Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA)
Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA)
It’s important for consumers to know that by law, no meat sold in the United States is allowed to contain antibiotic residues that violate the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) standards. This bill ignores the many voluntary and regulatory actions already in place to ensure safe use of antibiotics in livestock.
Antibiotics used in livestock must go through a rigorous scientific testing process before being approved by FDA. This process also includes a safety assessment which is more stringent than that of human antibiotics and assures animals remain healthy and the food supply remains safe. Healthy animals are the foundation of a safe food supply.
Antimicrobial resistance worldwide is a concern for producers, researchers and the veterinary and medical community. A tremendous amount of international research has been done on the topic and to date there is ZERO scientific evidence that use of antimicrobials in livestock causes antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in humans. That being said, NCBA and our producers continually work internationally with veterinarians, animal scientists, researchers and experts on AMR to improve our knowledge of this complex question; and to ensure the safest and judicious use of antimicrobials as one tool to maintain cattle health.
This bill ignores the current rigorous FDA approval process for animal antibiotics as well as the additional safeguards and monitoring of AMR provided by USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) who performs residue testing at harvesting plants. USDA, FDA and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) data are collected with the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS).
The bill undermines FDA’s process of reviewing the human health impacts of individual animal drugs based on science and risk assessment. All antibiotics used to keep animals healthy have passed the FDA process and have been shown to be safe and effective. They have also undergone review for their potential to cause increased antibiotic resistance. This legislation removes seven of these antibiotics from the market unless sponsors can demonstrate what has already been proven in the review process – they are safe and effective.
In addition to the longstanding robust regulatory process, producers from each species group as well as veterinarians have long had in place judicious use guidelines. These species-specific Judicious Use principles are widely observed NCBA’s guidelines have been in place 1987, built upon the strong guidelines from the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Association of Bovine Practicitioners and the Academy of Veterinary Consultants judicious use guidelines and include principles specific to preventative use, disease treatment and growth promotant use of antimicrobials . This is not a static document. NCBA actively works with producers regarding these guidelines as well as monitors the science to ensure the guidelines stay consistent with current knowledge.
This bill will not allow prevention of disease in livestock, takes away veterinarians’ ability to practice medicine and producer’s ability to best manage herd health and raise healthy cattle. Prevention of disease is a cornerstone in both human and animal medicine. This bill undermines preventative medicine despite the fact that experience in other countries has clearly demonstrated the very real damage to animal and human health this would cause.
While citing Europe as a model, the bill would remove from market a broader range of products than those banned in Europe. The result of the non-scientific removal of antibiotics used as growth promoters in Europe is clear: increased animal disease, increased use of therapeutic antibiotics, and no improvement in human antibiotic resistance patterns. In Denmark, the use of antibiotics to treat animal disease doubled. In The Netherlands, antibiotic use increased in the face of increased animal disease. Most significantly, some important antibiotic resistances increased in humans, even as these same resistances were declining in the United States. Recent published, peer-review articles document these impacts and warn that broad political decisions not based on science – like this legislation – carry unintended consequences.
Many voluntary and regulatory actions to ensure safe use of antibiotics in animals are in place. Species-specific Judicious Use principles are widely observed; voluntary risk assessments have been done by sponsors, and FDA is now requiring specific risk assessments for new and existing antibiotic products; surveillance programs are in place at the farm, marketplace and public health levels, and can be strengthened. Data from USDA, CDC and FDA shows these efforts are working and we should not risk undermining animal health by passing this bill.
Animal health and well-being are top priorities for livestock producers across the country. Without healthy animals, we would not have a healthy livestock industry. Producers utilize important tools like vaccines and antimicrobials in conjunction with good management practices to prevent, control and treat disease. Antimicrobials are a cost to production and efforts to decrease disease-related used include vaccines, genetic selection and managing the movement of animals. This allows producers to minimize their use of antimicrobials and provide a higher quality of life for their livestock, while keeping the food supply safe.
This bill reduces the ability for a livestock producers and veterinarians to prevent disease which will ultimately lead to animal welfare concerns, food safety issues and losses due to increased illness and death.