Search

This article reports results of a survey on consumer perceptions about agroterrorism conducted in October and November of 2004. As part of a more general survey the authors asked respondents who the most likely perpetrator of an agroterrorist attack would be. Of American consumers, 47.52% believed that the most likely attack would come from a state-sponsored terrorist organization or government, 23.47% from a non-state-sponsored terrorist organization, and only 14.46% for domestic terrorism. The article argues that at the time of the survey these perceptions of risk were at odds, in terms of history and the conventional wisdom, which would place higher likelihoods first on domestic terrorism, then foreign non-state-sponsored terrorism, and then foreign state-sponsored terrorism. These results are explored in detail using a combination of cross tabulation and PROBIT analysis and find that a key variable (among others) in risk perception is political affiliation. The article then discusses the role of political communication via the Iraq War and Al Qaeda to explain the results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The post-11 September security environment has led to a reevaluation of the nature of national security and national security systems. Bioterrorism in the form of attacks against the agricultural sector, particularly in the form of foot-and-mouth disease, could prove attractive to some groups should other targets and means of attack become more difficult. This article considers three cases, one of bioterrorism and two of agricultural disease outbreaks. Using complex adaptive system principles it suggests a strategy and socio-technical system design, adaptive hardening, appropriate to the challenge posed by terrorist-induced foot-and-mouth disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides a preliminary assessment of the agroterrorism threat to Australia. Based on primary research conducted among Australia's biotechnology and agriculture sectors, it examines current threat scenarios and existing vulnerabilities within Australia. It argues that the threat of agroterrorism to Australia is real, and, for prudential reasons, should be taken more seriously by government authorities. The article concludes with a series of broad policy options to mitigate the threat of agroterrorism to Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]