Abstract
After the 9/11 event agro-terrorism has continually been recognized as a national security threat. It aims at depriving citizens off the confidence they have in the government. The act also endangers human life as the contaminated food is unhealthy. Agriculture has much vulnerability and although it does not have the shocking factors as other terrorist strategies it may be used as a secondary target.
The US not having been a victim of a large-scale, successful agro-terrorism attack is not a guarantee that the nation’s agricultural and food processing systems are secure. Many policies have been implemented and initiatives introduced to provide solutions to these apprehensions by establishing processes of risk assessment, risk control, and authentication of implemented deterrents. This has given room for substantial agricultural interests, scientists, public health officials and regulators to mitigate the defensive position of this fundamental sector and to endeavor in minimizing threats posed by agro-terrorism.
Among the greatest threats posed to any nation is a disruption of its food supply chain, which includes: food production, harvesting, storage and distribution. The federal government of America has always been burdened with carrying the fear of potential attacks the nation’s food supply. Referred to as agro-terrorism is a deliberate criminal act committed by the agricultural industry or food production with the intention of either disrupting a country’s economy or cause health crisis to citizens.
The threat of agro-terrorism can originate from different categories of perpetrators. The first and most dangerous type emanate from revolutionary groups like the al Qaeda whose main agenda is to put the economy of US at risk. The second group is made up of selfish economic opportunists who are after manipulating the market with the aim of making a profit. For instance, if they want to sell a certain pesticide or vaccines they opt to introduce a virus to force people into buying their products. Another category is that of domestic terrorists who may view the introduction of foot and mouth disease as a blow against the federal government. Such persons tend to do a threatening act to the agricultural sector of out of their narcissistic motivations.
Unfortunately, there are various ways in which toxins, chemicals or radiological agents may be used to contaminate agricultural produce (Espejo, 2013). With such alternatives of biological weapons, terrorists can easily contaminate America’s food supply and even go an extra mile of initiating diseases to crops at their nursery stage. Hence chances of the threat of agro-terrorism taking place are extremely high. The Homeland Security of America has a tough task in maintaining the security and integrity of food supply within its borders.
Agro-terrorism does not aim at killing livestock or plants. However, it uses these means to disturb the social peace by causing economic calamities in the agricultural and food production sectors. Eventually, citizens will lose confidence in the government giving terrorists ample time to plot any catastrophic evil plans they may be having. Despite agro-terrorism being a low-cost, it can be a highly effective strategy towards the al-Qaeda accomplishing their goal of ripping apart the United States’ economy (ZINK, 2006). A good example of this is back in the year 2002 when manuals on how to make plant and animal poisons were found at a terrorists’ hideout in Afghanistan.
Terrorists are aware that if they unleash a successful agro-terrorism incident, it will shake the economic welfare of US who are by far the leading exporters of agricultural products to the rest of the world. Therefore a significant in exports as a result of an agro-cultural attack would negatively affect global economies (Żuber & Lewis, 2015). Normally this economic disruption may result due to additional costs incurred in quarantining suspected stock. It may also be as a result of the government having to compensate farmers for the destruction of their agricultural products and the related industries. With such high benefits to terrorists and low cost of executing it, agro-terrorism fits as an evolving strategy for al Qaeda that is increasingly attractive.
The American agricultural system has three vulnerabilities namely: livestock inclination to contact foreign animal diseases, the regular, condensed transportation of livestock and lack of security measures. More especially the protection of livestock is much more at stake owing to how hard it is to secure open pasture fields from potential perpetrators. It has been a challenge on how to fund a response to an agro-terrorism attack. The U.S. government lacks well-established channels for funding appropriate response mechanisms.
Every level of the food chain, including farms, feedlots, and meatpacking firms, fertilizers storage facilities, and distribution operations, remain exposed to the threat of agro-terrorism. Terrorist will always take advantage of any form of lack of attentiveness in this sector. It is therefore upon the government to develop strategies to stop agro-terrorism and minimize its impact in case it occurs.
The 9/11 catastrophe reinforced the need for the US government to enhance the security. It also raised concerns around food security in the states. The term food security, which conventionally was used to refer to stable supply of adequate food to people, suddenly took on a different meaning. This was what triggered the then President Bush to sign the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002.
It becomes the responsibility of FDA to develop and implement regulations in fields such as registration of food processing firms, establishment and maintenance of records, administrative detention and prior notice of imported food. In this policy, the definition of food entails beverages and animals diet. The Act was chiefly designed to put the federal government of US at a better place to prepare, respond or prevent bioterrorism and other public health emergencies related to food production.
As already mentioned, after the September 11th attack concerns around food security in the US were raised as it was rumored that a significant amount of AL Qaeda’s training manual was devoted to the agro-terrorism. (Ngadje et al., 2008, p.1265). It is increasingly difficult to ignore the issue of food safety since many Americans count on the government with the issue of the food safety and food defense. That makes it even more reasonable for the state to develop and introduce the comprehensive strategy in its mitigation efforts.
Mitigation strategy
It is important to take Food Security as a priority and an essential part of National Security. There are several ways through which the federal government of US has retaliated to all the threats posed by the increasing risk of food contamination. The Strategic Partnership Program Agro-terrorism (SPPA) Initiative is up to the task of reducing this threat. However, there is no a single model of mitigation in the case if terror hits the agro-culture and livestock of the US, rather, there is a vision of treating each risk so each case is separate, since the issue could be case-specific, rather than applied to the whole range of the similar issues.
Amusingly, this initiative comprises of several institutions, such as the DHS, FBI, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the FDA, not leaving out the state and industry volunteers. The backbone of forming this initiative was so as collect essential information about the vulnerabilities in the food and agriculture sector. And from the so collected data develop mitigation strategies, show major research gaps and requirements, and boost knowledge and understanding of the high risks affiliated to the threats of Agro-terrorism.
Out of all the efforts initiated by various organizations, efforts by SPPA have resulted in tangible and most comprehensive progress toward solving and preventing the threat of agro-terrorism addressing the agricultural terrorism. Additionally farmers and ranchers to should be advised to at their facilities and put restricting signs to keep off unauthorized individuals from visiting their plantations. They should also be alert to notice strangers within their zones. By citizens being aware of the threat of agro-terrorism and taking action such action, they will be helping in reducing chances of agro-terrorism. Therefore government agencies should work together with such farmers and quickly attend to them when they report any unusual incidents on their farms.
Application of agricultural security and food defense-related limitations and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in vendor assurance programs and procurement selection processes may also aid in preventing agro-terrorism. This strategy will re-assure the safety and defense of raw agricultural ingredients and other essential inputs. Where security measures are implemented throughout the food industry, it will cause a trickle-down effect. For example, food processors may train their suppliers on food defense if they are not informed. Ideally, food retailers may ask for a defense plan from their food processors and train them if they do not have one.
Companies directly or indirectly related to the food chain should encourage the development of employee peer monitoring program that put more emphasis on food defense operations and agricultural security. Workers are beneficial assets that not only helps a company achieve its objectives, but that can also be used at no cost in enhancing security. The employee peer monitoring program will avoid incidents of an unidentified person being in food production companies. It will also make it easy for a worker to be noticed when in an area not associated with their job.
Trade industry groups should encourage its associates to exercise agriculture security practices. This can be easily done through guidance documents developed in conjunction with their industry members. It is promising to know that most of the industry groups already have mechanisms of promoting agricultural. However, an evaluation should be done to check whether the contemporary programs strengthen food defense plans or just praise it.
It is without a doubt that the food and agriculture sector is very vital economically, socially and politically for the stability of American. In spite that only a small portion of the country’s workforce are in farming, about 20% of the working population is in industries directly or indirectly related to food production (Monke & LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, 2007, p. 09) . In 2002, about a tenth of the nation’s gross domestic product came from this food and fiber sector.
Conclusion
Despite all the mitigation measures, not all the risks of the agro-terrorism have been eliminated in the food industry. Just like all the other significant sectors in the U.S economy, food and agriculture industries must predict the probable terrorist attacks on their provision and measure the readiness of quick response in the case such an attack occurs. More importantly, to fight with comprehensive mitigation strategies, that in turn would serve not only on prevention of the terrorist attack but also on the minimization of the aftermath damage.
Technical feasibility, being cheap and the openness and vulnerability of farming operations are some of the characteristics that make agro-terrorism attractive to perpetrators. So it should be upon the government and local people to work together in making it hard for terrorists to introduce chemical contaminants or plant or animal pathogens. This can only be done by knowing all possible target areas and be vigilant.
The military and intelligence department should also monitor the movement and communications of key people and technology in the food chain. Lastly, business owners should include bioterrorism in their business continuity plans, as by working together and learning, mitigating the threat is simplified. Acknowledging the various initiatives working towards fighting agro-terrorism is preparing the US to respond to the threat might bring.
References
Bronze, M. S., & Greenfield, R. A. (2005). Biodefense: Principles and pathogens.
Espejo, R. (2013). Bioterrorism.
Monke, J., & LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE. (2007). Agroterrorism: Threats and Preparedness.
ZINK, D. L. (2006). Agroterrorism: Issues of Reality. Journal of Food Science, 69(2), crh47-crh47.
Żuber, M., & Lewis, I. (2015). Agroterrorism - A Threat To The Agricultural Sector.International conference KNOWLEDGE-BASED ORGANIZATION, 21(1).
Nganje, W., Bier, V., Han, H & Zack, L. (2008). Models of Interdependent Security along the Milk Supply Chain. The US: American Journal of Agricultural Economics.
