Threat of agroterrorism is remote-but be prepared
Greg Henderson
| Thursday, November 08, 2001
Everything has changed. Many saw similarities in the attacks of Sept. 11 and the attack on Pearl Harbor nearly 60 years ago. But the attacks that started America's new war have proven to be much worse than Pearl Harbor, at least on the home front, and clearly agriculture and food production will never be the same.
The new word added to our vocabulary in recent weeks is agroterrorism-an attack aimed at the safety of our food supply and agricultural infrastructure. Health officials claim the likelihood of a widespread terrorist attack on our food supply that would kill large numbers of Americans is extremely remote. They believe safeguards and multiple points of inspection and monitoring would likely prevent lethally contaminated food from reaching large numbers of consumers. Still, the threat appears real.
The events of Sept. 11, and the subsequent anthrax cases, raised the stakes in the vulnerability of our food supply. And while health officials tried to reassure the public last month, critics question just how effective the current food-safety system-overseen by more than a half-dozen different government agencies-would be in the event of an agroterrorism attack.
Such criticism may be warranted, but most experts believe that even the best planned attack would result in only a relatively few deaths. The financial damage to agriculture of just one death from agroterrorism, however, would likely be catastrophic. Such an attack, even if uncovered, could mean huge financial losses for producers, wholesalers and retailers because infected animals or crops might have to be destroyed. Shortages of certain foods could also result.
Because of such a threat, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., has proposed spending $1.1 billion next year-and $271 million in each of the following 10 years-to bolster security
of America's food supply and agriculture industry.
"Our nation's crops and livestock are now at a very high risk," Sen. Roberts said. "We must move quickly to prevent attacks on grain and livestock production and we must begin a massive research effort to develop vaccines and antidotes to halt disease that could damage our food supply in the future...either accidentally or as a result of terrorism."
An outbreak of foot and mouth disease, for instance, could cause economic losses into the billions of dollars. Possibly millions of animals would be destroyed (3 million were destroyed last spring in the United Kingdom's FMD outbreak), and the commodity futures markets would likely plunge in the aftermath.
To protect America's food supply, several U.S. Department of Agriculture agencies-such as the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)-have become tightly aligned with the nation's federal intelligence agencies. And USDA and other federal agencies have tightened their security efforts. Officials note that England failed to identify FMD early on and waited too long to act after it was discovered. USDA claims to have learned from England's mistakes, and is prepared to act aggressively to stop the spread of disease.
Although the potential for agroterrorism is low, the stakes are quite high. Livestock producers have been asked to increase biosecurity measures on ranches and in feedyards. To learn more about how you can help protect your business and support your industry, see "Security on the home front" by veteran Drovers associate editor John Maday.
