|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
THREAT: ANIMAL AND AGRICULTURE
BIOTERRORISM
MANUEL CEREIJO
(First edition written Sep. 2002)
Anti-agricultural and animal biowarfare differ from the same activities
directed against humans. Also, attacks are substantially easier to do ;
the agents aren’t necessarily hazardous to humans; delivery systems are
readily available and unsophisticated ; maximum effect may only require
a few cases; delivery from outside the target country is possible; and
an effective attack can be constructed to appear natural .Cuba has done
extensive research and development in this field of agriculture and
animal bioterrorism.
Agriculture and animal husbandry is considered by many to be the perfect
target for bioterrorism. Why? The agriculture industry is unmatched in
revenue and scope. Food account for approximately 14% of the GDP and 25
million Americans are employed in agriculture directly, that is 2% of
the population. In 1998, the agriculture industry generated over $1.5
trillion worth of business, a large portion of which was derived from
export markets. If any of the many USA commodities were to be
significantly impacted by bioterrorism the results could be
catastrophic.
A widespread-epidemic, or any outbreak that triggered the imposition or
relaxation of trade restrictions, could result in significant changes of
supply of the affected plant or animal materials on domestic and
international markets. In general, what goals might terrorists have in
its readiness on this field?
· Attack the food supply of the United States
· Destabilize the US government by initiating food shortages or
unemployment
· Alter supply and demand patterns for a commodity
The impact of a devastating attack on our food supply would not be
limited just to the farmer. Businesses such as farm suppliers,
transportation, grocery stores, restaurants, equipment distributors, and
in the end consumers, all pay the price. Agricultural terrorism is not
about killing animals, it is about crippling our economy. Once released,
an agroterrorism event may go unnoticed for days to weeks and by then it
may be nearly impossible to determine how the event occurred.
Countries might consider agricultural attack for military, political,
ideological, or economic reasons. Since there could be quite severe
consequences of being recognized as responsible for a biological attack,
such efforts would likely be covert. This would entail an effort to make
the outbreak appear natural (CANKER?)-most probably a point-source
outbreak, or multiple outbreaks with an apparently natural common
source. Intelligence sources suspect, for example, that Cuba and Iran
have developed wheat cover smut as a weapon.
Direct financial loss due to mortality or morbidity of domestic animals
or crop plants can very from insignificant to catastrophic .In many
cases the direct losses would be modest and would fall on a small number
of farms. One of the major determinants of the magnitude of the direct
losses will be the rapidity with which the disease is noticed and
diagnosed.
Destruction of exposed hosts is often the only option when the agent is
bacterial or viral. With plants, thousands of acres of crop plants may
have to be destroyed to contain the outbreak. Thus, the losses attendant
on outbreak control can exceed, often by several orders of magnitude,
the direct losses due to the disease itself.
With the exception of a few agents of zoonotic disease, most of the
diseases that are likely to be considered for an attack on the
agricultural sector are completely harmless to humans. They are much
less challenging to produce, stockpile, and disseminate than lethal
human pathogens. Cuba has two main centers dedicated to this kind of
research Iraq also has a few.
A military style attack by airplane on large acreage of crops would
require crop dusters and large stockpiles of agent. Less ambitious
attacks would require much less in the way of equipment or agent
stockpiles. If the goal is to cause only a few cases in order to disrupt
society, then no special equipment and only a few amount of agent are
needed. And, as mentioned before, it is possible to introduce biological
agents without even entering the target country. (West Nile virus?).
If the goal is to disrupt the dynamics of the United States by
introducing a highly contagious disease into territory from which it is
absent, then the attack does not have to be constructed to cause a large
number of cases-a handful of cases may be sufficient.
The emerging sciences of genomics and proteomics, which Cuba has
researched and developed extensively, are already beginning to transform
biology. Agriculture has several properties that make it vulnerable to
attack with genotype-specific weapons.
This constellation of characteristics presented here makes biological
attacks on the agricultural and animal sectors of the United States a
real threat, perhaps more so than attack on the civilian population.
That is why Cuba, since 1992, has dedicated large efforts and funds on
the development of these agents.
We have to be aware in the United States of a new wave of bioterror :
agricultural and animal attacks. What types of agents might fulfill some
of the bioweapons?
Foot and Mouth Disease, Mad Cow disease, Hog CholeraVelogenic Newcastle
Disease, African Swine Fever, Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza, and
Rinderpest. For plants the list of agents that might be used is nearly
endless, although some, such as Wheat Smut or Rice Blast, appear more
harmful than others.
The route of introduction of these agents may vary, but aerosol, as
mentioned above seems to be one of the most effective means. As with
crops, this could be done in animals by crop dusters and hand spray
pumps. Clever methods could include the coating of turkey feathers with
the agent, filling small bomblets with the feathers, then exploding them
over the target where they drift on the wind and contaminate a vast
area.
Cuba has excelled in agricultural research and development since the
early 1900s. Castro has outstanding scientist and excellent Centers in
Cuba just dedicated to the research and development of potential bioagro
weapons.
The threat to agricultureand animal husbandry is real. We must become
fully aware and be on the alert.
RECOMMENDED READINGS
Biological Warfare against Crops; Paul Roger, Malcolm Dando. Scientific
American, 1999 |
|
|
|
|
|
INFOCUBA
