DOCSLIB.ORG

Defining Law Enforcement's Role in Protecting American Agriculture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Defining Law Enforcement's Role in Protecting American Agriculture The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Defining Law Enforcement’s Role in Protecting American Agriculture from Agroterrorism Author(s): Terry Knowles, James Lane, Dr. Gary Bayens, Dr. Nevil Speer, Dr. Jerry Jaax , Dr. David Carter, Dr. Andra Bannister Document No.: 212280 Date Received: December 2005 Award Number: 2003-IJ-CX-1024 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. NIJ Research Report Defining Law Enforcement’s Role in Protecting American Agriculture from Agroterrorism Prepared for: National Institute of Justice Washington, D.C. 30 June 2005 Researched and Written by: Terry Knowles Kansas Bureau of Investigation James Lane Ford County Sheriff’s Office Dr. Gary Bayens Washburn University Dr. Nevil Speer Western Kentucky University Dr. Jerry Jaax Kansas State University Dr. David Carter Michigan State University Dr. Andra Bannister Wichita State University Dr. Sandra L. Woerle NIJ Research Project Manager This research project was supported by Grant No. 2003-IJ-CX-1024 awarded by the National Institute of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. CONTENTS Abstract........................................................................................................................ iv About the Authors..........................................................................................................v Acknowledgements...................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................. viii List of Figures.............................................................................................................. ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................1 Overview........................................................................................................................1 Law Enforcement’s Role in Agroterrorism ...................................................................2 Primary Threat to Livestock: Foot-and-Mouth Disease ...............................................3 Identifying the Terrorists/Extremists .............................................................................5 Law Enforcement’s Role in Protecting U.S. Agriculture ..............................................6 Conclusions....................................................................................................................7 Recommendations..........................................................................................................9 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................12 Background of Research Project..................................................................................12 Risks for America ..................................................................................................12 Challenges for law enforcement. ...........................................................................15 Terrorist Threat to American Agriculture....................................................................16 Primary threat to agriculture: Foot-and-mouth disease ........................................18 Profiling the terrorists ............................................................................................24 Research Project: Goals and Objectives .....................................................................25 LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................................................................................27 Pre-9/11 Research ........................................................................................................27 Post 9/11 Research.......................................................................................................29 Background: Agroterrorism..................................................................................29 Socioeconomic costs..............................................................................................31 Veterinary concerns. ..............................................................................................33 Preparedness. .........................................................................................................36 Law enforcement. ..................................................................................................38 Congressional field hearing. ..................................................................................40 Homeland Security Presidential Directives ...........................................................42 IACP issues critical report. ....................................................................................42 RESEARCH DESIGN, METHODOLOGY, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...........45 Focus Groups ...............................................................................................................47 Vulnerabilities........................................................................................................48 Field Surveys ...............................................................................................................51 Survey of Kansas Sheriffs......................................................................................51 Survey of Livestock Industry.................................................................................71 Overview of Simulation Exercises...............................................................................82 - i - Simulation exercise: Sudden Impact......................................................................84 Simulation exercise: Endangered Species. ............................................................86 Livestock Traffic Movement in Kansas.......................................................................88 ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS .....................................................................................94 Foot-and-mouth disease: Economic impact..........................................................99 Summary..............................................................................................................108 UNDERSTANDING AGROMOVEMENT.................................................................110 Disease management............................................................................................112 LAW ENFORCEMENT INTELLIGENCE NETWORK .........................................115 Intelligence products............................................................................................116 Current initiatives.................................................................................................119 Training and Education........................................................................................127 Training and education conclusions.....................................................................130 RESEARCH INITIATIVES .........................................................................................131 Kansas Regional Response Teams.............................................................................131 Agro-Guard Community Policing Program...............................................................133 Reporting suspicions............................................................................................137 The role of law enforcement................................................................................138 Managing the Risk ...............................................................................................139 Smuggled-Food Interdiction Teams (SFIT)...............................................................140 Agroterrorism Training for Law Enforcement: National Module ............................142 Target-Specific Training for Law Enforcement ..................................................142 Community Training............................................................................................145 Utilization of the RCPI Network .........................................................................146 Training Delivery Methods..................................................................................148 On-Line Training .................................................................................................148 A Law Enforcement Training Model...................................................................149 External Funding..................................................................................................149 CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................151 Conclusions................................................................................................................151 Recommendations......................................................................................................152
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Equine Biosecurity and Biocontainment Practices on U.S
    Veterinary Services Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health November 2006 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Equine Biosecurity and Biocontainment Practices on U.S. Equine Operations With the globalization of animal industries, biosecurity General Practices and biocontainment practices play a vital role in the health of domestic animals. Biosecurity practices include General biosecurity measures taken on equine measures that reduce the risk of disease introduction on operations include isolation protocols, infection-control an operation. Biocontainment practices include precautions for visitors, and use of separate or measures that reduce the spread of disease on an disinfected equipment. Other general management operation and from one operation to another. practices address contact with other animals, potential Vaccination, another important aid in infection control, contamination of feed and water, insect control, and will be addressed in a separate information sheet. manure management. Equine diseases are spread in a variety of ways, including direct contact between equids and contact with Separation for isolation or infection control feces, insect or animal vectors, aerosol particles, and contaminated needles. Often overlooked but equally Overall, 65.1 percent of operations separated important modes of disease transmission include contact animals for isolation or infection control. For this study, with contaminated equipment, tack, transport
    [Show full text]
  • Hidden Cargo: a Cautionary Tale About Agroterrorism and the Safety of Imported Produce
    HIDDEN CARGO: A CAUTIONARY TALE ABOUT AGROTERRORISM AND THE SAFETY OF IMPORTED PRODUCE 1. INTRODUCTION The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Septem­ ber 11, 2001 ("9/11") demonstrated to the United States ("U.S.") Gov­ ernment the U.S. is vulnerable to a wide range of potential terrorist at­ tacks. l The anthrax attacks that occurred immediately following the 9/11 attacks further demonstrated the vulnerability of the U.S. to biological attacks. 2 The U.S. Government was forced to accept its citizens were vulnerable to attacks within its own borders and the concern of almost every branch of government turned its focus toward reducing this vulner­ ability.3 Of the potential attacks that could occur, we should be the most concerned with biological attacks on our food supply. These attacks are relatively easy to initiate and can cause serious political and economic devastation within the victim nation. 4 Generally, acts of deliberate contamination of food with biological agents in a terrorist act are defined as "bioterrorism."5 The World Health Organization ("WHO") uses the term "food terrorism" which it defines as "an act or threat of deliberate contamination of food for human con- I Rona Hirschberg, John La Montagne & Anthony Fauci, Biomedical Research - An Integral Component of National Security, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE (May 20,2004), at 2119, available at http://contenLnejrn.org/cgi/reprint/350/2112ll9.pdf (dis­ cussing the vulnerability of the U.S. to biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological terrorist attacks). 2 Id.; Anthony Fauci, Biodefence on the Research Agenda, NATURE, Feb.
    [Show full text]
  • Hospital Ships in the War on Terror Richard J
    Naval War College Review Volume 58 Article 6 Number 1 Winter 2005 Hospital Ships in the War on Terror Richard J. Grunawalt Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Grunawalt, Richard J. (2005) "Hospital Ships in the War on Terror," Naval War College Review: Vol. 58 : No. 1 , Article 6. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol58/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Grunawalt: Hospital Ships in the War on Terror Professor Grunawalt, professor emeritus of the Naval War College, is the former director of the Oceans Law and Policy Department of the Center for Naval Warfare Studies. His publications include (with John E. King and Ronald S. McClain) Protection of the Environ- ment during Armed Conflict (1996) and Targeting Enemy Merchant Shipping (1993)—volumes 69 and 65 of the Naval War College International Law Studies Series. Naval War College Review, Winter 2005, Vol. 58, No. 1 Published by U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons, 2005 1 Naval War College Review, Vol. 58 [2005], No. 1, Art. 6 HOSPITAL SHIPS IN THE WAR ON TERROR Sanctuaries or Targets? Richard J. Grunawalt mployment of military hospital ships in support of the war on terror is mili- Etarily, politically, and morally appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Maximum Containment: the Most Controversial Labs in the World
    Maximum Containment: The Most Controversial Labs in the World By Alison K. Bruzek B.A. Biological Sciences Northwestern University, 2010 SUBMITTED TO THE PROGRAM IN COMPARATIVE MEDIA STUDIES/WRITING IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN SCIENCE WRITING AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MASSACHUSETTS IN'T-QUTE OF 7ECHNOLOqi September 2013 JUL 0 22013 @2013 Alison K. Bruzek. All rights reserved. Li__RARI ES The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Signature of Author: -----.. Program in Con rativeMedia Studies/Writing June 10, 2013 Certified by: Philip Hilts Director, Knight Science Journalism Fellowships Thesis Supervisor Accepted by: Seth Mnookin Assistant Professor of Science Writing Director, Graduate Program in Science Writing 1 2 Maximum Containment: The Most Controversial Labs in the World By Alison K. Bruzek Submitted to the Program in Comparative Media Studies/Writing on June 10, 2013 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Science Writing ABSTRACT In 2002, following the September 1 1 th attacks and the anthrax letters, the United States allocated money to build two maximum containment biology labs. Called Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) facilities, these labs were built to research new vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments for emerging infectious diseases, potential biological weapons, and to contribute to the nation's biodefense. These labs were not the first dramatic reaction to the threat of biowarfare and are in fact, one product of a long history of the country's contentious relationship with biological weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • Pathogens As Weapons Gregory Koblentz the International Security Implications of Biological Warfare
    Pathogens as Weapons Pathogens as Weapons Gregory Koblentz The International Security Implications of Biological Warfare Biological weapons have become one of the key security issues of the twenty-ªrst century.1 Three factors that ªrst emerged in the 1990s have contributed to this phenomenon. First, revelations regarding the size, scope, and sophistication of the Soviet and Iraqi biological warfare programs focused renewed attention on the prolifera- tion of these weapons.2 Second, the catastrophic terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and the anthrax letters sent to media outlets and Senate ofªces in the United States during the following month, demonstrated the desire of terror- ists to cause massive casualties and heightened concern over their ability to employ biological weapons.3 Third, signiªcant advances in the life sciences have increased concerns about how the biotechnology revolution could be ex- ploited to develop new or improved biological weapons.4 These trends suggest that there is a greater need than ever to answer several fundamental questions about biological warfare: What is the nature of the threat? What are the poten- tial strategic consequences of the proliferation of biological weapons? How ef- Gregory Koblentz is a doctoral candidate in Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I would like to thank Robert Art, Thomas Christensen, Linda Fu, Jeanne Guillemin, Kendall Hoyt, Milton Leitenberg, John Ellis van Courtland Moon, Julian Perry Robinson, Harvey Sapolsky, Mar- garet Sloane, Jonathan Tucker, and Stephen Van Evera for their support and discussion of previous drafts. I am also grateful for comments from the participants in seminars at the Massachusetts In- stitute of Technology’s Security Studies Program, Harvard University’s John M.
    [Show full text]
  • Mitchell & Kilner
    THE NEWSLETTER VOLUME 9 OF THE CENTER NUMBER 3 FOR BIOETHICS AND SUMMER 2003 HUMAN DIGNITY Inside: Remaking Humans: The New Utopians Versus a Truly Human Future1 Remaking Humans: The New Utopians Versus a Truly Human C. Ben Mitchell, Ph.D., Senior FeIIow,The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity 1 John F. Kilner, Ph.D., President,The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity Future If the nineteenth century was the age of the mentally by making use of reason, science, The Genetics of Mice and Men: machine and the twentieth century the infor and technology. In addition, respect for the Can—and Should—We mation age, this century is, by most accounts, rights of the individual and a belief in the 2 the age of biotechnology. In this biotech cen power of human ingenuity are important ele Intervene? tury we may witness the invention of cures for ments of transhumanism. Transhumanists genetically linked diseases, including also repudiate belief in the existence of super Movie Review natural powers that guide us. These things 4 Alzheimer’s, cancer, and a host of maladies News from the Field that cause tremendous human suffering. We together represent the core of our philosophy. may see amazing developments in food pro The critical and rational approach which duction with genetically modified foods that transhumanists support is at the service of the 6 Book Review actually carry therapeutic drugs inside them. desire to improve humankind and humanity in all their facets.” Bioterrorism and high-tech weaponry may 7 Center Resources also be in our future. Some researchers are even suggesting that our future might include Again, the idea of improving society through the remaking of the human species.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Management of Biological Casualties Handbook
    USAMRIID’s MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF BIOLOGICAL CASUALTIES HANDBOOK Sixth Edition April 2005 U.S. ARMY MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES FORT DETRICK FREDERICK, MARYLAND Emergency Response Numbers National Response Center: 1-800-424-8802 or (for chem/bio hazards & terrorist events) 1-202-267-2675 National Domestic Preparedness Office: 1-202-324-9025 (for civilian use) Domestic Preparedness Chem/Bio Helpline: 1-410-436-4484 or (Edgewood Ops Center – for military use) DSN 584-4484 USAMRIID’s Emergency Response Line: 1-888-872-7443 CDC'S Emergency Response Line: 1-770-488-7100 Handbook Download Site An Adobe Acrobat Reader (pdf file) version of this handbook can be downloaded from the internet at the following url: http://www.usamriid.army.mil USAMRIID’s MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF BIOLOGICAL CASUALTIES HANDBOOK Sixth Edition April 2005 Lead Editor Lt Col Jon B. Woods, MC, USAF Contributing Editors CAPT Robert G. Darling, MC, USN LTC Zygmunt F. Dembek, MS, USAR Lt Col Bridget K. Carr, MSC, USAF COL Ted J. Cieslak, MC, USA LCDR James V. Lawler, MC, USN MAJ Anthony C. Littrell, MC, USA LTC Mark G. Kortepeter, MC, USA LTC Nelson W. Rebert, MS, USA LTC Scott A. Stanek, MC, USA COL James W. Martin, MC, USA Comments and suggestions are appreciated and should be addressed to: Operational Medicine Department Attn: MCMR-UIM-O U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) Fort Detrick, Maryland 21702-5011 PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION The Medical Management of Biological Casualties Handbook, which has become affectionately known as the "Blue Book," has been enormously successful - far beyond our expectations.
    [Show full text]
  • Concepts of Biocontainment & Biosafety Training
    Concepts of Biocontainment & Biosafety Training UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA - CHARLOTTE/ APRIL 30, 2014 CLIENT NAME / DATE Regulatory Guidance . OSHA Bloodborne Pathogen Standard . NIH Recombinant Guidelines – Apply to all institutions receiving NIH funding – Covers rDNA work, but also includes risk group listing . Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL) . Select Agent and Toxin regulations . Dangerous goods shipping regulations . North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources CLIENT NAME / DATE US Guidance for Laboratories . BMBL Outlines: – Standard Microbiological Practices – Special Microbiological Practices – Safety Equipment – Facilities . Includes – Agent summary statements – BSC design and use – Toxin handling http://www.cdc.gov/biosafety/publications/bmbl5/index.htm CLIENT NAME / DATE Layers of Protection CLIENT NAME / DATE Definitions . Biohazard – A biological agent capable of self- replication that can cause disease in humans, animals, or plants – Generally, a microorganism, or toxins and allergens derived from those organisms . Biocontainment Class III cabinets at the U.S. Biological Warfare Laboratories, Camp Detrick, Maryland (Photo, 1940s) – the physical containment of pathogenic organisms or agents to prevent accidental infection of workers or release into the surrounding community . CLIENT NAME / DATE Biosafety . Fundamental objective: – Containment of potentially harmful biological agents . Risk assessment: – Helps to assign the biosafety level that reduces to an absolute minimum the worker’s exposure to agents, their risk of an LAI (lab associated infection), and potential impact on the community and the environment CLIENT NAME / DATE Biosafety Levels (BSLs) . Combinations of lab practices and techniques, safety equipment, and laboratory facilities . Appropriate level determined by risk assessment . Specifically appropriate for: – Organism in use – Operations performed in the laboratory – Known or suspected routes of infection CLIENT NAME / DATE Determining BSLs .
    [Show full text]
  • The Counterinsurgency Campaign of the Nigerian Army: the Fight
    The Counterinsurgency Campaign of the Nigerian Army: The Fight against the Boko-Haram Insurgency in North-East Nigeria, 1999-2017 Gilbert La’ankwap Yalmi Department of Politics and Contemporary History School of Arts and Media, University of Salford, Manchester, UK Supervisors Dr Samantha Newbery Professor Searle Alaric Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy September 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... i List of Figures ...................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements.............................................................................................. v Dedication ........................................................................................................... vi Abbreviations ....................................................................................................vii Abstract ................................................................................................................ x INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 Gaps in the Literature and Opportunities for New Research ............................ 2 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................... 7 Objective and Significance ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Biodefense Public Report Implementation of the National Biodefense Strategy PREFACE
    2019 Biodefense Public Report Implementation of the National Biodefense Strategy PREFACE The National Biodefense Strategy (NBS or the Strategy) was released on September 18, 2018 and guides the U.S. government’s efforts to reduce the risk of, prepare for, respond to, and recover from biological incidents, whether naturally occurring, deliberate, or accidental in origin. National Security Presidential Memorandum-14 (NSPM-14) directs implementation of the Strategy, including the development of this Biodefense Public Report. This report does not primarily address activities related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic because the data collection period concluded well before the HHS Secretary’s declaration of a public health emergency regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the content of this report is diverse and highlights some of the efforts across the U.S. government to address all biological threats. Development of this report followed the timeline laid out in NSPM-14. Work began among federal departments and agencies to collect biodefense data in late 2018, the first year to capture biodefense programs and activities across the federal government, and continued through the first half of 2019. This report describes a sampling of specific achievements and programs undertaken by federal agencies that reduce the risk of biological threats to the American people. In addition to the specific programs captured here, many other activities continue to be implemented across the federal government to protect the United States from a wide range of biological threats. Some of the efforts that have been described within this report, and many activities that have not been reported here, support the ongoing COVID-19 response.
    [Show full text]
  • Conventional Missile Attacks Against Aircraft on Airfields and Aircraft Carriers
    MEMORANDUM RM-4718-PR AIR FORCE DECLASSIFICATION OFFICE Classification Re'ained__--------------- —.„. J A N U A R Y 1966 Classification Changed To: jp / Q l No Classified AF Equities \J --------—- Refer To:___________ Reviewers Declassified from SECRET by the Air Force Declassification Office on 23 Oct 2018 CONVENTIONAL MISSILE ATTACKS AGAINST AIRCRAFT ON AIRFIELDS AND AIRCRAFT CARRIERS J. G. H a m m e r an d W . R. E ls w ic k PREPARED FOR: UNITED STATES AIR FORCE PROJECT RAND 7 ¿ e RJMD(fyyfotatca# SANTA MONICA • CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM RM -4718-PR JANUARY 1966 CONVENTIONAL MISSILE ATTACKS AGAINST AIRCRAFT ON AIRFIELDS AND AIRCRAFT CARRIERS J. G. H a m m e r an d W . R. E ls w ic k This research is sponsored by the United States Air Force under Project RAND—Con­ tract No. AF 49(638)-1700—monitored by the Directorate of Operational Requirements and Development Plans, Deputy Chief of Staff, Research and Development. Hq USAF. Views or conclusions contained in this Memorandum should not be interpreted as representing the official opinion or policy of the United States Air Force. ■7& IUIIII) 1700 S r • Sant O N I C A l l F o R • 90406 -11- Published by The Rand Corporltion — i i i — PREFACE This Memorandum considers the possibilities of specialized non­ nuclear b a llis tic missile attacks against U.S. airpower based on South Vietnam a irfield s and on board aircraft carriers operating in the vicin ity of the Gulf of Tonkin. The subject should be of interest to those concerned with non­ nuclear weapon systems and their role in limited war situations.
    [Show full text]
  • Agroterrorism: Threats and Preparedness
    Order Code RL32521 Agroterrorism: Threats and Preparedness Updated March 12, 2007 Jim Monke Analyst in Agricultural Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division Agroterrorism: Threats and Preparedness Summary The potential for terrorist attacks against agricultural targets (agroterrorism) is increasingly recognized as a national security threat, especially after the events of September 11, 2001. Agroterrorism is a subset of bioterrorism, and is defined as the deliberate introduction of an animal or plant disease with the goal of generating fear, causing economic losses, and/or undermining social stability. The goal of agroterrorism is not to kill cows or plants. These are the means to the end of causing economic damage, social unrest, and loss of confidence in government. Human health could be at risk if contaminated food reaches the table or if an animal pathogen is transmissible to humans (zoonotic). While agriculture may not be a terrorist’s first choice because it lacks the “shock factor” of more traditional terrorist targets, many analysts consider it a viable secondary target. Agriculture has several characteristics that pose unique vulnerabilities. Farms are geographically disbursed in unsecured environments. Livestock are frequently concentrated in confined locations, and transported or commingled with other herds. Many agricultural diseases can be obtained, handled, and distributed easily. International trade in food products often is tied to disease-free status, which could be jeopardized by an attack. Many veterinarians lack experience with foreign animal diseases that are eradicated domestically but remain endemic in foreign countries. In the past five years, “food defense” has received increasing attention in the counterterrorism and bioterrorism communities. Laboratory and response capacity are being upgraded to address the reality of agroterrorism, and national response plans now incorporate agroterrorism.
    [Show full text]