CurrentAffairs
U.S. preparesfor terror attack in food
By Katrina Woznicki,UPI Science News
WASHINGTON, (UPI) -- Americans already knowwhat it is like to fear lethal anthrax lurking in their mail,but when they go to take a bite out of a sandwich or sit downto a family dinner, how can they be sure they are not about toingest these deadly microorganisms?
Since Sept. 11, bioterrorism became thefederal government's number one priority. The subject includesfood security -- protecting the nation's food supply from a bioterrorismattack.
"I don't think a year ago we were veryconcerned about possibilities of food terrorism," Dr. CharlesSizer, director of the National Center for Food Safety and Technologyin Chicago, Ill. told United Press International. "This isgoing to be a long-term, evolving, type of issue. It's a new realitythat we have live to with."
Not since 1984 when cult followers of anIndian guru used salmonella as a weapon to spike salad bars at10 restaurants in an Oregon town have Americans even been worriedabout deliberate food contamination with bacteria. The Oregoncase sickened 750 people.
Eighteen years later, advanced technologyand a decentralized food supply make it possible for terroriststo contaminate the U.S. food supply and sicken or even kill thousandsof citizens.
For example, could a cow be intentionallycontaminated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or mad cow'sdisease and slipped into the nation's meat supply? On April 22,Food and Drug Administration Deputy Commissioner Lester M. Crawfordtold the Consumer Federation of America, "That is a threatwe're watching very closely."
Or could fresh produce be laced with harmfulmicrobes? Although FDA declined to provide possible scenariosits preparing for -- a spokesperson told UPI, "It is FDA'spolicy not to discuss potential threats" -- experts say noone knows what could happen so it is best to be prepared for anything.
"I don't think we know the worst possiblecase," said Helen Jensen, a member of the National ResearchCommittee, part of the National Academy of Sciences that helpedreview food security protocol and an economics professor at IowaState University in Ames, Iowa.
"Based on our experience in the lastsix months, we're seeing things we never expected to see"
To respond to this potential threat, FDAis expected to use $98 million of its $1.727 billion proposedbudget for Fiscal Year 2003 specifically for food security.
Meanwhile, FDA has wasted no time. SinceJanuary 10, it already has hired 250 food safety inspectors whosejobs it will be to monitor the food distribution process, includingchecking every single step in food's progress from the farm tosomeone's dinner plate.
"FDA has been authorized to hire approximately650 new field personnel" for inspections, Robert E. Brackett,food safety director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and AppliedNutrition, told UPI. "Although the recent security concernshave accelerated hiring plans, it has been recognized for yearsthat FDA's food inspection capacity needs to be enhanced as partof its normal food safety effort."
These inspectors will be responsible forgoing through food safety checklists, for both imported and domesticproducts, to ensure food never gets into the wrong hands or deviatesfrom its scheduled distribution. Random screenings for food pathogensalso will be conducted, explained Rhona Applebaum, executive vicepresident for scientific and regulatory affairs for the NationalFood Processors Association, an organization working closely withFDA on food security.
Most Americans do not know where their foodcomes from because the source of the nation's food supply is sovaried and vast. "It's no longer like you know the butcherthat's in your local community," Jensen said. This makescoordinating food terrorism prevention an effort starting at thefederal level and trickling all the way down to the small farmeror restaurant chain.
Applebaum said her office contacted FDASept. 12 about coordinating a food security protection plan. TheWashington, D.C.-based NFPA met with not only FDA, but also theCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, the EnvironmentalProtection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to designguidelines for those involved in the American food chain, includingrestaurants and food suppliers and distributors big and small.All comprise the Security for Food Alliance, formally createdtwo weeks after the terrorist attacks.
Although some food companies have boostedtheir surveillance technology to better monitor the facility andemployees, the guidelines involve "very low technology,"Sizer said.
"Light it, lock it and limit accessto it," Applebaum said. Meaning: light the property to reducethe chance of break-ins, lock up the food products, and know thepersonnel working at the food facility and limit the people withaccess to the product.
"What you want to make sure you dowhether it's a restaurant or a processing plant is that you wantto make sure you have some information on the people working foryou," Applebaum explained. This can be a challenge, particularlyin low-paying restaurants or plants where employee turnover canbe high. But Applebaum said if security checklists are fully followed,the guidelines work.
"The more hurdles we put between aperson focused on doing evil and the consumer, the less likelyit would be for a major (terrorism) event," Applebaum said.
The guidelines may seem simple, but theywere design to allow smaller companies with smaller budgets tobe able to participate in national food security efforts.
How would federal officials be able to discerna foodborne illness outbreak from a terrorist attack?
"FDA relies upon its sister agency,the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and similar stateagencies for surveillance and outbreak detection," Hackettsaid. "Epidemiologists in these agencies are trained to analyzedisease patterns and would be the first to detect the source andcause of an outbreak."
Experts concede it might not be possibleto know the difference between the two scenarios immediately,but that doesn't affect the initial response, which is to removecontaminated food from the food supply immediately and isolatethose who have been sickened, especially if the pathogen is contagious.The fact that responding to a food bioterrorism attack would besimilar to responding to a foodborne illness outbreak works inpublic health officials' favor.
"We have decades of experiences andliterally daily experience in dealing with this," said Dr.Jeremy Sobel, a medical epidemiologist with CDC in Atlanta.
When it comes to food bioterrorism, communicationis key. CDC already has in place a technologically sophisticatedsurveillance system allowing real-time electronic correspondenceconnecting CDC headquarters, state health departments and otherlocal health departments so any foodborne illness or attack canbe quickly identified, tracked, quarantined and followed throughoutthe country.
"In the case of bioterrorism,"Sobel explained, this electronic network is crucial in "identifyingthe perpetrator and getting him off the market too."
CDC also has a genetic fingerprinting systemat all state health departments based on collections of previousfoodborne pathogens taken from patient and food samples. Havingthis database of food microbes on hand helps epidemiologists quicklyidentify any genetic differences in food contaminants.
This could help scientists distinguish anattack from an outbreak and rapidly detect if contaminants havea common source should simultaneous multiple attacks or outbreaksoccur throughout the U.S.
Experts said they couldn't even forecastthe likelihood of a bioterrorism attack in food. They just knowthat after Sept. 11, the country needs to be on guard all thetime.
"We know it's a possibility,"Applebaum said. "We don't know what the probability is."