The Risk of Agroterrorism

Risk and crisis communication play a significant role in the interaction between the agricultural industry and the government. Many government agencies are dedicated to the prevention and protection of risk to the United States food source. 

According to the National Research Council, risk communication is "an interactive process of exchange of information and opinion among individuals, groups, and institutions [who have some capacity for controlling or reducing the risk]" (1989). Crisis communication, on the other hand, is "an ongoing process that enables organizations to monitor their environments before and during crisis, to understand and respond appropriately, to construct a consistent interpretation, and to resolve the crisis and reestablish order" (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2015). The communication field has pushed for organizations to consolidate their risk and crisis communication plans, because risk communication can prevent or diminish the threat of a crisis. The relationship between risk communication, crisis, and time is demonstrated in the flowchart below:

The agricultural industry relies on government agencies for communication related to many different risks and crises. Two of the most common areas of risk over the last 100 years have included natural disasters (e.g., drought or flood) and economic disasters (e.g., diminished trade or low commodity prices). However, one new area of risk emerged after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks--agroterrorism.

Agroterrorism is defined by Congress and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as "the deliberate introduction of an animal or plant disease for the purpose of generating fear, causing economic losses, or undermining social stability." Since 2001, the federal government has used risk communication to minimize the threat of agroterrorism. Federal agencies have also developed crisis communication plans in the event of an agroterrorist attack. 

In 2007, the Department of Homeland Security identified critical infrastructure and key resources for additional protection from terrorist threat. One of the key sectors identified was the Agriculture and Food Sector. Partnerships developed between the FBI, FDA, HHS, and USDA to increase protection of the food source. These partnerships included developing risk and crisis communication plans, conducting simulation exercises, and training employees at the federal, state, and local levels - all best practices of successful risk communication campaigns (FDA, 2007).

Despite these active prevention campaigns, a threat assessment conducted by the FBI in 2012 found changes in the international landscape elevated the risk for agroterrorism. An attack of Foot and Mouth Disease against the cattle, swine, or poultry industries presents the greatest threat to America. A successful agroterrorism attack could lead to:

• Civilian deaths
• Loss of economic output
• Diminished international trade recognition
• Public panic

The agricultural industry accounts for one-fifth of the United States' economic output, according to the FDA, but that does not even consider the devastating long-term effects of people losing confidence in the food source. Despite the actions being taken by the federal government, there are many challenges to protecting the United States from agroterrorism. The threat can never be completely mitigated, and that is why risk communication must continue to be an interactive process between the industry and government agencies, as well as with the general public. Communication scholars identify two types of risk communication:

Dialogue-Centered (Utilitarian)	Technology-Centered (Efficiency)
Democratic, with all sides having a say in the matter	Decision making relies on subject matter experts
Matters of perception addressed as needed	Perceptions dismissed in favor of a series of facts determined by subject matter experts
Assumes subjectivity but works toward objectivity through dialogue and inquiry	Assumes objectivity through science but can be influenced by subjective interests

Although government officials may be tempted to use a technology-centered approach to provide objective, factual information, they must also dialogue with the public to provide an accurate perception of the risk (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2015). A good risk communication plan will help the public understand the level of risk (called the hazard), as well as provide steps for self-efficacy. 

Fortunately, there has never been a successful attack of agroterrorism on American soil. The Department of Homeland Security continues to take this threat seriously and to develop risk and crisis communication plans to ensure the safety of America's citizens and its food source. For more information about the threat of agroterrorism in the United States, you can read the most recent report from the Government Accountability Office: http://gao.gov/assets/250/245539.pdf