Edsagroterrorism

Views:
 
     
 

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Slide1: 

Agroterrorism Presented by:

Slide2: 

What is it? Agroterrorism involves the act of any person knowingly or maliciously using biological agents as weapons against the agricultural industry and the food supply.

Slide3: 

People and Animal Problems Anthrax Brucellosis Glanders

Slide4: 

Animal Problems Rinderpest Newcastle disease Fowl plague

Slide5: 

Crop Problems Late blight of potato Rice blast Brown spot of rice Rubber leaf blight Southern blight Wheat rusts.

Slide6: 

Agroterrorism Possibility? Probability?

Slide7: 

Possibility or Probability: The critical issue with agroterrorism is the low level of technical knowledge required to use it.

Slide8: 

Possibility or Probability: Before Sept. 11 -- the federal government allocated almost $40 million to the USDA for agroterrorism.

Slide9: 

Motives include Profit Anti-GMO Foreign terrorists

Slide10: 

Concerns before Sept. 11 Indiana – PL156 Pennsylvania – SB816

Slide11: 

Indiana Law recognizes agroterrorism as A crime – Class C Felony A weapon of mass destruction

Slide12: 

Pennsylvania Law Mandates payment to the owner of the afflicted animal for: Value of the animal Disposal Testing of the diseased animals Cost of clean up, including soil testing Lost value of production

Slide13: 

Costs? Foot and Mouth -- $2 billion to $24 billion. The problem is that this is based on a natural outbreak. A terrorist would aim for maximum damage.

Slide14: 

Costs? Dioxin contaminated animal feed in Belgium -- $ 1 billion in damages and trade sanctions. If it had been in the US, $140 billion.

Slide15: 

Costs? Leaf blight caused $1 billion in crop damages. But if something like it had halted US crop exports, it could cost $100 billion.

Slide16: 

Experts agree The cost in terms of damages is directly proportional to the time it takes to diagnose the problem.

Slide17: 

Proof? It has rarely been proven that terrorism has been used against agricultural targets. But let’s look at history…

Slide18: 

History of agroterrorism WWI – Germany spread glanders disease on mules and horses destined for Europe.

Slide19: 

History of agroterrorism WWII Canada, Great Britain, Japan, the United States, and the USSR had offensive programs. Germany had no offensive program.

Slide20: 

History of agroterrorism Japan is alleged to have used animal and plant pathogens, including rinderpest and anthrax, against Russia and Mongolia in 1940s.

Slide21: 

History of agroterrorism The U.S. scrubbed its biological weapons program in 1969. But, it continued defensive research.

Slide22: 

History of agroterrorism In 1972, the US, Soviet Union, Great Britain, and Canada agreed to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC).

Slide23: 

History of agroterrorism Soviet BW program grew during the 1970s and 1980s to include more than 30,000 scientists and workers, as well as seven production and two storage facilities.

Slide24: 

History of agroterrorism Iraq is also known to have developed a BW potential recently, including anti-personnel, animal and crop agents.

Slide25: 

History of agroterrorism Since 1915, there have been 19 acts of agroterrorism around the world, five of which have taken place in the U.S. Source:http://cns.miis.edu/ Center for Nonproliferation Studies

Slide26: 

Five cases in the US: 1915-1917 Military animals 1970 Ashville, Alabama 1989 Southern California 1996 Florida 1996 Berlin, Wisconsin

Slide27: 

Conducted by the US: 1950 East Germany 1952 Korea 1962-1970 Vietnam 1962-1997 Cuba

Slide28: 

Counterattack Geography Timing Strategy

Slide29: 

USDA Counterattack Organism Level Farm Level National Level

Slide30: 

Organism level Continue defensive research on agroterrorism.

Slide31: 

Farm Level Biosecurity education - farmers - crop and livestock diagnosticians.

Slide32: 

National Level Disease eradication Compensation costs Restore public confidence

Slide33: 

Counterattack: Cooperation and consolidation of efforts between all agencies and organizations involved.

Slide34: 

Sources: Anne Kohnen “Responding to the Threat of Agroterrorism: Specific recommendations for the United States Department of Agriculture.” May 2001 issue of Purdue Agricultural Economics Report (PAER). Center For Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies

authorStream Live Help