Food Security: Industry not prepared for 9/11 in food

Aeroplanes intentionally flying into skyscrapers. Few would have thought this possible before 9 September 2001. After this date, the deliberate contamination of food and water supplies has become a real threat. Is the industry prepared for this threat? Some say it is not.
Elsevier Food International, Vol. 6, Number 3, September 2003
Lucien Joppen

In late January 2003, the World Health Organisation (WHO) rang the alarm bell. It warned that terrorist groups could try to contaminate food supplies. The organisation called upon countries to strengthen their surveillance.
Although the WHO did not receive any specific warnings of food terrorism, it sees deliberate food

A farmer applies insecticide bait in a soybean farm in Sheldon, Illinois. In the aftermath of the 11 September attack, US farms were placed on high security alert to prevent potential biological attacks.

contamination as a "real and current threat". The main UN health organisation does not stand alone in this matter. Dr Gleyn Bledsoe, adjunct professor with the Department of Biological Systems Engineering at Washington State University, says: "Threats from terrorists and terrorist groups against food research, production and processing are increasing."
Others are more careful. Dr Jean Weese, researcher at Auburn University in Alabama, states: "Terrorists think that killing or harming the largest number of people is the most powerful way to make a political statement.
However, tampering with the food supply isn't effective because of the long food distribution chain, which increases the likelihood of a terrorist act being detected somewhere along the way before it reaches the consumer." According to Peter Chalk of RAND, a security think thank in Washington D.C., food-borne chemical or biological attacks are far easier to carry out than air-borne viruses such as anthrax. If the latter has already happened (in the aftermath of 9/11), why cannot the other?

Poison cult
Looking back in time, a notorious case of intentional mass food contamination was executed by a religious/political faction. In 1984, members of a religious cult in the US State of Oregon contaminated local salad bars with Salmonella typhimurium. The cult wanted to poison the community in order to throw a local election and take over the governance in the town where they were residing. More than 1,000 individuals reported symptoms. In total, 751 cases were confirmed. No deaths were reported. Cases in which individuals threatened to contaminate food products have been reported more frequently. Nestle in Germany especially, has been confronted numerous times with criminals threatening to poison, or indeed actually poisoning, certain food products if the company would not come up with a bag of money. One can imagine that these incidents cause significant damage as products have to be recalled and certain brands might be associated for a period of time with deliberate poisonings. What could happen if food supplies were to be contaminated on a massive scale is illustrated by unintentional contaminations. In 1994, 224,000 consumers in 41 US states were infected with salmonella due to contaminated ice cream. The largest case, however, happened in China where 300,000 people fell sick after eating clams. The most deadly incident occurred in Spain in 1981 when benzene-contaminated olive oil led to the death of more than 800 people. The latter case especially, illustrates the potential harm of toxic elements for the public health.
Although the aforementioned cases obviously do not have the same 'media impact' as 9/11 or the Oklahoma bombing in 1995, this does not mean that food contamination is considered to be a 'no go' area for terrorists. Not every terrorist action is meant to make as many casualties as possible. In some cases, causing economic, social or political instability might be equally high on the agenda.

Suggestions for political actions to ensure safe food and improve trust in the food supply The Food Industry • Accept responsibility for producing safe food. • Develop and follow Pathogen Reduction: HACCP plans at all stages of production, distribution, and service. • Disclose production processes on food labels. • Protect the environment at all stages of production and use. • Adhere to federal regulations for food production, distribution, and service. • Eliminate indiscriminate use of antibiotics in animal agriculture. • Promote high standards for food safety and environmental protection in international trade. The Federal Government • Create a single food agency. • Institute mechanisms to include the views of consumers when making regulatory decisions. • Provide greater resources for food safety functions of regulatory agencies. • Move congressional funding authority for the FDA from agriculture to health committees. • Authorise regulatory agencies to recall unsafe foods. • Require food companies to document the traceability of foods and ingredients. • Require labelling of genetically modified foods. • Support international treaties that protect the environment, public health, and food security (including the right to food as well as food safety). • Strengthen international treaties to prevent development of biological weapons; prohibit the use of genetic engineering for that purpose. • Actively develop and support international policies to promote public health, human rights, and food security in all countries. The Public • Join consumer groups that promote food safety, environmental protection, and broader aspects of food security. • Advocate domestic and international programmes and policies to ensure safe food, protect the environment, support public health, and guarantee rights to food and food security. • Encourage others to join in such actions. • Elect officials committed to such actions.

Likely victims
Looking at the supply chain, the WHO states that any point along the food chain - from primary production to food retailing/service - could be a target. Needless to say, contamination in the primary sector, such as large-scale contamination of livestock or agricultural crops, is less likely to inflict damage on consumers. These attacks would be orchestrated to create economic and political instability. The further up the food supply chain, the more likely it is that consumers will actually be contaminated. However, packaged goods in the post-packaging stage would be less prone to food terrorism as tampering would be visible for consumers. This would not apply to fresh products, as was the case with the local salad bar poisoning in Oregon.
It is certainly technically possible to contaminate food on a larger scale than was the case in Oregon. Bledsoe: "The most likely form of attack on the food supply would involve a limited or individual use of chemical agents or pathogens developed specifically for purposes of warfare, common bacterial food-borne or zoonotic agents, toxins or chemical agents. A biological attack would involve the real or threatened introduction of an animal or plant pathogen (or its genetic material) at a production or agricultural facility or into products during growth, processing or distribution. Physical contaminants are also possible weapons, but the level of damage and resultant lower publicity value from such an attack would reduce its overall impact."

III prepared
Bledsoe claims that the global food industry does not recognise the terrorist threat. The prevention and management of deliberate contaminations still leaves a lot to be desired, with the exception of larger, multinational companies and those companies doing business in, or located in, countries of higher terrorist activities who tend to recognise the threat and take reasonable defensive measures.
Bledsoe states that existing safety programmes for accidental contaminations, such as HACCP, tracking & tracing, Good Manufacturing Practices and crisis management, could be the foundation for deliberate contamination incidents. "Some firms think a HACCP approach is very effective. Employees are already acquainted with HACCP and find the addition of food security concerns an easy transition. One must think of increased controlled access, perimeter security (fencing, guards, etc), zoning or signing."
Some governmental agencies in the US, such as the FDA, advise the use of specific risk assessment and management models, such as Organisational Risk Management or TEAM (Threat Evaluation, Assessment and Management). The latter approach incorporates a so-called risk assessment matrix with which companies can determine risks based on two parameters: severity and probability.
Ultimately, weighing costs against potential risks will be the determining factor in developing a food security programme. "As with HACCP, food safety programmes will be market driven. Only companies can determine which programmes are appropriate and should be implemented," as Bledsoe says. However, "it's impossible to guard oneself against deliberate contamination due to the international nature of the food supply and its sheer quantity and variety."

An engineer of the US Agricultural Research Service conducts a test on a computer-directed scanning system that could help speed inspection of the nearly 8 million chickens processed annually through federally inspected US plants. In 2002, the FDA spent almost $100 million on hiring about 650 new food inspectors to safeguard the US food supply.

No extra laws
Within Europe, there seems to be no step up in legislation for food security and legislation is left in the hands of individual member states. A European version of the US Centre for Disease Control is expected to be in operation by mid- 2005. However, this agency will deal with pandemics, which could originate from terrorist attacks, and not with food terrorism. "The food laws regarding food safety in the EU and of the individual member states are detailed enough. The present-day framework does not need an extra layer," says Beate Gminder, press officer at the EU Commission for Heath and Consumer Protection.
However, this does not mean that European food manufacturers are unaware of threats from terrorism. Some companies have already confirmed that they are both interested and in discussion. Representative organisations have set up project groups on bioterrorism in order to inform or devise guidelines for the industry. Individual companies are not interested in naming themselves or giving details on counter measures.
While some experts claim that the danger of accidental contamination is far higher than deliberate contamination incidents, authorities in the US have already reacted. In 2002, the congress passed the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act. This act also includes the safety and security of the food supply.
During mid-2002, the FDA, which is responsible for safeguarding the nation's food supply, spent almost $100 million on hiring about 650 new food inspectors and adopting additional measures to safeguard the US food supply against bioterrorist attacks. Food inspectors are going through food-safety checklists for imported as well as domestic food to ensure that food never falls into the wrong hands or is diverted from its predetermined distribution route.

Political lobby
In her book 'SAFE FOOD BACTERIA, BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOTERRORISM', Marion Nestle claims that all these measures are far from adequate. Nestle, who is professor and chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at the University of New York, refers to a better method to address food safety problems, by centralising their oversight in a single food agency with genuine authority over safety in the production and distribution of foods as well as over their effects on environmental and public health. "While thinking about how to develop this agency, Congress could provide greater resources for food inspection, and give existing agencies the authority to enforce regulations, issue recalls, ensure traceability, and protect public health," she says in her book, referring to the FDA as the best option.
This, however, has been thwarted by an intensive political lobby, says Nestle. "At least 18 trade associations representing every conceivable facet of food processing and marketing ( ... ) try to persuade legislators to drop provisions in bioterrorism bills that might give the FDA further authority over domestic and imported foods."
According to Nestle, reducing political influences on the FDA and creating a single food agency is needed in the US. Internationally she advocates active support by the US government of treaties that promote food safety, environmental protection, and the right to food, as well as agreements to stop producing biological weapons, genetically modified or otherwise. If we are going to protect our country against bioterrorism, our government must become more actively involved in international policies to promote health and food security as human rights for everyone, everywhere.