Agroterrorism Awareness: Safeguarding American Agriculture.

Agroterrorism Awareness: Safeguarding American Agriculture

Center for Food Security and Public Health Iowa State University - 2003

The Wisconsin ExperienceThe Wisconsin Experience• 1996- anonymous call about

contaminated rendered products• Liquid fat contaminated with

chlordane• Supplied to large feed manufacturer

and to ~4,000 farms in four states• Milk and products from farms

contaminated• $4 million to dispose of products


OverviewOverview

• Define the goals of agroterrorism• Understand the importance of

agriculture to our nation• Realize the impact of agroterrorism• Know which agencies are involved in

mitigation and response• Identify agents of potential use• Address public health concerns

Agroterrorism Issues


What is Agroterrorism?What is Agroterrorism?

The use, or threatened use, of biological (to include toxins), chemical, or radiological

agents against some component of agriculture in such a way as to adversely

impact the agriculture industry or any component thereof, the economy, or the

consuming public.


Biological agents targeting humans, animals, or plants

Biological, chemical, or radiological agents targeting agriculture or its components

•Livestock•Food supply•Crops•Industry•Workers

TerrorismTerrorism

AgroterrorismBioterrorism Other

Conventional, radiological,

nuclear, chemical,

cyber

•Typically direct human targeting


The Goals of AgroterrorismThe Goals of Agroterrorism

• Fear• Economic and trade

disruption −Unlike human attack where

high morbidity or mortality are goals

• Exports are our lifeblood−2000, $51 billion exported

in agricultural commodities


Characteristics of Targeting Agriculture

Characteristics of Targeting Agriculture

• Attack on crops or animals not as emotional as human targets−Less chance of retaliation

• Use of agent may go undetected for days, weeks

• Plausible deniability• No one would suspect it would occur


Clues Suggesting an AttackClues Suggesting an Attack

• Traceback of animals yields dead-end• No shared factor among animals• History of the farm/facility• Other concurrent outbreaks• Unusual signs• Overwhelming mortality• Unusual season for disease


Introducing an AgentIntroducing an Agent

• Multiple methods of delivery/insertion• Covert vs. overt • Simultaneous introduction in multiple

areas• Accidental by tourists, products• Natural vs. intentional• Real vs. hoax

−Lack of consumer confidence

Historical Aspects of Biological Warfare Programs and Agroterrorism


HistoryHistory• WWII

−Germany Experimentation with Foot and Mouth

Disease

−Germany and France Late blight, wheat rusts, corn beetle,

rapeseed beetle, Colorado beetle (1944)

• 1940-50’s −Soviet Union anti-agriculture weapons


The U.S. ProgramThe U.S. Program

• Began in 1941-42− Exam use of Newcastle, fowl plague, FMD,

hog cholera, rice blast, cereal stem rust, wheat scab, late blight

• Expanded during Korean War (1950-53)• 30,000 kilos of Puccinia graminia tritici

spores (wheat stem rust), 1951-69• 1 ton of Piricularia oryzae spores for

rice, 1966• Other crop targets: soybeans, sugar

beets, sweet potatoes, cotton


The U.S. ProgramThe U.S. Program

• 1969-70, shut down−Total spent: $726 million

• BWC of 1972 finally ratified by U.S. in 1975

• Reasons for discontinuing−No guarantee they work−Costly−Aging research facilities

Importance of Agriculture




U.S. Data, 1999U.S. Data, 1999

• Food and fiber accounts for ~16.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

• 24 million Americans are employed in some aspect of agriculture

• Heavily tied to other industries and sectors


U.S. Animal Data, 2001U.S. Animal Data, 2001

Animal Number Value

Cattle 97.3 million $70.5 billion

Pigs 60 million $4.5 billion

Poultry (non-broiler)

440 million $1 billion

Sheep 7 million $700 million




Leading U.S. Crops, 2001Leading U.S. Crops, 2001

Crop Production Value

Corn grain 9.5 billion Bushels $18.9 billion

Soybeans 2.9 billion Bushels $12.6 billion

Wheat 2 billion Bushels $5.4 billion

Cotton 13.8 million acres harvested $3.1 billion

Tobacco 432,000 acres harvested $2 billion

Rice 3.3 million acres harvested $925 million


U.S. Exports, 2001U.S. Exports, 2001Soybeans $5 billion Beef/veal $2.6 billion

Corn for grain

$4.5 billion Poultry (meat)

$1.6 billion

Wheat $3.2 billion Dairy products

$1.1 billion

Tobacco $1.2 billion Pork $1 billion

Non-animal exports

$40.5 billion Eggs $189 mil

Cattle (live) $271 mil

Animal exports = $12.2 billion

Total agriculture exports = $52.7 billion

Impact


ImpactImpact• Potential for mass disruption

−Weaken workforce −Destabilize government

• Shocking public images• Loss of freedoms• Loss of consumer confidence• Higher prices?• Food shortages?


Monetary ImpactMonetary Impact

• Quickly felt by state/federal economy• Loss in trade• Other industries damaged

−Restaurants, suppliers,tourism, zoos, hunting, etc.

• Direct costs−Diagnostics, surveillance, depopulation,

cleaning, disinfection, indemnity, overtime


Losses to Crops/PlantsLosses to Crops/Plants

• $33 billion/year in losses due to plant diseases−$21 billion due to nonindigenous

pathogens

• $7 billion/year in forest products−$2.1 billion due to nonindigenous

pathogens

U.S. Agencies


U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)− Veterinary Services (VS)

Livestock, poultry emergencies

− Emergency Programs (EP) Prepares and trains veterinarians and

personnel to respond to outbreaks

− Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Crop, plant emergencies


USDA-APHIS-VSUSDA-APHIS-VS

• National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL)− Ames, IA and Plum Island, NY− Four labs− Provide diagnostic services and training

• Foreign animal disease diagnosticians• All suspect FAD’s investigated within

24 hours of notification


U.S. Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

• 3,000 USDA inspectors−Airports, borders, seaports

• Beagle Brigade −1,800 USDA inspectors−2 million interceptions annually−130 dog teams trained to sniff out meat

and produce at airports


Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Bureau of Immigration and

Customs Enforcement (ICE) • 1999, over 41,000 U.S. maritime

trading vessels• 48% increase in trade entries• 2001, Customs processed

−472 million persons −5.7 million containers

• 2002, imported 1.5 million cattle, 5.8 million pigs


Quarantine StationsQuarantine Stations

• Import quarantine of livestock and poultry−4 facilities

• Personally owned birds−6 quarantine facilities

• Plants−14 quarantine facilities


First RespondersFirst Responders

• Local and state veterinarians− Recognize outbreak of foreign animal

disease

• USDA-APHIS personnel• University extension personnel• Local, state, federal health agencies• Law enforcement• Emergency management division


Agencies Involved inWisconsin Case

Agencies Involved inWisconsin Case

• City police• County sheriff• State crime lab• Wisconsin Ag,

Trade, Consumer Protection− Environmental

inspectors− Dairy inspectors− State veterinarian

• Dept. of Natural Resources in WI, MN, MI

• Dept. of Agriculture in MN, MI, IL, IA, IN

• Dept. of Health in WI• EPA• FDA

− Office of Criminal Investigation

Livestock


VulnerabilitiesVulnerabilities

• High density husbandry• Auction markets,

transport of animals• Limited immunity to

foreign animal diseases

• Centralized feed supply and distribution


VulnerabilitiesVulnerabilities• Poor traceability of animals• Expanded international trade and

travel• Infectious agents are widespread in

other countries• Porous borders• Lack of on-farm biosecurity• Lack of foreign animal disease

awareness


BiosecurityBiosecurity• Efforts to keep out unwanted microbial

agents• Minimizing spread, risk of disease• Multiple levels at which it can

be applied• Regulate visitors• Restricting movement is essential• Quarantine new animals


Animal MovementAnimal Movement

• Mixing of animals at auction markets−More than 5 million cattle pass through

every year• Transported via trucks

−Dissemination of pathogens to other animals or fomites

• 1950-60- U.S. military secret testing

Potential Agents

Livestock and Plant Pathogens


USDA High Consequence

Livestock Pathogens and Toxins

USDA High Consequence

Livestock Pathogens and Toxins


Public Health ImplicationsPublic Health Implications

• Several zoonotic diseases−Many diseases listed on the previous

slide have human health consequences

• Mechanical (negligible threat)−Newcastle disease, swine vesicular

disease

• Biological −Avian influenza, FMD


Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD)


• Virus• Considered to be the most important

livestock disease in the world• Not in U.S. since 1929• Vesicular disease of cloven- hoofed

animals• Spread by aerosol & fomites


OIE Early Warning SystemOIE Early Warning System

• Disease reported within 24 hours to OIE

• Informs countries at risk

• Trade shut down until further notice


Present

Recent Activity

Free

(Rev. 3-25-01)

Foot-and-Mouth DiseaseDistribution and Recent Activity

Foot-and-Mouth DiseaseDistribution and Recent Activity




• Animals at risk in the U.S.− 100 million cattle− 60 million swine− 7 million sheep− 40 million wildlife − Not horses

• Humans rarely infected• Huge economic impact


U.K. FMD Outbreak, 2001U.K. FMD Outbreak, 2001

• Total costs over £10 billion−Ag industry, compensation,

tourism, sports

• 6 million animals slaughtered−FMD free in less than 1 year

• Public perception−Animal welfare−Smoke pollution


WildlifeWildlife

• Risk of enzootic wildlife infection−Permanent trade embargoes possible

• Risk to zoos and endangered species−1985 Israel FMD infection in gazelles−1,500 deaths, spread to neighboring

livestock• $100 billion spent in the U.S.

−Hunting, fishing, camping, skiing, other outdoor activities


Newcastle Disease (ND)Newcastle Disease (ND)

• Virus affecting poultry• Four pathotypes

−Asymptomatic, lentogenic, mesogenic, velogenic

• vND endemic in Asia, Middle East, Africa, Central/ South America

• Causes drop in egg production, neurological damage, and death


Newcastle Disease (ND)Newcastle Disease (ND)

• 1950: First U.S. case• 1972: Eradication campaign began

−12 million birds destroyed−$56 million dollar cost to tax payers

• Outbreaks continue due to illegal importation of exotic birds and poultry

• Humans can acquire eye infections


Newcastle DiseaseNewcastle Disease

• 2002-2003: California outbreak−2,662 premises depopulated−4 million birds destroyed−$160 million impact

• Developing countries−Effects quality and quantity of dietary

protein−Significant effect on human health

Crops and Plants


Plant TargetsPlant Targets• Food crops

−Wheat: #1 grain export in 2002 −Corn: #2 grain export in 2002−Soybean: U.S. produced ~46% of

world’s crops in 1999-2000−Citrus, sugarcane

• Fiber−Cotton

• Timber−Northwest U.S.


Economically Damaging Plant Pathogens in U.S.

Economically Damaging Plant Pathogens in U.S.

Citrus Canker Florida Erad program

Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus

Southern U.S. Highly virulent

Plum Pox Virus Pennsylvania Erad program

Wheat rust Nationwide Varieties resistant

Sudden Oak Death

Northern CA Highly destructive

Rice Blast Southern U.S. Easily spread


Plant Pathogens with Trade Issues

Plant Pathogens with Trade Issues

• Karnal Bunt−Wheat

• Maize Streak virus−Wheat, grass, maize

• Bacterial Wilt−Potatoes, tomatoes,

peppers, eggplant• Curcurbit Yellow Stunt

Disorder virus−Cantaloupe, watermelon


Fungal Plant AgentFungal Plant Agent

• Karnal Bunt− Tilletia indica Mitra− Wheat− Affects taste not yield− 1996 discovered in

AZ, CA, TX Clean up cost $45 million

− Remain viable in soil 5 years


Factors Influencing Effectiveness of Crop Pathogens

Factors Influencing Effectiveness of Crop Pathogens

• Meteorological conditions• Susceptibility of crop • Planting times, season, irrigation• Geographic terrain• Ability of agent to survive and thrive• Dependence of agent upon insect

vector, mechanical, or wind transmission

Conclusion


What Have We Learned?What Have We Learned?

• Threats need to be taken seriously• Framework for response and

coordination• Adequate resources and expertise

− Determine extent of attack− Prevent disease spread and associated

losses− Prevent any public health implications− Finding the perpetrator


Improving BiosecurityImproving Biosecurity

• Tailored to each farm−Cost-benefit

considerations−Must consider

state/federal concerns−Universal precautions

• Role of USDA-APHIS• Involvement of

industry groups


SummarySummary

• Agroterrorism is a real threat • Economic consequences could be

severe• Awareness education imperative• Working plans in place • Minimal direct human illness• Continued vigilance essential

Additional Resources


• Davis RG. Agroterrorism: Need for awareness. In: Scanes C, ed. Perspectives in world food and agriculture: 2003. Ames, IA: ISU Press. In press., 2003

• USDA-APHIS website www.aphis.usda.gov

• OIE website www.oie.int

Acknowledgments

Development of this presentation was funded by a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to the Center for Food Security and Public Health at Iowa State University.

Acknowledgments

Author: Radford G. Davis, DVM, MPH

Co-author: Danelle Bickett-Weddle, DVM

Date post:	26-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	madeleine-newman
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Agroterrorism Awareness: Safeguarding American Agriculture.

Documents