The “better safe than sorry” approach to policymaking and regulation, otherwise known as the “Precautionary Principle” is an often controversial risk management strategy that was developed to cope with possible risks when scientific understanding is still incomplete. Such policymaking has been a standard practice in Europe for years and it seems to be catching on like wildfire in the U.S.. The ever increasing uproar over genetically modified foods and antibiotic use in animal ag production are two of the main reasons behind its growing popularity here in the states. Many experts warn however that the burden of proof for companies that have to function under this type of regulating is so incredibly high that many choose to stop developing new products. This raises a very important question. Does the precautionary method of policymaking do more harm than good? Speakers at the National Institute for Animal Agriculture’s 2014 Annual Conference were unanimous in stating that an overabundance of precaution can impede innovation and stifle progress. They also stressed that sustainability should be the driving force behind decision making, not the “better safe than sorry” approach to policymaking.