HLSS522Wk5

Abstract

Although the consequences of an

agroterrorism attack are substantial,

relatively little attention has been focused

on the threat. Unfortunately, the

agricultural and food industries are

vulnerable to disruption, and the

capabilities that terrorists would need for

such an attack are not considerable. In the

S

RAND > Published Research > Research Briefs >

ince the 9/11 terrorist attacks, potential vulnerabilities in the nation’s

critical infrastructure have come under increasing scrutiny.

However, compared with the attention focused on such vital “nodes”

as transportation and telecommunications, relatively little

consideration has been paid to threats to the agriculture and food industries.

A study by RAND researcher Peter Chalk focuses attention on the issue of

agroterrorism — the deliberate introduction of a disease agent, either

against livestock or into the food chain, to undermine socioeconomic

stability and/or generate fear. He lays out the consequences of such an

attack, examines key weaknesses inherent in the agricultural sector and the

Agroterrorism What Is the Threat and What Can Be Done About It?

by Peter Chalk

Related Topics: Agricultural Sciences, Critical Infrastructure Protection, Food Supply, Food Supply Security

RESEARCH B R I E F

OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.

short term and medium term, a series of

targeted initiatives could improve the

current situation; over the longer term,

efforts should be directed toward

standardizing and streamlining food-

supply and agricultural safety measures

within the framework of a single,

integrated strategy.

food chain, assesses the capabilities needed to exploit those vulnerabilities,

and discusses potential ways to improve agricultural emergency response

and management.

An Attack Would Have Huge Impact

A major agroterrorist attack would have substantial economic repercussions,

especially when allied industries and services — suppliers, transporters,

distributors, and restaurant chains — are taken into account. The fiscal

downstream effect of a deliberate act of sabotage would be

multidimensional, reverberating through other sectors of the economy and

ultimately impacting the consumer.

Aside from economic considerations, a successful bio-assault against the agricultural sector could also undermine the public’s

confidence in, and support for, the government. The mechanics of dealing with an attack — especially the potential need for

mass animal slaughter to contain a major disease outbreak — could certainly generate public criticism (as it did during the 2001

foot and mouth epidemic in the United Kingdom).

Beyond the immediate economic and political impact, such attacks could also elicit fear and anxiety among the public. This

would be particularly true in the event of a public health scare resulting from foodborne outbreaks or the spread of animal

pathogens contagious to humans.

Significant Vulnerabilities Exist

Key vulnerabilities in the agricultural sector stem from:

Concentrated and intensive contemporary farming practices. Highly crowded breeding and rearing conditions mean an

outbreak of a contagious disease would be very difficult to contain, especially if it is airborne, and could require the

destruction of all exposed livestock.

Increased susceptibility of livestock to disease. This has occurred because of changes in husbandry practices — from

sterilization programs to dehorning, branding, and hormone injections — and from the overuse and misuse of antibiotics.

Insufficient farm/food-related security and surveillance. Farms seldom incorporate vigorous means to prevent

unauthorized access; most animal auctions and barn sales are devoid of organized on-site surveillance; and food

processing and packing plants tend to lack uniform security and safety preparedness measures, particularly the small-

and medium-scale facilities that have proliferated in recent years.

An inefficient passive disease-reporting system. Responsibility for reporting unusual occurrences of animal disease lies

with livestock producers, who may have disincentives for doing so because of the lack of a consistent program for

agricultural indemnity.

Inappropriate veterinarian and diagnostic training. The number of veterinarians able to recognize and treat foreign

livestock diseases is declining, reflecting a relatively poorly paid profession that suffers from a lack of appropriate

training in exotic animal epidemiology.

A focus on aggregate rather than individual livestock statistics. The movement toward larger herds and breeding

operations largely precludes the option of attending to animals individually, making it more likely that emerging diseases

will be overlooked.

Capabilities to Exploit Vulnerabilities in Agriculture Are Not

Considerable

Terrorists can choose from a large menu of bio-agents, most of which are environmentally hardy, are not the focus of concerted

livestock vaccination programs, and can be easily smuggled into the country. The food chain offers a low-tech mechanism for

achieving human deaths. Many animal pathogens cannot be transmitted to humans, which makes them easier for terrorists to

work with. Finally, because livestock are the primary vector for pathogenic transmission, there is no weaponization obstacle to

overcome.

Despite the ease and implications of a successful attack, agroterrorism is unlikely to constitute a primary form of terrorist

aggression because it lacks a single, highly visible point of focus for the media (a primary consideration in any terrorist attack).

However, disrupting the food sector could well emerge as a viable secondary modus operandi to further destabilize an already

disoriented society after a conventional terrorist campaign. Being able to use cheap and unsophisticated means to undermine a

state’s economic base gives this form of aggression a high cost/benefit payoff that would be very useful to groups faced with

overcoming significant power asymmetries.

Recommendations

Short- to medium-term recommendations include the following:

1. Conducting a comprehensive needs analysis to determine appropriate investment requirements for the federal

emergency management infrastructure.

2. Increasing the number of state and local personnel with the skills to identify and treat exotic foreign animal diseases.

3. Assessing how to foster more coordinated and standardized links between the U.S. agricultural and intelligence

communities.

4. Focusing attention on issues of law enforcement and the use of forensic investigations to determine whether disease

outbreaks are deliberate or naturally occurring.

5. Revisiting the effectiveness of the passive (voluntary) disease reporting system, especially in providing more consistency

with indemnity payments to compensate farmers for destroyed livestock.

6. Evaluating surveillance, internal quality control, and emergency response at food processing and packing plants to weigh

the immediate costs of improving biosecurity against the long-term benefits of instituting those upgrades.

Over the longer term, additional effort should be directed toward standardizing and streamlining food-supply and agricultural

safety measures within the framework of a single, integrated strategy that cuts across the missions and capabilities of federal,

state, and local agencies.

Predictive Measures

Intelligence measures (identify potential threats; understand motivations; predict behavior)

Monitoring programs (detect/track specific pathogens/diseases)

Establishment of laboratories to research the most-virulent diseases

International counterproliferation treaties, protocols, and agreements

Creation of agent-specific resistance in livestock

Specific vaccination against the most-threatening animal disease agents

Modification (where possible) of vulnerable food/agriculture practices

Biosecurity and surveillance

Education and training (federal, state, and local)

Response Measures Early detection of exotic/foreign pathogenic agents

Early prediction of disease dispersion patterns

Early containment procedures

Epidemiology and treatment

Depopulation and carcass disposal

Diplomatic/legal/economic/ political responses

Compensation and indemnity

Education and training

Public awareness and outreach programs

Vaccine and pharmaceutical stockpiling

SOURCE: Most of the above items are from Henry Parker, Agricultural Bioterrorism: A Federal Strategy to Meet the Threat, McNair Paper 65, Washington, D.C.: Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, March 2000, pp. 40–41.

An effort such as this would help to unify the patchwork of largely uncoordinated bio-emergency preparedness and response

initiatives that now exist. Integrating agriculture and food safety measures would also reduce jurisdictional conflicts and

eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort.

Research conducted by

RAND NATIONAL SECURITY RESEARCH DIVISION

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Research brief series. RAND research briefs present policy-oriented summaries of individual published, peer-reviewed documents or of a

body of published work.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized

posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its

research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the

opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

1776 Main Street Santa Monica, California 90401-3208

RAND® is a registered trademark. © 1994-2023 RAND Corporation.

ABOUT The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the

world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.