DOCSLIB.ORG

Bioweapons Monitor . 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bioweapons Monitor . 2012 BioWeapons Monitor n 2012 1 BWPP BioWeapons Monitor 2012 Copyright and credits © BioWeapons Prevention Project, 2012 Editor First published in December 2012 Gerald Walther ([email protected]) Simon Whitby ([email protected]) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, Design, Layout and Printer or transmitted, in any form or by any means, 2 without the prior permission in writing of the Inprint + Design, Bradford BioWeapons Prevention Project, or as expressly www.inprintdesign.com permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Images Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to Gerald Walther Shutterstock Images and iStockphoto at [email protected] or Simon Whitby at [email protected]. ISBN: 978-1-85143-270-7 BioWeapons Prevention Project Contents About the BioWeapons Monitor ............................................................................................. 4 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7 Country report: Brazil ....................................................................................................... 12 Country report: Germany ................................................................................................... 23 Country report: India ........................................................................................................ 36 3 Country report: Japan ....................................................................................................... 51 Country report: Kenya ....................................................................................................... 65 Country report: Switzerland ................................................................................................ 94 Country report: United Kingdom ........................................................................................... 90 Country report: United States ............................................................................................ 112 BioWeapons Monitor 2012 About Bioweapons Monitor The BioWeapons Monitor is an initiative of the agreement of Standing Agenda items on international BioWeapons Prevention Project (BWPP)—a global cooperation and assistance, developments in network of civil society actors dedicated to the science and technology and strengthening national permanent elimination of biological weapons and of implementation, the BioWeapons Monitor will seek the possibility of their re-emergence—to help monitor to provide relevant national information that will compliance with the international norm prohibiting assist the States Parties in developing approaches biological weapons, laid down chiefly in the 1972 that will enhance the effectiveness and improve 4 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). Particularly, the implementation of the BWC. A key starting it aims to increase the transparency of activities point is the information submitted by the BWC relevant to the BWC, and thereby complement the States Parties annually under the BWC confidence- current treaty regime. Preventing states and non- building measures (CBMs). The proposals submitted state actors from acquiring and using biological by Canada and Switzerland to the Seventh Review weapons is an urgent need. The BioWeapons Conference1 to explore a broader concept of Monitor seeks to provide factual information that compliance assessment based on examining and will enhance discussions on strengthening the assessing the national regulatory programme that effectiveness and improving implementation of the has been implemented to ensure compliance with BWC and other national and international measures a regulatory/legislated requirement provide an relating to the prohibition of biological weapons. Its interesting approach. objective is to benefit the international community as a whole. The BioWeapons Monitor 2012 contains country reports on BWC-relevant activities in eight The BioWeapons Monitor seeks to complement states: Brazil, Germany, India, Japan, Kenya, and work with governments in their activities to Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United effectively implement the BWC and to fulfill their obligations to permanently eliminate biological 1 Canada and Switzerland, National Implementa- weapons and prevent their re-emergence. Following tion of the BTWC: Compliance Assessment, submitted to the Seventh the Seventh Review Conference in 2011 and its Review Conference and issued as MSP/2012/MX/WP. 17, BioWeapons Prevention Project States. In-country authors collected and analysed comments from governmental and non-governmental relevant information that is distributed through actors. this publication. The authors used open sources and actively sought information from government Origins of the BioWeapons Monitor departments, research institutions, industry, scientific societies and other entities. This wide The BioWeapons Monitor idea grew in response to range of sources helps to ensure that the project is the wish to find a way forward to strengthen the as comprehensive as possible and draws on as many effectiveness and improve the implementation of the reliable sources as possible. The BioWeapons Monitor Convention in the early twenty-first century. Over 2012 is based on the model for 2011: For future time, its aims have become more concrete. In 2008, years the intention is to extend the coverage to a group of four civil society organisations – the include all three of the Standing Agenda items of the Institute for Security Studies in South Africa, the Intersessional Process. Research Group for Biological Arms Control in Germany, the Society for the Study of Peace and The BioWeapons Monitor takes the Landmine Conflict in India, the Verification Research Training Monitor – a product of the International Campaign and Information Centre in the UK – took up the to Ban Landmines, which is a global network of civil challenge of increasing transparency in areas related society organisations – as its role model. Although to the BWC by monitoring the activities of states. a civil society initiative, the Landmine Monitor is With the input of the BWPP Board of Directors, regarded as the de facto monitoring regime for the the BioWeapons Monitor was further developed 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, reporting on States Parties’ and initial funding secured in early 2010. The first 5 implementation of, and compliance with, that edition of the BioWeapons Monitor was released on accord. The country reports in the BioWeapons 10 December 2010. Monitor 2012 provide factual information and are constructive in their analysis. As a rule, any Acknowledgements potentially controversial piece of information is We gratefully acknowledge the receipt of funding for backed by two different sources. More importantly, this third edition of the BioWeapons Monitor from the States Parties are invited to advice on and comment Government of Norway. The views expressed in this on the information prior to publication. This third publication do not necessarily reflect those of the edition of the BioWeapons Monitor builds on Government of Norway. experience obtained during work on the second issue in 2011. The Third edition was, and future editions will be, able to build on relationships established by the in-country authors with relevant experts on the ground and experience of finding and using data sources, allowing, over time, reports to be more comprehensive and presenting a more complete picture of BWC-relevant activities. The BioWeapons Monitor is a work in progress, being constantly updated, corrected and improved. We welcome BioWeapons Monitor 2012 List of researchers and advisers The following in-country authors were responsible for carrying out research and writing the country reports: Animesh Roul, Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict, India. Eucharia Kenya and Margaret Muturi, International Centre for Health Intervention and Research in Africa Géraldine Marks, Paul Cézanne University Aix- Marseille III, France Gunnar Jeremias, Research Group for Biological Arms Control, Germany. Isabelle Jargowsky, Ecological Society of America, US James Revill, Harvard Sussex Program on Chemical and Biological Weapons, UK Kai Ilchmann, Harvard Sussex Program on Chemical and Biological Weapons, UK Masamichi Minehata, University of Bradford, UK. 6 Work was coordinated by the Bradford Disarmament Research Centre, University of Bradford, UK. The following people have continuously supported the BioWeapons Monitor by providing information, comments, and advice: Angela Woodward, Verification Research, Training and Information Centre, UK Graham Pearson, Division of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, UK Marie Chevrier, Scientists Working Group on Biological and Chemical Weapons, US Richard Lennane and Piers Millet, BWC Implementation Support Unit, United Nations Office Geneva, Switzerland. BioWeapons Prevention Project Introduction State of the biological weapons States not members of the BWC disarmament regime 1. Andorra 2. Angola The centrepiece of the multilateral biological 3. Cameroon weapons disarmament regime is the Biological 4. Chad Weapons Convention (BWC) of 1972, which entered 5. Comoros into force 1975. In total, there are 166 members 6. Djibouti and 12 signatories to the BWC. Nineteen countries 7. Eritrea 7 remain outside of the Convention. Compared to other
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]
  • Department of Agriculture
    Vol. 76 Monday, No. 191 October 3, 2011 Part V Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 331 9 CFR Part 121 Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002; Biennial Review and Republication of the Select Agent and Toxin List; Amendments to the Select Agent and Toxin Regulations; Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Sep 30, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\03OCP3.SGM 03OCP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61228 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 191 / Monday, October 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station determines has the potential to pose a 3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, severe threat to animal or plant health, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. or to animal or plant products. Service Supporting documents and any Paragraph (a)(2) of section 212 requires comments we receive on this docket the Secretary to review and republish 7 CFR Part 331 may be viewed at http:// the list every 2 years and to revise the www.regulations.gov/ list as necessary. In this document, we 9 CFR Part 121 #!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0070 or are proposing to amend and republish [Docket No. APHIS–2009–0070] in our reading room, which is located in the list of select agents and toxins based room 1141 of the USDA South Building, on the findings of our third biennial RIN 0579–AD09 14th Street and Independence Avenue, review of the list. SW., Washington, DC.
    [Show full text]
  • ADF = Air Defence
    PARTNERSHIP WORK PROGRAMME – SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES FOR 2004 ADF = Air Defence ACO.2728 Ground Based Air Defence (GBAD) Planning Seminar Proposed by: JFC HQ Brunssum AOC: ADF Topic: GBAD mission planning to include employment principles, joint doctrine, C2 interoperability, point defence, area defence and cluster concept. Discuss procedures used in developing the commanders air defence policies. Terrain analysis. Events Action Authority Type Date Location 30 Aug 2004 - 10 Sept ACO.2728.24 CC-Air HQ Ramst Seminar Halmstad , AIR/RAMSTEIN 2004 ACO.2960 P-3-06 Ground Based Air Defence Course (C-06) Proposed by: SHAPE AOC: ADF Topic: Ground Based Air Defence Course for PfP Events Action Authority Type Date Location ACO.2960.5 NS(S) Course 9 Feb 2004 - 13 Feb 2004 Oberammergau , NS(S) ACO.3009 PfP Cross - Servicing Training Proposed by: JFC HQ Brunssum AOC: ADF Topic: Information about NATO's concept of cross-service aircraft, including re-arming and hands-on training. Events Action Authority Type Date Location ACO.3009.2 CC-Air HQ Ramst Training 9 Jun 2004, 1 day AIRNORTH IS/DI.932 NADC Plenary Proposed by: NADC AOC: ADF Topic: Enlarged Plenary Session of the NATO Air Defence Committee Events Action Authority Type Date Location IS/DI.932.15 IS/DI Meeting 2nd Qtr 2004, 2 days IS/DI.932.16 IS/DI Meeting 4th Qtr 2004, 2 days IS/DI.1155 NADC Seminar Proposed by: NADC AOC: ADF Topic: Seminar on Air Defence topic Events Action Authority Type Date Location IS/DI.1155.11 IS/DI Seminar TBD 2004, 1 day IS/DI.1155.12 IS/DI Seminar TBD 2004, 1 day IS/DI.1191
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Agents in the Laboratory
    PUBLIC INTEREST REPORT FALL 2011 BACKGROUND BRIEF HISTORY OF BIOSAFETY Within three weeks of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September Innovation and development of biosafety 11, 2001, the United States experienced a second assault in the form of anthrax spores in the United States is reflected accurately delivered through the U.S. mail. The event in the history and pre-history of the initiated widespread changes in the scientific American Biological Safety Association enterprise of the United States, in its (ABSA). The first unofficial meeting was federally-based funding priorities and in the held on April 18, 1955 at Camp Detrick regulatory and oversight mechanisms that (now Fort Detrick) and involved strive to keep laboratories and communities members of the military representing safe. Camp Detrick, Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas (PBA), and Dugway Proving “The events of September 11, 2001, and the Grounds, Utah (DPG). In those days, the anthrax attacks in October of that year re- offensive BW program of the United shaped and changed, forever, the way we States was in full swing: the opening manage and conduct work in biological and keynote address was “The Role of Safety clinical laboratories.”1 in the Biological Warfare Effort.” Beginning in 1957, the yearly meetings Biosafety and biosecurity have dominated began to include non-classified sessions to the policy discourse and the two have been broaden the reach of the Association; inexorably intertwined. Biosafety and representatives of the USDA were regular biosecurity are defined by the World Health 2 attendees through this “transition Organization (WHO): Biosafety comprises 4 “the containment principles, technologies period.” There were striking changes in and practices that are implemented to the meetings in 1964-1965: the NIH and prevent unintentional exposure to pathogens CDC joined for the first time, along with and toxins or their accidental release”; a number of other relevant federal biosecurity is defined as “the protection, agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Biosafety Level
    Biological Safety Manual Prepared by: Environmental Health and Safety Office April 2012 Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... ii Tables and Figures ................................................................................................................. vii Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... viii Foreword ............................................................................................................................... x Document History .................................................................................................................... x 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Biological Material ............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.1 Biohazardous Material ........................................................................................ 1-1 1.1.2 Nonbiohazardous Material .................................................................................. 1-2 1.2 Regulations, Guidelines, and Permit Requirements ............................................. 1-2 1.3 Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................... 1-4 1.3.1 Vice President for Research and Economic Development
    [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]
  • Federal Select Agent Program (FSAP)
    United States of America: Perspectives and Approaches to Biosafety and Biosecurity Regulatory Framework Samuel S. Edwin, PhD Director, Division of Select Agents and Toxins September 26-28, 2018 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response Federal Select Agent Program (FSAP) FSAP regulates the possession, use, and transfer of biological select agents and toxins that have the potential to pose a severe threat to public, animal or plant health, or to animal or plant products Managed jointly by: ▪ The Division of Select Agents and Toxins (DSAT) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ▪ The Agriculture Select Agent Services (AgSAS) at the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Overview & History 2001 anthrax attacks led to strengthening of program Title II of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 ▪ Legal authority for the current Federal Select Agent Program ▪ Required security measures in addition to biosafety measures ▪ Strengthened the regulatory authorities of HHS ▪ Granted comparable regulatory authorities to USDA 1. Establish and maintain a list of biological agents and toxins that have the potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety. Consider: 1. Effect on human health 2. Degree of contagiousness and transmissibility 3. Availability of pharmacotherapies and immunizations 4. Other
    [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]
  • Clinical Laboratory Preparedness and Response Guide
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 State Information ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Laboratory Response Network (LRN) .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Other Emergency Preparedness Response Information: .................................................................................................... 19 Radiological Threats ......................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Food Safety Threats .......................................................................................................................................................................... 25 BioWatch Program ............................................................................................................................................................................ 27 Bio Detection Systems
    [Show full text]
  • Responding to the Threat of Agroterrorism: Specific Recommendations for the United States Department of Agriculture
    Responding to the Threat of Agroterrorism: Specific Recommendations for the United States Department of Agriculture Anne Kohnen ESDP-2000-04 BCSIA-2000-29 October 2000 CITATION AND REPRODUCTION This document appears as Discussion Paper 2000-29 of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and as contribution ESDP-2000-04 of the Executive Session on Domestic Preparedness, a joint project of the Belfer Center and the Taubman Center for State and Local Government. Comments are welcome and may be directed to the author in care of the Executive Session on Domestic Session. This paper may be cited as Anne Kohnen. “Responding to the Threat of Agroterrorism: Specific Recommendations for the United States Department of Agriculture.” BCSIA Discussion Paper 2000-29, ESDP Discussion Paper ESDP-2000-04, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, October 2000. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Anne Kohnen graduated from the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, in June 2000, with a Master’s degree in public policy, specializing in science and technology policy. This paper is an extension of her Master’s thesis. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author expresses special thanks go to the following people who contributed to this paper valuable information and expertise. From the USDA: Jerry Alanko, Dr. Bruce Carter, Dr. Tom Gomez, Dr. David Huxsoll, Dr. Steve Knight, Dr. Paul Kohnen, Dr. Marc Mattix, Dr. Norm Steele, Dr. Ian Stewart, Dr. Ty Vannieuwenhoven, Dr. Tom Walton, and Dr. Oliver Williams. From other agencies: Dr. Norm Schaad (USAMRIID), Dr. Tracee Treadwell (CDC). From the Kennedy School of Government: Dr. Richard Falkenrath, Greg Koblentz, Robyn Pangi, and Wendy Volkland.
    [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]