By Brooke Hatfield and Sharon Omahen
University of Georgia
While many know of the threat terrorism poses to Americans,
few
consider the hazards of agroterrorism.
“Agriculture is critical to the economic infrastructure of the
United States,” said Lynda Kelley, a researcher with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service.
“One-sixth of the gross domestic product is
agriculture-related,”
Kelley said. “Yet the U.S. General Accounting Office’s reports on
terrorism fail to address threats to agriculture.”
Agroterrorism is generally defined as maliciously using
biological agents as weapons against the agricultural industry.
An agroterrorist attack can use pathogens, pests or toxins,
Kelley said.
Agroterrorism isn’t new
It isn’t a new concept, she said. Germans used anthrax against
livestock in World War I. And every state with an offensive
bio-weapons program has an anti-agriculture component. A covert
offensive program in the former Soviet Union had a big
anti-agriculture component.
The purpose of these attacks, she said, is the same as with
any
other form of terrorism: fear.
The costs would not be limited to the loss of farm products,
Kelley said. They would include the cost of diagnosis, the
required destruction of contaminated properties, the loss of
exports and damage to consumer confidence.
Kelley has seen the toll on a nation’s economic and
psychological
structure firsthand. She spent time in England during the
foot-and-mouth disease outbreak there.
“The economic impact isn’t just agricultural,” she said. “The
employment rate (in England) is the lowest it’s been in 26 years.
And tourism has dropped.”
The environment was affected by the outbreak, too. Water
tables
were contaminated by buried animals.
Don’t forget the psychological impact
But Kelley said the psychological impact affected her most.
“Farming is a very social industry,” she said. “People holed up.
They didn’t want to expose their herds.”
Children were quarantined and their pets killed. Veterinarians
and military personnel were the only ones allowed on and off
farms. Many farmers went bankrupt. Some committed suicide.
“When I was over there, I decided I was not going through this
again,” she said. “I knew we had to find some other options.”
In the United States, measures are in effect to counter an
agroterrorist attack. A microbial defense initiative was formed
in the wake of post-Sept. 11 anthrax attacks. “Our biggest ally
in agriculture has been the Department of Defense,” she said.
Methods for dealing with an attack, however, aren’t perfected
yet. Referring to her experience with foot-and-mouth disease,
Kelley said, “We need to consider options other than mass
slaughter.”
UGA forms agrosecurity task force
In Georgia, the University of Georgia formed the UGA
Agrosecurity
Task Force shortly after 9/11.
“The task force’s first major accomplishment was an
agrosecurity
conference last May which attracted over 400 people, including
extension agents from across the state,” said Jeff Fisher, the
task force chair.
“Our goal was to get people on the same page as far as
emergency
situations go,” said Fisher, a professor of environmental health
at the UGA College of Agricultural and Environmental
Sciences.
UGA and Georgia Tech researchers teamed up with officials from
the Georgia Emergency Management Agency, Georgia Agribusiness
Council and Georgia Department of Agriculture to form CSAGE, the
Center for the Security of Agriculture and the Environment,
in December 2001.
Researchers with CSAGE are studying all areas of agriculture
that
terrorists could target.
“We just don’t talk about the detailed specifics of our
research,” Fisher said. “We don’t want to identify these areas.
That would be like training terrorists. And we definitely don’t
want to do that.”
