the average pork producer $6 per head the first year and, in 10 years, would cost the U.S. industry more than $1 billion. Greiner said a similar ban imposed in Denmark in the 1990s resulted in higher death losses and poor herd health and no major benefits to humans.
At a recent House hearing, to which the livestock industry was not invited, FDA officials gave the Obama administration’s support to the bill by saying they were in favor of the ban. Greiner said this legislation fundamentally changes the way the government has approached regulation of the pork industry.

The climate change legislation, which narrowly passed the House and is currently before the Senate, is another example of forcing change with negative consequences. The stated goal of the bill is to reduce energy consumption by dramatically increasing the cost of energy.
Proposed changes in the Clean Air Act and Clear Water Act also penalize agriculture for current accepted practices.

Is there a concerted and coordinated effort to fundamentally change American agriculture? I know some in our industry who believe this is true. While I am not ready to go that far, I will say we are in dangerous times and some of the changes being forced upon agriculture will have serious unintended future consequences.
Another aspect of these new legislative mandates is their scope. Regulations coming out of Washington lately are all-encompassing to address narrow and specific issues.

Have a concern about drugs? Ban all of them. Too much carbon in the air? Eliminate all sources. A few horse abusers? Ban all slaughter plants. A few people without health care? Increase the cost for everyone.

Often this approach generates so much opposition that the legislation is defeated and the problem is never dealt with. The USDA’s animal ID program is a good example. While we need to be able to quickly track and identify certain species directly involved in food production, we do not need to know the whereabouts of every cow, pig, chicken or rabbit in the country on a 24/7 basis.

Uncle Sam has thrown away the carrots and is carrying a big stick. And, he is swinging it wildly. My advice: duck.

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of Farm World. Readers with questions or comments for Gary Truitt may write to him in care of this publication.