What Is the Worst-Case Scenario of Agroterrorism Against Agricultural and Food Industries?
The worst-case scenario of agroterrorism involves the deliberate introduction of highly contagious animal diseases such as Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) or plant pathogens like wheat rust into the United States agricultural system, causing catastrophic economic losses exceeding $200 billion, massive food supply disruptions, and potential loss of human life through contaminated food products. The greatest threat agents include biological pathogens (animal diseases like FMD, Avian Influenza, and African Swine Fever; plant diseases like wheat rust and citrus greening), chemical contaminants (pesticides, heavy metals, and industrial toxins introduced into food processing), and radiological materials dispersed in food supply chains. Biological agents pose the greatest threat because they are relatively easy to obtain, difficult to detect initially, can spread rapidly through natural transmission, require minimal technical expertise to deploy, and create cascading economic and psychological impacts. Current mitigation measures include the National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN), Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) protocols, DHS Food and Agriculture Sector-Specific Plan, enhanced biosecurity standards at farms and processing facilities, rapid response teams, international cooperation through organizations like the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), and public-private partnerships for threat intelligence sharing and vulnerability assessments.
Understanding Agroterrorism: Why Agricultural Systems Are Vulnerable Targets
Agroterrorism represents a unique and increasingly concerning subset of terrorism that specifically targets agricultural production, livestock, food processing, and distribution systems with the intent to cause economic damage, public fear, or social disruption (Chalk, 2004). Unlike traditional terrorism that seeks immediate casualties through explosive or kinetic attacks, agroterrorism exploits the inherent vulnerabilities in food and agriculture systems—their geographic dispersion, limited security infrastructure, dependence on natural biological processes, and the interconnected nature of modern food supply chains. Agricultural targets present attractive opportunities for terrorist groups because they offer high-impact potential with relatively low risk of interdiction, minimal technical requirements compared to other weapons of mass disruption, and the ability to create widespread economic consequences that ripple through entire economies while generating significant psychological trauma among civilian populations concerned about food safety and security.
The vulnerability of agricultural systems stems from several structural characteristics that differentiate them from other critical infrastructure sectors. Modern agriculture operates across vast geographic areas with thousands of small and medium-sized facilities—farms, feedlots, processing plants, and distribution centers—that cannot be physically secured to the same degree as nuclear facilities or government buildings (Cupp et al., 2004). Livestock concentrated in intensive production systems create ideal conditions for disease transmission, where a single infected animal can potentially spread pathogens to thousands of others before detection occurs. The global nature of agricultural trade means that diseases or contaminants introduced in one location can quickly spread internationally through animal movements, contaminated feed, or infected food products. Furthermore, the economic structure of modern agriculture, with its emphasis on efficiency and just-in-time supply chains, leaves little redundancy or buffer capacity to absorb disruptions, meaning that even localized attacks can cascade into national or international crises affecting food availability, prices, and public confidence in food safety systems.
What Defines the Worst-Case Agroterrorism Scenario?
Catastrophic Economic and Social Impacts
The worst-case agroterrorism scenario encompasses not merely the immediate effects of an attack but the cascading consequences that ripple through economic, social, and political systems over extended periods. A coordinated attack introducing Foot-and-Mouth Disease into multiple livestock production regions could necessitate the destruction of millions of animals, halt domestic and international meat trade worth billions of dollars annually, devastate rural communities economically dependent on agriculture, and require years for industry recovery and restoration of international market access (Chalk, 2004). Economic models estimate that a widespread FMD outbreak in the United States could generate direct and indirect costs exceeding $200 billion when accounting for animal destruction, trade embargoes, regional economic impacts, disease eradication costs, and long-term market disruptions. Beyond immediate agricultural losses, secondary effects would include unemployment in processing and distribution sectors, bankruptcy of farms and agricultural businesses, increased food prices affecting vulnerable populations, and potential social unrest in affected regions experiencing economic collapse.
The psychological and social dimensions of worst-case agroterrorism scenarios amplify their impact beyond purely economic calculations. Public fear about food safety can trigger behavioral changes including panic buying, avoidance of specific food products, and loss of confidence in government’s ability to protect critical systems—responses that extend and deepen economic disruptions regardless of actual contamination levels (Knowles et al., 2005). Unlike traditional terrorism where impacts are geographically confined and temporally limited, agroterrorism creates sustained uncertainty because biological agents continue spreading after initial introduction, contamination can persist in environments and food chains for extended periods, and the full scope of attacks may not become apparent for weeks or months as diseases incubate and spread. The worst-case scenario thus involves not only the direct attack but the erosion of public trust, international trade relationships, and social cohesion that can persist long after the immediate crisis is resolved, fundamentally damaging the agricultural sector’s economic viability and society’s confidence in food system security.
Potential for Human Casualties Through Foodborne Contamination
While agroterrorism primarily targets economic and psychological objectives, worst-case scenarios include the potential for significant human casualties through deliberate contamination of food products with biological or chemical agents intended to cause illness or death in consumers. Historical cases like the 1984 Rajneeshee salmonella contamination in Oregon, where a religious cult deliberately infected salad bars with salmonella bacteria affecting 751 people, demonstrate the feasibility and potential scale of food contamination attacks (Khan et al., 2001). More catastrophic scenarios could involve introducing lethal biological agents such as botulinum toxin, ricin, or hemorrhagic fever viruses into food processing facilities or distribution networks, potentially affecting thousands or millions of consumers before detection and recall efforts could prevent consumption. Chemical contaminants including pesticides, industrial toxins, or heavy metals deliberately introduced at processing facilities could similarly create mass casualty events while simultaneously destroying public confidence in food safety systems.
The challenge of detecting and responding to foodborne contamination attacks compounds their potential severity in worst-case scenarios. Unlike animal or plant diseases that manifest in agricultural settings before reaching consumers, contamination introduced late in the food supply chain—at processing, packaging, or retail stages—could reach consumers before any warning signs appear in agricultural systems (Wein & Liu, 2005). The distributed nature of food distribution means contaminated products could be dispersed across wide geographic areas before the first cases of illness prompt investigations, and the delay between consumption and symptom onset for many biological and chemical agents allows continued exposure while authorities work to identify contamination sources and implement recalls. Modern food supply chains’ complexity, involving numerous processing steps, ingredient sourcing from multiple locations, and distribution through countless retail outlets, creates enormous challenges for rapidly tracing contamination sources and removing affected products from commerce. A sophisticated attack targeting multiple products or facilities simultaneously could overwhelm public health and food safety systems’ response capacity, resulting in a prolonged crisis with mounting casualties and complete collapse of consumer confidence in food safety—a worst-case outcome that could take years to overcome even after the immediate threat is neutralized.
Which Biological Threat Agents Pose the Greatest Agroterrorism Risks?
Foot-and-Mouth Disease: The Primary Livestock Threat
Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) represents the single greatest biological threat to livestock industries due to its extreme contagiousness, rapid spread, severe economic consequences, and the United States’ current disease-free status that makes herds immunologically naive and highly susceptible (Chalk, 2004). FMD affects cloven-hoofed animals including cattle, swine, sheep, goats, and deer, causing fever, blisters in the mouth and on feet, reduced milk production, weight loss, and sometimes death in young animals. The virus spreads through direct animal contact, contaminated feed and water, aerosol transmission over considerable distances, and mechanical vectors including vehicles, equipment, and personnel moving between facilities. An FMD outbreak requires immediate quarantine, movement restrictions, and typically the destruction of all infected and exposed animals to prevent further spread—measures that can quickly extend to millions of animals in intensive production regions where facilities are concentrated and animal movements are frequent.
The economic devastation from an FMD attack would result not primarily from direct animal losses but from trade embargoes and market disruptions that persist long after disease eradication. International trading partners immediately ban livestock and meat product imports from countries experiencing FMD outbreaks, regardless of whether disease is confined to limited regions, because of the pathogen’s high transmission potential and devastating effects on importing countries’ disease-free status (Cupp et al., 2004). The United States exports billions of dollars in livestock products annually, and loss of international market access would force domestic absorption of production normally exported, depressing prices and causing financial losses throughout the industry. Regional economic impacts would be severe in major livestock production areas where agriculture supports substantial employment in farming, processing, transportation, and associated service sectors. Recovery timelines extend for years as countries work to prove disease eradication, rebuild herds, regain international market access, and restore domestic and international consumer confidence. The combination of high contagiousness, severe economic impacts, relative ease of introduction, and lengthy recovery makes FMD the premier biological threat in livestock agroterrorism scenarios.
Plant Pathogens Threatening Staple Crop Production
Plant pathogens including wheat rust, citrus greening (Huanglongbing), and soybean rust pose severe threats to crop production systems, with potential for catastrophic food security and economic consequences if deliberately introduced or spread (Madden & Wheelis, 2003). Wheat rust species, particularly Ug99 stem rust strain, can devastate wheat crops—the world’s most important food grain—reducing yields by up to 70% in susceptible varieties and spreading rapidly through airborne spores across vast production regions. Unlike animal diseases that affect single farms or regions before containment, plant pathogens spread through environmental transmission that is extremely difficult to control once established. Wheat supplies approximately 20% of human caloric intake globally, and attacks compromising wheat production could create immediate food security crises, particularly affecting vulnerable populations in developing countries dependent on imported grain while simultaneously disrupting international markets and domestic food supplies.
The difficulty of eradicating established plant diseases makes them particularly dangerous agroterrorism agents with long-term consequences extending far beyond initial introduction. Citrus greening disease, spread by tiny psyllid insects and caused by bacteria, has no cure and devastated Florida’s citrus industry over the past two decades, reducing production by more than 70% despite extensive research and management efforts (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2010). Deliberate introduction of such diseases into previously unaffected production regions could similarly cripple those industries for decades. Plant pathogens persist in soil, alternative host plants, and insect vectors, requiring sustained management efforts and often complete replacement of affected orchards or crop varieties—processes requiring years or decades and enormous financial investments. The agricultural system’s dependence on relatively few crop varieties, particularly for major staples like wheat, corn, and soybeans, creates vulnerability to diseases that overcome resistance in widely planted varieties, potentially affecting most production across entire regions simultaneously. These characteristics make plant pathogens formidable agroterrorism threats capable of generating sustained disruption to food security and agricultural economies.
What Chemical and Radiological Agents Threaten Food Systems?
Chemical Contamination of Food Supply Chains
Chemical agents pose significant agroterrorism threats through their potential for introduction at multiple points in food supply chains, from production fields through processing facilities to retail distribution (Wein & Liu, 2005). Pesticides, industrial chemicals, heavy metals, and toxic compounds could be deliberately introduced to contaminate food products, feed supplies, or agricultural inputs like fertilizers and irrigation water. Unlike biological agents that require specific conditions for growth and transmission, chemical contaminants remain stable in various environments and can be introduced in concentrated forms that ensure lethal or sub-lethal doses reach consumers. Processing facilities represent particularly vulnerable targets because contamination introduced at centralized facilities affects large volumes of products distributed widely before detection, and the complex ingredient sourcing in modern food manufacturing means contaminated inputs could enter numerous product lines simultaneously.
The 2008 Chinese melamine contamination scandal, while not terrorism, illustrates the potential scale and impact of chemical contamination in food systems—melamine deliberately added to milk products to fraudulently inflate protein measurements resulted in approximately 300,000 victims including infant deaths and widespread kidney damage (Gossner et al., 2009). An intentional agroterrorism attack using more lethal chemical agents at similar scale could create mass casualties and completely destroy consumer confidence in food safety systems. Detection challenges compound chemical contamination threats because routine food safety testing targets specific known contaminants, and unusual agents deliberately chosen for attacks might not be detected by standard screening procedures until after consumer illness or death prompts specific investigations. The psychological impact of chemical contamination extends beyond actual risk because consumers perceive chemicals as particularly dangerous and “unnatural” threats, potentially triggering sustained changes in purchasing behavior and food system participation that persist long after contaminated products are removed from commerce.
Radiological Dispersion in Agricultural Settings
Radiological materials dispersed in agricultural settings or food processing facilities represent low-probability but potentially catastrophic agroterrorism scenarios with unique characteristics combining immediate health risks with long-term environmental contamination (Ferguson et al., 2003). Radiological dispersion devices (RDDs or “dirty bombs”) could spread radioactive materials across farmland, into livestock feed or water systems, or through food processing facilities, creating areas unsuitable for agricultural production for extended periods and contaminating food products that would require destruction. Unlike chemical or biological agents that degrade over time, certain radioisotopes persist for years or decades, potentially removing significant agricultural land from production permanently and creating sustained economic losses beyond the immediate attack. The psychological impact of radiological contamination would be particularly severe due to public fear of radiation exposure, likely triggering widespread avoidance of food products from affected regions regardless of actual contamination levels or health risks.
The practical challenges of radiological agroterrorism—obtaining sufficient quantities of radioactive materials, dispersing them effectively, and achieving significant contamination—make such scenarios less likely than biological or chemical attacks, but the consequences if executed successfully would be uniquely devastating (Ferguson et al., 2003). Decontamination of agricultural land following radiological attacks could prove impossible for high-activity isotopes, effectively permanently destroying farmland value and agricultural productivity. Food products contaminated with radioactive materials would be unsuitable for human or animal consumption, requiring destruction of entire harvests or livestock herds from affected regions. International trade impacts would be severe and sustained, as importing countries would ban agricultural products from regions experiencing radiological contamination regardless of decontamination efforts or contamination levels in specific products. The combination of long-term land contamination, severe trade restrictions, and extreme psychological responses make radiological agroterrorism among the most consequential worst-case scenarios, though the technical challenges and resource requirements for executing such attacks make them less probable than biological or chemical threats.
Why Do Biological Agents Pose the Greatest Agroterrorism Threat?
Accessibility and Technical Simplicity
Biological agents represent the greatest agroterrorism threat primarily due to their accessibility and the minimal technical expertise required for weaponization and deployment compared to chemical or radiological alternatives (Knowles et al., 2005). Many high-consequence animal diseases including FMD, African Swine Fever, and Avian Influenza exist naturally in various regions worldwide, and motivated actors could obtain infectious materials through travel to endemic areas, contact with infected animals, or acquisition from inadequately secured veterinary diagnostic laboratories or research facilities. Unlike nuclear materials requiring sophisticated acquisition from highly secured facilities or chemical weapons requiring specialized synthesis capabilities, biological agents for agroterrorism can be collected from naturally occurring outbreaks or cultured from small samples using basic laboratory equipment available commercially. The scientific knowledge required to culture and maintain most agricultural pathogens is considerably less sophisticated than that needed for developing weapons targeting humans, as agricultural diseases often grow readily in basic culture media and remain viable under simple storage conditions.
Deployment of biological agroterrorism agents requires minimal sophistication compared to other weapons categories, further contributing to their threat prominence. Introducing FMD into susceptible livestock populations requires nothing more than exposing animals to infectious material—accomplished by contaminating feed or water, introducing infected animals into herds, or simply spreading infectious secretions on surfaces animals will contact (Chalk, 2004). No specialized delivery systems, dispersal devices, or technical expertise beyond basic biosecurity circumvention is required. Plant pathogens similarly can be introduced through simple dispersal of infectious spores or contaminated plant material in target crop areas. The contrast with chemical weapons, which require careful handling and specialized dispersal to achieve effective concentrations, or radiological devices, which require sophisticated planning to achieve significant contamination, highlights biological agents’ accessibility advantages from terrorist perspectives. This combination of easy acquisition, simple culture and maintenance, and straightforward deployment makes biological agroterrorism threats more likely to be successfully executed than alternatives requiring greater resources, expertise, and operational sophistication.
Natural Amplification and Cascading Spread
The self-replicating nature of biological agents creates unique force multiplication effects that amplify initial attacks far beyond the scale terrorists could achieve through repeated deployments of chemical or radiological weapons (Madden & Wheelis, 2003). A single animal infected with FMD can transmit the disease to dozens of herd mates, each of which can infect others, creating exponential spread that disseminates the pathogen across entire facilities and regions without any additional terrorist action. Similarly, plant pathogens produce enormous numbers of spores that environmental conditions disperse across landscapes, infecting susceptible plants throughout production areas and establishing endemic presence that persists for multiple growing seasons. This biological amplification means that relatively small-scale initial attacks—affecting only a few animals or limited crop areas—can blossom into major outbreaks indistinguishable from natural disease emergence and creating impacts far exceeding the direct consequences of the introduction itself.
The economic and psychological advantages of biological agents’ natural amplification make them particularly attractive from strategic terrorism perspectives. Terrorist groups need only successfully introduce pathogens into agricultural systems, after which natural biological processes accomplish the terrorists’ objectives of creating economic damage and public fear without further action or risk exposure (Cupp et al., 2004). This “plant and walk away” characteristic contrasts sharply with conventional terrorism requiring sustained operational activity and repeated attacks to maintain pressure and achieve strategic objectives. The cascading spread of biological agents creates sustained crises requiring extended emergency responses, prolonged movement restrictions and quarantines, and lengthy recovery periods—all of which amplify psychological impacts and economic costs far beyond what the initial attack itself generates. Attribution challenges further enhance biological agents’ attractiveness because natural disease spread obscures attack origins, and the delay between introduction and outbreak recognition allows terrorists to escape surveillance and detection. These unique characteristics—self-replication, force multiplication, sustained autonomous impact, and attribution difficulties—collectively make biological agents the premier agroterrorism threat category despite the existence of alternative weapons capable of causing immediate casualties or damage.
What Mitigation Measures Protect Agricultural Systems from Agroterrorism?
Biosecurity Infrastructure and Surveillance Systems
The United States has implemented comprehensive biosecurity infrastructure designed to prevent, detect, and respond to agroterrorism threats through multi-layered protective systems spanning prevention, early detection, rapid response, and recovery capabilities (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2015). The National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN) provides distributed diagnostic capacity for rapid identification of disease outbreaks, with laboratories positioned strategically across all states to enable quick sample submission, testing, and confirmation of suspicious cases that might indicate natural outbreaks or intentional introduction. The Laboratory Response Network for Food (LRN-F) similarly provides nationwide capacity for detecting chemical and biological contamination in food products through coordinated federal, state, and local public health laboratories trained in specialized detection methodologies and connected through rapid communication protocols. These surveillance systems enable authorities to identify unusual disease patterns, contamination events, or suspicious activities that could indicate agroterrorism attacks, triggering immediate investigation and response protocols designed to contain threats before they expand into major crises.
Enhanced biosecurity standards implemented across agricultural production sectors provide foundational defense against agroterrorism by reducing opportunities for pathogen introduction and limiting disease spread if attacks occur (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2010). Modern livestock facilities implement controlled access, visitor management protocols, equipment sanitation procedures, feed security measures, and animal health monitoring designed to prevent unauthorized pathogen introduction while enabling rapid detection of unusual disease patterns. The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), enacted in 2011, fundamentally reformed food safety regulation by shifting emphasis from response to prevention, requiring facilities to identify vulnerabilities, implement risk-based preventive controls, and develop response plans for contamination events. FSMA’s intentional adulteration rule specifically addresses food defense by requiring facilities to assess risks from intentional contamination and implement mitigation strategies protecting vulnerable points in production processes. These regulatory frameworks, combined with industry best practices and security awareness training, create overlapping protective layers that significantly increase the difficulty of successfully executing agroterrorism attacks while improving early detection capabilities that enable rapid response before limited incidents expand into catastrophic outbreaks.
Emergency Response and Recovery Capabilities
Federal, state, and local authorities maintain emergency response capabilities specifically designed to address agricultural disease outbreaks and food contamination events, whether naturally occurring or resulting from intentional attacks (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2015). The DHS Food and Agriculture Sector-Specific Plan coordinates protection efforts across the sector, defining roles and responsibilities for federal agencies, state and local governments, and private sector partners while establishing communication protocols and resource coordination mechanisms for crisis response. The USDA maintains emergency response teams trained in disease outbreak investigation, quarantine implementation, depopulation procedures, and disposal operations necessary for containing animal disease emergencies. The National Veterinary Stockpile stores critical response resources including vaccines, antivirals, personal protective equipment, and diagnostic supplies that can be rapidly deployed to outbreak locations, ensuring response operations are not delayed by resource acquisition challenges during fast-moving crises.
Recovery capabilities address the long-term process of restoring agricultural production, rebuilding affected industries, and regaining market access following successful attack containment (Chalk, 2004). Federal disaster assistance programs provide financial support to affected producers, helping them survive economically during production interruptions and funding herd or crop rebuilding following disease eradication. Technical assistance programs help producers implement enhanced biosecurity, transition to resistant crop varieties, or rebuild facilities incorporating improved security features that reduce future vulnerability. International coordination through the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, formerly OIE) facilitates communication about disease status, harmonizes diagnostic and surveillance standards, and provides frameworks for regaining disease-free status and market access following outbreaks. Public information campaigns address psychological impacts by providing accurate risk information, countering misinformation, and rebuilding consumer confidence in food safety systems. These recovery capabilities recognize that effective agroterrorism response extends beyond immediate outbreak containment to encompass the lengthy process of returning agricultural systems to normal function and restoring economic viability to affected industries and regions.
How Can Public-Private Partnerships Enhance Agricultural Security?
Information Sharing and Threat Intelligence
Effective agroterrorism prevention requires robust information sharing between government agencies possessing classified intelligence about threats and private sector agricultural entities controlling actual production, processing, and distribution facilities (Knowles et al., 2005). Public-private partnerships formalized through Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs), government liaison programs, and sector coordinating councils enable two-way communication that enhances security across the agricultural sector. Government agencies share threat information, vulnerability assessments, and protective guidance with industry partners, enabling companies to implement appropriate security measures and remain vigilant for suspicious activities that could indicate attack planning or execution. Simultaneously, private sector participants report unusual incidents, suspicious inquiries about facility operations or security, and observed vulnerabilities to government partners, providing ground-level intelligence that complements classified sources and enables authorities to build comprehensive threat pictures guiding protective priorities.
The Food and Agriculture Sector Coordinating Council brings together trade associations, major companies, and government agencies to coordinate security enhancement efforts, share best practices, and develop collective approaches to emerging threats (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2015). These partnerships recognize that government cannot unilaterally protect the geographically dispersed, privately owned agricultural infrastructure that constitutes critical national security assets. Instead, effective security requires active engagement from facility owners and operators who must implement protective measures, remain alert for threats, and participate in planning and exercise programs that prepare all participants for coordinated response to attacks. The trust relationships built through sustained public-private collaboration enable more effective crisis response because participants understand each other’s capabilities and constraints, have established communication channels, and can rapidly coordinate activities during fast-moving emergencies requiring immediate action to contain threats before they expand into catastrophic crises.
Conclusion: Building Resilience Against Agroterrorism Threats
The worst-case agroterrorism scenarios—involving widespread introduction of highly contagious animal diseases, devastating plant pathogens, or lethal food contamination—pose significant threats to national security, economic stability, and public health. Biological agents represent the greatest threat due to their accessibility, ease of deployment, natural amplification effects, and potential for catastrophic economic and psychological consequences. However, the multi-layered mitigation systems currently in place, combining enhanced biosecurity, comprehensive surveillance, rapid response capabilities, and public-private partnerships, provide substantial protection against these threats while enabling quick detection and containment if attacks occur.
Moving forward, continued investment in agricultural security infrastructure, maintenance of emergency response capabilities, and strengthening of public-private collaboration remain essential for protecting against evolving agroterrorism threats. The agricultural sector’s inherent vulnerabilities—geographic dispersion, biological complexity, and economic interconnection—cannot be eliminated, but they can be managed through sustained commitment to prevention, preparedness, and resilience. By understanding worst-case scenarios and the specific agents posing the greatest threats, security professionals, agricultural producers, and policymakers can make informed decisions about resource allocation, protective priorities, and response preparation that maximize security while enabling the agricultural sector to fulfill its essential role in food security and economic prosperity.
References
Chalk, P. (2004). Hitting America’s soft underbelly: The potential threat of deliberate biological attacks against the U.S. agricultural and food industry. RAND Corporation.
Cupp, O. S., Walker, D. E., & Hillison, J. (2004). Agroterrorism in the U.S.: Key security challenge for the 21st century. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 2(2), 97-105.
Ferguson, C. D., Kazi, T., & Perera, J. (2003). Commercial radioactive sources: Surveying the security risks. Monterey Institute of International Studies, Center for Nonproliferation Studies.
Gossner, C. M., Schlundt, J., Ben Embarek, P., Hird, S., Lo-Fo-Wong, D., Beltran, J. J. O., Teoh, K. N., & Tritscher, A. (2009). The melamine incident: Implications for international food and feed safety. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(12), 1803-1808.
Khan, A. S., Swerdlow, D. L., & Juranek, D. D. (2001). Precautions against biological and chemical terrorism directed at food and water supplies. Public Health Reports, 116(1), 3-14.
Knowles, T., Lane, C., Baylis, M., & Wakerley, G. (2005). Assessing the risk of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom after August 2001. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 69(3-4), 187-199.
Madden, L. V., & Wheelis, M. (2003). The threat of plant pathogens as weapons against U.S. crops. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 41, 155-176.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2010). Strategic planning for the Florida citrus industry: Addressing citrus greening disease. The National Academies Press.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2015). Food and agriculture sector-specific plan: An annex to the NIPP 2013. Department of Homeland Security.
Wein, L. M., & Liu, Y. (2005). Analyzing a bioterror attack on the food supply: The case of botulinum toxin in milk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(28), 9984-9989.