(185) Between 2010 and 2013, pharmaceutical companies spent approximately 123 million dollars to lobby against PAMTA. (186)
(224) The PAMTA bill illustrates the "after-the-fact" approach by commanding the withdrawal of medically important antibiotics for non-therapeutic use or growth promotion and thus clearly disregards the root of antibiotic resistance by ignoring the necessity of repeated sub-therapeutic dosing on CAFOs in order to prevent anticipated disease.
Although critics attack FDA for its voluntary strategy, urging the Agency to take a more powerful approach, and encouraging the passage of bills such as PAMTA, these "stronger" actions do not coincide with the reality of modern farm conditions.
PAMTA procedures for withdrawing approval of all subtherapeutic use
antimicrobials are consistent with the PAMTA requirements.
The most vocal opponent to PAMTA
is the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC).
begins to address these concerns, more effort is needed to reform the conventional (nonorganic) U.S.
The Farm Bureau, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and the poultry, pork, and beef industries oppose PAMTA
. They believe that the use of FDA-approved antibiotics prevents and treats disease before disease-carrying bacteria can enter our food supply, and that there is a lack of conclusive evidence linking antibiotics used in animal agriculture with an increase in human antibiotic resistance.
Nevertheless, PAMTA is not a blanket ban on non-therapeutic
Thus, even if producers eliminated the use of PAMTA drugs, any
Nationwide, more than 350 medical, public health, consumer, environmental and agricultural groups support PAMTA. The New Hampshire Public Health Association is among them.
PAMTA is designed to get government to do one of its fundamental jobs: protect human health when individuals cannot.