DOCSLIB.ORG

Food Defense for the Small Retail Operation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Food Defense for the Small Retail Operation THE SANITARIAN’S FILE By Robert W. Powitz, Ph.D., MPH food contamination in 1984, where members of a religious cult in Oregon Food Defense for the contaminated salad bars with Salmonella typhimurium in order to disrupt a local election and causing 751 cases of salmo- Small Retail Operation nellosis resulting in 45 hospitalizations, I started my career working with institu- tions, mostly prisons and psychiatric facilities. Awareness of possible acts of sabotage was already part of the institu- tional culture. Before we could begin working at these facilities, newly hired professional and support personnel, including myself, had to learn about defense and incorporate it into our For those of you who work in the food craft. It was expected that any activity conducted within a secure environment manufacturing business, you have my was done with defense-minded con- straints. It did not take long for this new permission to skip this article. Most of concept to become second nature. I F applied what I had learned to my report you already have food defense quite in recommendations and added a defense component to other institutional envi- hand, or you are well on the way to hav- ronmental health-related programs for which I was responsible. To this day, I ing a fully functional defense plan. So for continue to do so. In short, food defense should become seamlessly inte- this column, I’m directing my comments to the retail side of our grated into every foodservice operation. Early on, the sanitarian’s guideline industry, particularly the small retail foodservice providers, including for food service defense came largely from the Public Health Service’s 1967 bakeries, bars, bed-and-breakfast operations, cafeterias, camps, child and 1976 Food Service Sanitation Manuals (the precursors to today’s Food and adult daycare providers, church kitchens, commissaries, commu- Code). It dawned on my professional colleagues that the prevention of cross- nity fundraisers, convenience stores, fairs, food banks, grocery stores, contamination and enforcement of per- sonal hygiene practices were already meal services for home-bound persons, mobile food carts, restau- part of the correctional and medical staffs’ post orders and the kitchens’ rants, and vending machine operators. defense compliance mandate. Except for some idiomatic and occupation-spe- Although there are numerous well-written food defense guidelines, for all cific language, food safety and food intents and purposes, they target the larger operation. Even those from the U.S. defense were, and continue to be, syn- Food and Durg Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition’s onymous. (FDA CFSAN) “Retail Food Stores and Food Service Establishments” guidelines In the April/May 2005 issue of are not entirely sensitive to the vast majority of mom-and-pop or smaller institu- Food Safety Magazine, I wrote about tional operations. They even make mention of this in the opening paragraphs. “Street HACCP,” which is an abbreviat- Taken in its entirety, the requirements outlined for a comprehensive, secure retail ed HACCP program ideal for small food establishment is somewhat daunting, confusing and sometimes quite illusive foodservice operations. I will try to if applied to a smaller operation of limited financial and facility resources. So for present the basic concepts of food those of you who fit into this category, please bear with me while I try to demysti- defense in much the same way: brief, fy and (I hope!) simplify this topic. concise and functional—and it is hoped, By way of introduction, long before the first real monstrous act of deliberate cost-effective. R EPRINTED FROM F OOD S AFETY M AGAZINE, DECEMBER 2006/JANUARY 2007, WITH PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHERS. © 2007 BY T HE TARGET G ROUP • www.foodsafetymagazine.com Assessing Risk for Defense “Incorporate food defense awareness into the First, here is the bad news. Unlike accidental foodborne illness, a breach in food defense or an act of terrorism in a food safety training program.” small food service operation can result in at least two types of economic effects: Direct economic losses attributable to The actual definition of risk assess- or other malicious, criminal, or terrorist the costs of responding to the act; and, ment is: “A report that shows assets, vul- action at each segment. To be successful, indirect multiplier effects from compen- nerabilities, likelihood of damage, esti- implementing enhanced preventive sation paid to affected customers and mates of the costs of recovery, sum- measures requires the commitment of the losses suffered by affiliated indus- maries of possible defensive measures both management and staff. tries, such as suppliers, transporters and and their costs and estimated probable Accordingly, it is prudent that both distributors. savings from better protection.” The management and staff participate in the However, here’s a bit of good news. FDA model allows us approach risk development and review the food Believe it or not, in the world of small assessment—within the confines of this defense measures within their facility. foodservice operations, most policies for definition—in much of the same way we So, now you have the logic to develop a food safety (even if they are unwritten) would complete a menu review and a food defense program using the food and the practices of rudimentary defense formal facilities plan review, but with a safety tools already in place. I have systems are already in place. All facilities defense twist. Keep in mind that some taken the liberty of highlighting, what I that are routinely inspected by the regu- of the biological and chemical agents of consider the most important FDA rec- latory community meet the most critical concern are more inclusive than the ommendations. There are five compo- defense components such as preventing usual cast of foodborne misadventure nents to each foodservice operation: cross contamination, maintaining prop- characters, and that opportunities are a Management, staff, public, facilities and er temperatures and using time/tempera- bit a bit more global than food prepara- operations, each of which can be easily ture relationships to prevent foodborne tion considerations. In short, our risk integrated into existing policy. illnesses, and, ensuring that foods come assessment goal is to prevent deliberate from approved sources. With a little contamination. But while we cannot Management attention to detail and a few enhance- prevent all terrorism scenarios, we cer- • Prepare for the possibility of tamper- ments, every small operation can signifi- tainly can minimize them. ing or other malicious, criminal, or cantly reduce its risk of intentional The Conference on Food terrorist events and assign responsi- food-related misadventures such as tam- Protection’s Plan Review Blue Book bility for defense to knowledgeable pering or other malicious, criminal or poses several questions for new and staff. terrorist actions. newly remodeled food service facilities. • Have a crisis management strategy to While it’s fairly easy to identify bro- These questions are basic to any opera- prepare for and respond to tampering ken seals, bag closures and the like, it’s tion: Will the menu offer food that and other malicious, criminal, or far more difficult to judge past tempera- requires extensive preparation? What are terrorist actions, both threats and ture abuse or the opportunity for delib- the hours of operation and service? actual events, including identifying, erate contamination with foods that do How often will food and supplies be segregating and securing affected not have defense packaging. Therefore, delivered? What is the maximum num- products. let us explore simple ways to enhance ber of employees working on one shift? • Plan for emergency evacuation, the food defense practices already in And, has everyone been trained in food including preventing defense plan place. safety, defense and HACCP principles? breaches during evacuation. To begin putting a rational spin on From the answers we can not only eval- • Familiarize yourself with the emer- food defense for the smaller operator, uate the adequacy of the kitchen equip- gency response system in the com- the FDA provided a good resource. ment, the flow of food through the munity and provide 24-hour contact Several years ago, the FDA developed a facility, the sizes and type of cold-hold- information to the local authorities. generally accepted framework for risk ing equipment and dry goods storage, • Post all emergency phone numbers assessments that was endorsed by the the adequacy of personal hygiene facili- in a conspicuous area. Codex Alimentarius Commission and ties, and the potential for human error, • Train yourself and staff about rele- the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, we can also look for potential breeches vant defense issues and have a strate- among others. The framework divides in defense; both from a facility and per- gy for communicating with the pub- risk assessment into four components: sonnel perspective. lic in the event of an emergency. (1) hazard identification; (2) hazard Like a HACCP program, we can characterization (or dose-response assess- focus our attention sequentially on each Staff ment); (3) exposure assessment; and segment of the food delivery and pro- • Provide an appropriate level of super- (4) risk characterization—all basic to a duction system that is within our con- vision to all staff, including cleaning HACCP program. trol and minimize the risk of tampering and maintenance staff, contract R EPRINTED FROM F OOD S AFETY M AGAZINE, DECEMBER 2006/JANUARY 2007, WITH PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHERS. © 2007 BY T HE TARGET G ROUP • www.foodsafetymagazine.com workers, and especially, new staff. • Monitor public areas, including the that they are appropriately secured. • Conduct routine defense checks of serving or display of foods in self- • Establish delivery schedules and not the premises, including utilities and service areas and entrances to public accept unexplained, unscheduled critical computer data systems.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Food Defense Fact Sheet
    Food Defense Fact Sheet What is Food Defense? Food defense is the protection of food products from intentional contamination or adulteration where there is an intent to cause public health harm and/or economic disruption. Highlighted Food Defense Tools and Resources Food Defense 101 provides training in preparedness against an intentional attack against our food supply. The courses provide an understanding of and guidance for developing a Food Defense Plan(s) based on a common sense approach. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodDefense/ToolsEducationalMaterials/ucm353774.htm Employees FIRST is an initiative that food industry managers can include in their ongoing employee food defense training programs. Employees FIRST educates front-line food industry workers from farm to table about the risk of intentional food contamination and the actions they can take to identify and reduce these risks. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodDefense/ToolsEducationalMaterials/ucm295997.htm FDA Food Defense Plan Builder is a user-friendly software program designed to assist owners and operators of food facilities with developing personalized food defense plans for their facilities. This user-friendly tool harnesses existing FDA tools, guidance, and resources for food defense into one single application. The Food Defense Plan Builder guides the user through the following sections: Company Information; Broad Mitigation Strategies; Vulnerability Assessment; Focused Mitigation Strategies; Emergency Contacts; Action Plan; and Supporting Documents. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdplanbuilder/ Food Related Emergency Exercise Bundle (FREE-B) is a compilation of scenarios based on both intentional and unintentional food contamination events. It is designed with the intention of assisting government regulatory and public health agencies in assessing existing food emergency response plans, protocols and procedures that may be in place, or that they are in the process of revising or even developing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Need for Food Defense in the Post-9/11 Era Can the Risk Be Ignored? Many People Are Familiar with “Food Safety.” It Has Been Likely to Occur in the Food Supply
    The need for food defense in the post-9/11 era Can the risk be ignored? Many people are familiar with “food safety.” It has been likely to occur in the food supply. recognized for many years as being essential for businesses The key words are obviously “unintentional” for food that supply food products anywhere in the supply chain. safety and “intentional” for food defense. The food The term “food defense,” however, is another issue. industry has the personnel and infrastructure in place for food safety, but many in the industry are struggling with Shortly after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, how to approach food defense. the U.S. government became concerned that terrorist organizations might seek to contaminate parts of the Long before 2001, there was documentation of intentional American food supply. In December 2001, the Food food contamination incidents throughout the world. A and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States study by the Centre of Excellence for National Security Department of Agriculture (USDA) began a dialogue with (CENS) in Singapore, written by G.R. Dalzeil, reported that a number of security professionals in the food industry between 1950 and 2008, there were approximately 398 to determine the current state of readiness against an confirmed incidents of contamination and approximately intentional attack. The information gathered was not 125 unconfirmed incidents. The information for this study encouraging. Prior to 2001, security departments in the was gathered worldwide; however, 42 percent of the food industry were mostly concerned with protecting incidents occurred in the U.S.; the U.S., UK, and Australia people and assets.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Defense Survey & Report
    Food Defense Survey & Report Food Defense Prepared by Catherine L. Feinman Foreword by Amy Kircher December 2013 © Copyright 2013, by IMR Group, Inc. publishers of DomesticPreparedness.com, the DPJ Weekly Brief, and the DomPrep Journal; reproduction of any part of this publication without express written permission is strictly prohibited. IMR Group Inc., 517 Benfield Road, Suite 303, Severna Park, MD 21146, USA; phone: 410-518-6900; email: [email protected]; also available at www.DomPrep.com ~ This page was left blank intentionally ~ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Food, like water and air, is essential to sustain life. For the past three years, DomPrep has focused on protecting the food supply in one manner or another. Each time we achieved better results. Early this year, in a conversation with Scott Becker, executive director at the Association of Public Health Laboratories, he remarked, “If you really want to learn about food preparedness, you must go to the University of Minnesota.” He was right. This report is the result of an Insiders Roundtable held at that prestigious venue. Thank you Scott, for your important suggestion. Additionally, DomPrep’s staff Susan Collins and Catherine Feinman did a terrific job in producing this report. Catherine researched, compiled, drafted, analyzed, and edited a huge amount of content into the final product. Susan coordinated and organized the design, layout, and production. A special thank you goes to them. Select advisors from the DomPrep40 provided thought leadership, insight, and professional contacts to increase the report’s importance, credibility, and relevance to planners and policy professionals alike. A warm thank you goes to Amy Kircher, DrPH, director of the National Center for Food Protection and Defense at the University of Minnesota, Maureen Sullivan, emergency preparedness and response laboratory coordinator of the Minnesota Department of Health, and Craig W.
    [Show full text]
  • FOOD DEFENSE Election Outcomes
    FI RST RESP0N DE RS TOO LBOX Complex Operating Environment - Food and Agriculture Food and agriculture infrastructure is a $1 trillion industry, TARGETED INFRASTRUCTURE: Food infrastructure is considered FIRST RESPONDER AND PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE PLANNING • Identify medical centers in and around the region and assess almost entirely under private ownership and comprises an a “soft target” for deliberate attack because of the decentralized CONSIDERATIONS: It is highly recommended that frst responders capabilities for food contamination response; estimated 2.1 million farms, 935,000 restaurants, and more nature of the infrastructure nodes. Nodes often provide multiple establish rapport with the appropriate local public health, law • Report unusual illnesses or deaths with quick onset than 200,000 registered food manufacturing, processing, and entry points into the food continuum and have limited to no security. enforcement, and private-sector food supply entities before of symptoms; storage facilities. Intentional contamination of the food supply Examples of nodes with limited security include processing, an incident. Establishing information-sharing relationships • Enhance lab testing (some routine testing does not test for all could have signifcant public health and economic consequences transportation, and distribution mechanisms and facilities, while and participating in preparedness exercises can help ensure potential contaminants, so enhancing testing would need to depending on the commodity, the agent used, and where in the nodes with little or no security might include restaurants, cafeterias, suffcient laboratory capacity, technical capability, and medical be balanced with beneft); and supply chain the contaminant was added. This product provides grocery stores, and food service and storage. countermeasures are in place to address properly a potential • Train for evidence handling (it is important to obtain samples intentional food-contamination attack.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae John Williams Spink
    EXTERNAL Curriculum Vitae CONTACT INFORMATION [email protected], 517-381-4491 ResearcherID (Thomas Reuters): J-5535-2015 John Williams Spink SciVal: John Williams Spink ORCID: 0000-0003-4142-3352 Scopus Author ID: 366.0340.4600 ORGANIZATION POSITION TITLE Department of Supply Chain Management Assistant Professor (Fixed-Term) Eli Broad College of Business INSTITUTION Degree YEAR FIELD OF STUDY Michigan State University B.S. 1988 Packaging Michigan State University M.S. 1991 Packaging, Thin Film Polymer Science Michigan State University Ph.D. 2009 Packaging, Anti-Counterfeit Strategy (#34/57 Worldwide) Top Food Related Entries are HIGHLIGHTED; 2019 are noted in RED Narrative: Dr. John W. Spink is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Supply Chain Management in the Eli Broad Business College at Michigan State University (USA) where he redeveloped and teaches all sections of “Introduction to Supply Chain Management” and a section “Procurement and Supply Chain Management.” His 2009 Packaging PhD work, within the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at MSU, was on Anti- Counterfeit Strategy and his broad research expands from Food Fraud to product fraud related business risks (including Enterprise Risk Management ERM and COSO), and a range of outreach activities that cover policy and trade issues. Previously he was an Assistant Professor in the School of Criminal Justice in the College of Social Science at MSU. Later he was an Assistant Professor (Fixed-Term) in the College of Veterinary Medicine where he was the created, developer and instructor for graduate courses of: Packaging for Food Safety, Anti-Counterfeiting and Product Protection (Food Fraud), and Quantifying Food Risk.
    [Show full text]
  • FSIS Food Safety and Food Defense
    Food Contamination Can Be Either USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) Unintentional or Intentional FSIS is the regulatory agency within USDA responsible for The U.S. food supply is potentially vulnerable to protecting public health by ensuring that meat, poultry, intentional contamination. As such, CIs also conduct and processed egg products distributed in-commerce are surveillance activities related to food defense. The safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged. main goal of these activities is to identify potential security vulnerabilities that increase the risk of intentional contamination for meat, poultry, and processed egg products at in-commerce facilities. FSIS Food Safety What Is the Difference Between and Food Defense Food Safety and Food Defense? Information for In-Commerce Firms Food safety refers to protecting the food supply from unintentional contamination because of pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, Campylobacter, and E. coli O157:H7 and chemical and physical hazards. Food defense refers to protecting the food supply from service which through a Web-based intentional contamination with chemical, biological, physical, or radiological agents. Food defense activities can include implementing additional security measures askFSIS, FSIS Compliance Investigators to: Resources for Additional Information FSIS Compliance Investigators (CIs) are responsible reduce the risk of someone intentionally for carrying out the statutory authorities of the agency contaminating the food supply, and through surveillance, investigation, product control, and minimize the impact of an incident. enforcement to ensure public health protection. The main goal of these activities is to protect consumers Guidance on developing a food plan defense developing on Guidance distributors and processors food for defense on Guidance warehouses and transporters food for defense on Guidance measures mitigation risk on Guidance through Guidance Food Defense is VOLUNTARY.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 103/Friday, May 27, 2016/Rules
    34166 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND C. Require Measures Only in the Event of pack, or hold food and are required to HUMAN SERVICES a Credible Threat register under section 415 of the FD&C D. General Comments on Implementation Act (21 U.S.C. 350d). Section 419 of the Food and Drug Administration and Compliance FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350h) addresses E. Comments on Requests for Additional Exemptions intentional adulteration in the context 21 CFR Parts 11 and 121 F. Other General Comments of fruits and vegetables that are raw [Docket No. FDA–2013–N–1425] G. Other Issues Discussed in the Proposed agricultural commodities. Section 420 of Rule the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350i) addresses RIN 0910–AG63 IV. Subpart A: Comments on Specific intentional adulteration in the context Provisions of high-risk foods and exempts farms Mitigation Strategies To Protect Food A. Revisions to Definitions Also Used in except for farms that produce milk. FDA Against Intentional Adulteration Section 415 Registration Regulations (21 is implementing the intentional CFR Part 1, Subpart H) and Section 414 AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Recordkeeping Regulations (21 CFR Part adulteration provisions in sections 418, HHS. 1, Subpart J) 419, and 420 of the FD&C Act in this rulemaking. ACTION: Final rule. B. Other Definitions That We Proposed To Establish in Part 121 The purpose of this rule is to protect SUMMARY: The Food and Drug C. Additional Definitions to Clarify Terms food from intentional acts of Administration (FDA or we) is issuing Not Defined in the Proposed Rule adulteration where there is an intent to D.
    [Show full text]
  • GUIDE to DEVELOPING a FOOD DEFENSE PLAN for Food Processing Plants
    Adapted from information provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service GUIDE TO DEVELOPING A FOOD DEFENSE PLAN FOR Food Processing Plants March 2008 BY COMPLETING PAGE 11 IN THIS GUIDE, FOOD PROCESSORS WILL HAVE A FOOD DEFENSE PLAN FOR THEIR OPERATION Guide to Developing a Food Defense Plan for a Food Processing Plant What is Food Defense? Food defense is putting measures in place that reduce the chances of the food supply from becoming intentionally contaminated using a variety of chemicals, biological agents or other harmful substances by people who want to do us harm. These agents could include materials that are not naturally-occurring or substances not routinely tested for in food products. A terrorist’s goal might be to kill people, disrupt our economy, or ruin your business. Intentional acts generally occur infrequently, can be difficult to detect, and are hard to predict. Food defense is not the same as food safety. Food safety addresses the accidental contamination of food products during storage and transportation and focuses on biological, chemical or physical hazards. The main types of food safety hazards are microbes, chemicals and foreign objects. Products can become contaminated through negligence and contamination can occur during storage and transportation. Some of the information you will use to create your Food Defense Plan will already exist in your Sanitary Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs), Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point plan (HACCP) and other documents relating to emergency response procedures. Make sure to consult these documents for information. There is no need to “reinvent the wheel” when developing your Food Defense Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Report to Congress on the National Agriculture and Food Defense Strategy (NAFDS)
    Report to Congress Report to Congress on the National Agriculture and Food Defense Strategy (NAFDS) Submitted pursuant to Section 108 of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), Public Law 111-353 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 3 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3 Background ......................................................................................................................... 6 NAFDS - Scope and Guiding Principles ............................................................................ 7 GOAL 1 - Preparedness: Enhance the preparedness of the agriculture and food system ... 8 GOAL 2 - Detection: Improve agriculture and food system detection capabilities ......... 10 GOAL 3 - Emergency Response: Ensure an efficient response to agriculture and food emergencies....................................................................................................................... 11 GOAL 4 - Recovery: Secure agriculture and food production after an agriculture or food emergency ......................................................................................................................... 13 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Food Fraud Do You Know What You Are Eating? National Coalition for Food and Agriculture Research (C-FAR) Monday, May 9, 2011 / Noon to 1:00Pm John Spink, Phd
    Food Fraud Do You Know What You are Eating? National Coalition for Food and Agriculture Research (C-FAR) Monday, May 9, 2011 / Noon to 1:00pm John Spink, PhD Assistant Professor, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University Associate Director, Anti-Counterfeiting and Product Protection Program (A-CAPPP) Adjunct Assistant Professor, Program in Public Health, College of Human Medicine Instructor, National Food Safety & Toxicology Center (NFSTC) Chair, Packaging Committee, State of Michigan’s Ag & Food Protection Steering Committee Chair, US Delegation, ISO TC 247 Fraud Controls and Countermeasures Member, USP/FCC Food Ingredient Intentional Adulteration Expert Panel Michigan State University [email protected] 517.381.4491 www.A-CAPPP.msu.edu © 2011 Michigan State University 1 Food Safety Modernization Act • 11 Mentions of “Intentional Adulteration” • Section 106. Protection against intentional adulteration – “103 (1) identify and evaluate known or reasonably foreseeable hazards that may be associated with the facility… (2) identify and evaluate hazards that may be intentionally introduced, including by acts of terrorism… (3) develop a written analysis of the hazards.” – “106 (b)(1) [HHS w/ DHS & USDA]… shall issue guidance documents related to protection against the intentional adulteration of food, including mitigation strategies or measures to guard against such adulteration as required under section 402 of the FD&C… © 2011 Michigan State University 2 MSU and Criminal Justice •MSU – Original Land Grant School, 1855 – 17 Degree Granting
    [Show full text]
  • Food Defense: What It Is, Why We Need It, and Where It’S Going?
    Food Defense: What It Is, Why We Need It, and Where It’s Going? by Ray Gilley, President and CEO ISI Security Introduction As CEO of ISI Security, one of my jobs is keeping up with current security trends surrounding different industries and there is almost no other industry in which security impacts more people than the nation’s food supply. For the purposes of this discussion, food includes all commercially produced consumables (i.e. food, water, beverages, pharmaceuticals). Food Safety / Food Defense Food safety laws began to take shape in the early 1900s after the publication of the novel, The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. In that novel, the author exposed the appalling unsanitary conditions in America’s meat packing industry, and by extension the nation’s food industry as a whole. Following that publication, the public outcry demanding changes to address the conditions forced government at all levels to establish laws to protect the public from accidental or careless practices that could result in premature spoilage or dangerous adulteration of food products. These laws, while extremely important, are not broad enough in scope to protect the public from the modern terrorist age. Food safety differs from food defense in that it is only concerned with unintentional acts. Food defense is defined as activities associated with protecting the nation's food supply from deliberate or intentional acts of contamination or tampering (http://www.fda.gov/food/fooddefense/training/ucm111382.htm). The concept of food defense as a unique and separate study from food safety came in the wake of the terrorist incidents of September 11, 2001.
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]