Biological Terrorism Targeted at Agriculture: the Threat to US National Security
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ROCCO CASAGRANDE Viewpoint Biological Terrorism Targeted at Agriculture: The Threat to US National Security ROCCO CASAGRANDE Rocco Casagrande is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Biology at MIT. He is currently conducting research in the Pathology Department of Harvard Medical School, where he studies how viruses evade the immune system. Mr. Casagrande is also part of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Colloquium at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. he Midwest is reeling from an infestation of corn This fictional scenario illustrates a current national blight. Over 200 farms in Iowa alone have re- security problem: several non-state actors have the abil- Tported infections. Plant pathologists note that the ity to infect large swaths of US agriculture with patho- pattern of infestation is inconsistent with a natural out- gens that can cause severe economic disruption. Despite break since the infections occurred in many places at the severity of the threat, the US Congress has failed to once and were found in farms along major interstate provide adequate funding for countermeasures, and US highways. Scientists found that the infecting strain is agencies and agricultural industries have not taken the identical to one found in Asia. Recently, this news sta- necessary steps to prevent agroterrorist attacks. tion has received a letter from a group calling itself the Last year, Congress appropriated $10 billion to com- Guardians of Gaia. They have claimed responsibility for bat terrorism, most of which was spent to prevent at- the outbreaks and stated that they will continue to at- tacks using conventional weapons, the primary tool of tack America’s corn crops until farmers disavow the use terrorists today. One billion dollars of this allocation of genetically modified ‘franken-seed.’ Already, several were specifically earmarked to thwart terrorism involv- countries and food companies have turned to corn pro- ing weapons of mass destruction such as biological ducers from other nations to avoid consumer backlash weapons. Even though biological weapons that target ag- against the tainted produce. A USDA spokeswoman has riculture are capable of massive economic damage on a claimed that corn blight is completely harmless to hu- national scale, the US Department of Agriculture mans and consumers have nothing to worry about from (USDA) has not received the funds to combat terrorism eating infected corn. Furthermore, she stated that the that it requested out of this allotment. The USDA ad- actual damage to the crop has been minimal. However, vanced two counter-terrorism proposals in the 2001 bud- the $20 billion a year corn-growing industry is already get that totaled merely $15.9 million. However, the unable to sell its stores of corn…. House of Representatives has approved only $2.9 mil- lion and the Senate only $3.6 million for these purposes.1 92 The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2000 ROCCO CASAGRANDE This financial neglect is mirrored by the limited at- agriculture could appeal to politically motivated terror- tention given to anti-agriculture terrorism in US law and ists or criminal groups seeking financial gain, as well as policy directives. Biological weapons that do not kill to apocalyptic groups who seek to kill as many people people are not included in the definition of “weapons of as possible. A biological attack that targets agriculture, mass destruction” as stated in title 50, chapter 40 of the therefore, should be regarded as a “high-consequence, US Code (Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruc- high-probability” event and receive the attention it de- tion Act). In fact, terrorism targeting crops or livestock serves as a grave national security risk. is not mentioned in the unclassified portions of Presi- This viewpoint first outlines the relatively low tech- dential Decision Directives 39 or 62 (which both delin- nical barriers to obtaining non-human pathogens. It then eate policy on counter-terrorism) or, most surprisingly, argues that agricultural pathogens can be easily em- Presidential Decision Directive 63, “Protecting ployed to harm animals and crops, causing major eco- America’s Critical Infrastructure.” nomic disruption. Next it reviews the types of terrorists Response to a natural agricultural disease outbreak is most likely to be motivated to resort to agroterrorism. coordinated by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection This viewpoint concludes that measures must be taken Service (APHIS), which would therefore also be respon- both to prevent and to mitigate agroterrorist attacks, and sible for managing the response to a biological attack it offers several specific recommendations. on crops or livestock. Funding for this service, which is a branch of the USDA, has recently been diminished, THE ABILITY OF TERRORISTS TO OBTAIN thus reducing the number of plant and animal patholo- NON-HUMAN PATHOGENS6 gists who can recognize and react to an outbreak of dis- ease. A large-scale or multi-focal outbreak would likely Isolation from the Environment overwhelm the response capability of this service, al- To obtain a pathogen, a terrorist group could try to lowing for the catastrophic spread of disease.2 isolate the organism from the environment, order it from Agriculture is a major sector of the US economy a biological collection or laboratory, or be given it by a whose protection should be given a high priority. The state sponsor. To isolate a human pathogen from the US agricultural sector accounts for 13 percent of the environment would require a terrorist group to have at Gross Domestic Product and provides jobs for over 15 least a few members with expertise in microbiology. percent of Americans.3 Exports of agricultural goods However, even a trained microbiologist has difficulty accounted for more than $50 billion dollars in 1998.4 isolating the most highly pathogenic strains from nature In addition to its economic significance, the agriculture and, once isolated, these strains often prove difficult to sector also has special importance as a source of the culture effectively while maintaining virulence. For ex- nation’s food supply. ample, Aum Shinrikyo, a well-funded and organized cult Anti-agriculture biological terrorism may have re- that released nerve gas on the subways of Tokyo, at- ceived little attention because of a misconception that it tempted to culture Ebola virus and Bacillus anthracis is as difficult to obtain, weaponize, and disseminate ag- (the causative agent of anthrax) by collecting these ricultural pathogens as it is to take an anti-human bio- agents from infected individuals and the environment, logical weapon from bacteria to bomb. Biological agents respectively. Both attempts failed to produce a weapon that target people are extremely difficult to make into that caused any human deaths, despite the presence of weapons that would kill more people than conventional several highly trained microbiologists in their group.7 explosives. Combined with the fact that only a subset of The culturing of many animal and plant diseases from terrorists would want to kill thousands of people, this the environment is far easier. The former Soviet has led policymakers to conclude that such catastrophic bioweapons scientist Ken Alibek has noted that the So- terrorism is a “high-consequence, low-probability viets found anti-agriculture weapons easier to produce: event.”5 However, a major act of agricultural terrorism, In contrast to the sophisticated reactor tech- one that causes over a billion dollars in damage, could niques developed to produce anti-personnel be produced by a series of limited infections triggered biological weapons, anti-agricultural weapons by pathogens delivered by simple methods. Furthermore, were generally produced by more primitive depending on the agent chosen, biological attacks against The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2000 93 ROCCO CASAGRANDE methods. For the anti-crop fungal diseases, this ted to obtain any of the 24 human pathogens that have involved basic surface cultivation techniques. the “potential to pose a severe threat to public health and For anti-livestock weapons, cultivation gener- safety.”11 Importantly, no plant pathogens or pathogens ally involved live-animal techniques. It is that infect only lower animals are on this prohibited list. worth noting that both of these basic tech- To obtain these non-human pathogens, a lab must in- niques could be easily adapted by terrorists.8 stead obtain a permit from the USDA. In fact, not only the Soviets but also the Iraqis used To determine if USDA guidelines were being followed simple plant-surface culturing techniques to harvest for the transfer of plant pathogens, I corresponded with anti-agricultural pathogens in the late 1980s.9 17 laboratories working with plant pathogens that could To culture a livestock or poultry pathogen, a terrorist be used by terrorists. When asked, a third of the research would first have to find an outbreak of the disease he labs contacted stated that they would require no paper- wished to isolate. The terrorist could then purchase an work to send viable samples of their plant pathogens infected animal and, after modest processing, have a inside the same state. All labs required a USDA permit sample containing the pathogen. This sample could then for the transfer of plant pathogens out of state. However, be smuggled into this country and used to cultivate more none of the labs stated that they would contact anyone pathogen. in law enforcement about the request (as would be done for the request of a human pathogen) or do any further The prospects for terrorist success can be gauged from checking if the permit seemed in order.12 a non-terrorist case, in which farmers in New Zealand sought to eradicate rabbits that were infesting their farms. However, laboratory strains of plant and animal patho- It appears that the farmers had rabbit calicivirus gens are often not as virulent as those found in nature.