Communicating on Food Terrorism

Irene van Geest
Communications Director
Food & Non-food Authority Holland

(graphic: front page of Netherlands newspaper after September 11 attacks)

The events of 11 September were obviously headline news in the Netherlands. We naturally felt for the United States. The attacks also made us realise just how vulnerable an open society is. They showed how easy it is to destabilise society. And they highlighted the importance of taking precautions.

Overview

To start I'll give you two examples of food terrorism. I will then explain the communication problems that can arise. In conclusion, I'll make some recommendations for effective communication.

Bioterrorism

(photo of basket of groceries) We were already working at the Ministry of Health on identifying the risks of bioterrorism. In particular, we were looking at measures to prevent this kind of terrorism to the fullest extent possible. Initially, our concern centred on deliberate infection with smallpox and anthrax. We also considered the possibility of food terrorism. We tried to envisage a situation in which we needed to communicate and what the community would expect us to do in such a situation.

News flash: Rat poison

(graphic: newspaper clipping; headline: Rat poison found in beer bottles; Other attacks announced; Interpol has no clue)

We were already working at the Ministry of Health on identifying the risks of bioterrorism. In particular, we were looking at measures to prevent this kind of terrorism to the fullest extent possible. Initially, our concern centred on deliberate infection with smallpox and anthrax. We also considered the possibility of food terrorism. We tried to envisage a situation in which we needed to communicate and what the community would expect us to do in such a situation.

News flash: Victims

(newspaper headline: Number of patients rapidly growing; Malice suspected – Interpol has no clue)

Let's look at another situation. Doctors notice a sudden increase in patients with respiratory problems accompanied by peculiar symptoms like a dry mouth and double vision. It resembles infection with botulism. If these are coincidental cases of infection, how could the bacteria spread on such a large scale? Or has a product used by the public at large perhaps been infected? Something that people eat or drink, perhaps? Could it be milk?

Different threats

(graphic) Two examples of food terrorism with different types of threats. In the first case, the threat was deliberate, but we don’t yet know whether there is a real danger. In the second case, a danger does exist, but we don’t know the cause and we cannot rule out a deliberate act. In both cases, we must limit the danger as quickly as possible, with communication playing a very important role.

Threat

Warning

Let's return to the first example. Our first step is to find out what it's all about. Is the threat real and, if so, against whom is it directed? Does the threat originate from a notorious madman or should we take it seriously? Does somebody want to do damage to the brewing company or is there more behind the threat? If a real threat exists, we need to do everything possible to avert the danger. In this case, it will be relatively easy. The message is simply: don't drink bottled beer. Through concerted action with the company, we can quickly put out the message. The media will be keen to lend a hand. Within a short time, everybody will be aware of the basic message. In point of fact, the case we are looking at here is a relatively simple one. We’re dealing with a specific product, a drink popular primarily among adults, but not part of our staple diet. It’s easy to organise the recall of a product of this kind. While doing this, you continue to give the public information that answers questions like: how dangerous is rat poison? What are the symptoms of poisoning? What do you do if you've drunk the beer? What is the brewing company doing to trace contaminated bottles? What is the government doing?

Threat

Then the Liberation Front’s letter arrives: public anxiety increases, rumours mount. Nobody is drinking beer anymore. People now also suspect soft drinks. No evidence has yet been found of contamination with rat poison, but the economic damage is already considerable. People in foreign countries have also stopped drinking Dutch beer. Communication is now focused mainly on dispelling the rumours. But the longer the uncertainty persists, the more difficult it becomes. Until the danger has been discovered, thanks to tracking and tracing, or the damage has been minimised through recalls. This marks the start of a new communication phase: rebuilding confidence in the food safety system.

Real strike

(graphic - real danger) The other case starts with victims and suspicions about the cause. All efforts are focused on identifying the cause because it’s the only way to reduce the danger. We must inform the public as soon as we have the slightest indication that the cause stems from a certain food product. Based on the precautionary principle, we must then provide detailed advice. If it transpires that all the victims fell ill a few hours after drinking milk, our only option will unfortunately be to advise people not to drink milk for the time being. In fact, don't consume any dairy products at all.

Warning

Advice of that kind will have far-reaching consequences. Just think about it for a second. It means we will have to look for substitute foodstuffs. It means we must communicate very intensively about safe and unsafe foods. We must tell people what's safe to eat and what they should avoid eating for the time being. This is essential information from a public health point of view because we have to reduce the risks. Our measures and information will also have economic repercussions, just as we saw when there was merely a threat. This can potentially destabilise society. But fortunately people are more likely to close ranks and make a joint effort to avoid harm and to combat the evil of terrorism.

P.A.R. approach

I have outlined two scenarios and shown just how important communication is. The question now is: how do we prepare? I can best summarise it like this: P, A, & R

P revent / Prioritise / Prepare

Be A lert

R espond

Triple P

It all starts with the three P's: prevent, prioritise and prepare. Preventing food terrorism begins by making it difficult to gain access to the place where foods are produced. We can make it more difficult to perpetrate attacks and in any event discover them quickly by having a good system of controls throughout the supply chain. This requires good communication with the business community, although most companies are already well aware of the risks that exist. At the Food Inspection Agency in the Netherlands, this is a major point of attention now being addressed by some specialist inspectors.

Prioritise

Fast and lots

It is unrealistic to think that you can prevent and control everything. To combat food terrorism effectively, you must set priorities. You need to identify the foods most vulnerable to acts of terrorism and focus on those products. So what foods are we talking about?

Features:

Products:

As you can see, the cases I have presented were not chosen arbitrarily.

Prepare

While the policymaker will concentrate on prevention, a public information officer will focus on preparation. In this phase, preparations will centre around gathering knowledge. Who possesses knowledge of these products, from whom can we get information about bacteria and viruses? Who has knowledge of the market, of distribution and use of the product among consumers? Which government agencies are involved? You have to get the best possible picture of all of these matters. Part of the effort is training for crises. At the Ministry of Health, we have an annual refresher course to back up the experience we gain through dealing with regular minor crises.

Be Alert

How can you increase alertness? By having a good warning system and by screening properly. Notifications of irregularities in the food supply chain and of exceptional food infections may be signals that something is wrong. In the Netherlands, we have two notification systems. First, our Food Inspection Agency has an incident desk for the public. Each year the desk receives 40,000 notifications, 5,000 of which are actually investigated. Businesses as well as consumers report incidents to the desk. Last year we had an advertising campaign with small advertisements in major daily newspapers to make people more aware of the function of the incident desk. Our message was simple: if you notice something strange in food, let us know. There was no reference to food terrorism because you mustn't put ideas into people's heads. The second notification system is for physicians and other health professionals. And also for hospitals. For them local health authorities act as incident desks for all kinds of infectious diseases, including food infections. In the Netherlands, we have laws requiring notification of infectious diseases, but so far only a voluntary system for notifying food-borne diseases.

We've now introduced a new criterion for screening notifications: malice. The person who assesses a notification always examines whether indications exist of a conscious or deliberate act.

For the screening of all these notifications we introduced a new criteria: malice. The person who assesses a notification should always examine wether indications exist of a cousious or deliberate act.

Respond

This brings me to the final phase: the response to the threat or danger. Policymakers have developed scenarios that also identify possible countermeasures. The public information aspects of these measures have also been examined and defined.

My golden rule for crises is: Communicate & co-ordinate

This is the point of departure from which we mount our communication campaign in response to a crisis. We have produced some simple but practical manuals. The Netherlands is a very small country so it is easy for us to co-ordinate action. So far, however, there is hardly any international co-ordination, even though we all know that foods are produced and sold worldwide and, in Europe at least, food problems are often cross-border problems. The European Food Safety Agency is in the process of being set up and one of its primary areas of attention will be communication. Perhaps we should not wait that long and should start exchanging knowledge earlier.

Closing

(Photo of grocery cart heading down store aisle)

Because the fight against food terrorism requires intelligent preparation, early warnings, broadly-based co-ordination and honest communication in the hope that you'll never need to put your preparations into practice!