CONTENT



TRAINER’S GUIDE

| |2 |

|Food Defense & | |

|the Psychology of Terrorism | |

|1 hour | |

Introduction to Module 2

We all eat and as Americans we have come to depend on a safe and accessible food supply. In Module 2 we will examine the realities of our complex and highly inter-related food system that make it vulnerable to attack. We will begin by examining the nature of fear as a normal response that provides useful ways of coping with a high risk event. We will discuss how sound risk communication practices can serve to prevent or mitigate the impact of a catastrophic foodborne outbreak on human health, psychological well-being and the economy. We will identify the specific challenges associated with risk and crisis communication in the context of an intentional contamination of the food supply.

Module 2 Learner Outcomes

Upon completion of Module 2, participants will be able to:

▪ Compare and contrast fear and trust as adaptive survival processes. (Topic 1)

▪ Describe the positive and negative consequences of fear, denial and panic as adaptive responses to heightened risk. (Topic 1)

▪ Identify the factors that make the food system vulnerable to intentional attack. (Topic 2)

▪ Compare and contrast characteristics of a natural or “traditional” disaster and an intentional terrorist attack. (Topic 3)

▪ Describe the psychological consequences of natural disasters and terrorism within the context of fear and trust. (Topic 3)

Module 2 Overview

| |

|Introduction to Module 2 5 minutes |

| |

|TOPIC 1: Psychology of Fear & Trust 20 minutes |

|Fear & trust as adaptive survival processes |

|Adjustment reactions: fear, denial and panic |

|Negative outcomes from fearing fear and panic over panic |

| |

|TOPIC 2: Food System as a Potential Target of Attack 15 minutes |

|Food safety, food security and food defense |

|Vulnerabilities in our food system |

|Consumer attitudes |

| |

|TOPIC 3: Natural Disasters, Terrorism, Catastrophic Events 15 minutes |

|Characteristics of natural versus intentional disasters |

|Risk communication: responding to the mystery |

| |

|Summary of Module 2 5 minutes |

| |

|Total 1.0 hours |

Best Practices Introduced in Module 2

▪ Listen to the public’s concerns an understand audience

| |Module 2 : Food Defense & the Psychology of Fear |1.0 hours |

|# |CONTENT |TRAINER NOTES |RESOURCES |

|T1.1 |[pic] |INTRODUCE MODULE 2: FOOD DEFENSE & THE PSYCHOLOGY OF TERRORISM | |

| | | | |

| | |This training focuses on the risk communicator strategies and skills in the | |

| | |context of a catastrophic foodborne outbreak. We’ll begin by examining | |

| | |America’s food system and the social and psychological impact of food-related | |

| | |disasters. | |

|T1.2 |[pic] |MODULE 2 TOPICS | |

| | |Psychology of Fear & Trust | |

| | |The Food System as a Target of Attack | |

| | |Natural Disasters, Terrorism & Catastrophic Incidents | |

|T1.3 |[pic] |MODULE 2 LEARNER OUTCOMES | |

| | | | |

| | |Upon completion of Module 2, training participants should be able to: | |

| | |Compare and contrast fear and trust as adaptive survival processes. (Topic 1) | |

| | | | |

| | |Describe the positive and negative consequences of fear, denial and panic as | |

| | |adaptive responses to heightened risk. (Topic 1) | |

| | | | |

| | |Identify the factors that make the food system vulnerable to intentional | |

| | |attack. (Topic 2) | |

|T1.4 |[pic] |Compare and contrast characteristics of a natural or “traditional” disaster | |

| | |and an intentional terrorist attack. (Topic 3) | |

| | | | |

| | |Describe the psychological consequences of natural disasters and terrorism | |

| | |within the context of fear and trust. (Topic 3) | |

| |M2 Topic One |20 minutes |

| | | |

| |The Psychology of Fear & Trust | |

|# |SLIDES |TRAINER NOTES |RESOURCES |

|T1.5 |[pic] | | |

| | |TOPIC 1: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF FEAR & TRUST | |

|T1.6 |[pic] |Fear and trust (safety) are adaptive survival processes |Source: Paul DeVito, ERDLC |

| | | | |

| | |Fear and trust of specific events/items vs contextual or environmental |#5 Sandman P & J Lanard. Adjustment |

| | |elements (extreme cases on a continuum) |reactions: the teachable moment in crisis |

| | |Asymmetrical processes (not unlike personal relationships) |communication |

| | |Fear: rapidly acquired, slow to extinguish, easy to re-establish | |

| | |Trust: Slowly acquired, readily extinguished, difficult to re-establish | |

|T1.7 |[pic] |4 ADUSTMENT REACTIONS TO RISK |Source: Peter Sandman, 2005 |

| | | | |

| | |We’ll begin by focusing on fear: | |

| | | | |

| | |Reactions change as risk increases. We react to a low perceived risk with | |

| | |acceptance. | |

| | | | |

| | |Review: | |

| | |Perceived risk = Hazard + Outrage (Facts & Feelings) | |

|T1.8 |[pic] |Generally, we adapt well to risk |Source: Peter Sandman, 2005 |

| | | | |

| | |Our most frequent reaction to risk is acceptance | |

| | |Panic is the rarest reaction | |

|T1.9 |[pic] |FEAR AS AN ADJUSTMENT REACTION |Source: Peter Sandman, 2005 |

| | | | |

| | |When someone first learns about a new and potentially serious risk, the | |

| | |natural, healthy, and useful reaction is, in a sense, an over-reaction: | |

| | |Fear is automatic | |

| | |It comes early | |

| | |It is temporary | |

| | |While it is a small over-reaction, we adjust | |

| | |Adjustment responsive to guidance | |

| | |This what we can respond to in Risk Comm | |

| | |The fear reaction serves as a rehearsal | |

| | |Adjustment reduces later over-reaction | |

| | |Example: Pandemic flu preparedness | |

| | |Let fear happen!! In fact, help them have a good one! | |

|T1.10 |[pic] |Reactions to perceived risk |Source: Peter Sandman, 2005 |

| | | | |

| | |When someone first learns about a new and potentially serious risk, the | |

| | |natural, healthy, and useful reaction is a small over-reaction: | |

| | | | |

| | |Discussion: | |

| | |Consider the spinach-E.coli outbreak in August-September, 2006 | |

| | |Did you experience a temporary “over-reaction” to this potentially serious | |

| | |risk? | |

| | |Describe how your personal response followed these 4 steps | |

|T1.11 |[pic] |Denial is more dangerous than fear | |

| | | | |

| | |Denial is why people don’t often panic; they trip a mental circuit breaker | |

| | |instead | |

| | |Denial is preferable to panic, but still harmful (it keeps people from taking | |

| | |precautions) | |

| | |Risk Communication’s role to reduce denial | |

|T1.12 |[pic] |PANIC IS THE MOST EXTREME (AND RARE) REACTION TO RISK | |

| | | | |

| | |Fear and panic is not the same. Panic occurs when “you’re so afraid you’d | |

| | |run over your grandmother to get out of the way!” | |

| | |We often worry that information or situation will result in “panic” | |

| | |The few instances of public panic – concerts or soccer matches often involve | |

| | |alcohol or drugs | |

| | |Consider the orderly evacuation of the World Trade Center Towers on September | |

| | |11, 2001. | |

| | |We casually use “panic” in describing a situation – for dramatic effect: “The| |

| | |public is in a panic; we received 10 phone calls today!” | |

| | |“Panic” is an attention-getting headline in the media | |

| | |We often see panic portrayed in the movies | |

|T1.13 |[pic] |PUBLIC RESPONSE TO ANTHRAX INCIDENT IN 2001 |# 4 Glass T. Disasters and public health |

| | | |preparedness: Lessons for bioterrorism |

| | |Public did not respond with panic to the anthrax scare in 2001. |preparedness |

|T1.14 |[pic] |COMMUNICATOR’S “FEAR OF FEAR” AND “PANIC ABOUT PANIC” |#6 Sandman P. and Lanard J. Fear of fear: the |

| | | |role of fear in preparedness ... and why it |

| | |Greatest challenge as a risk communicator is to recognize that most people can|terrifies officials |

| | |cope and manage their fear | |

| | | | |

| | |If we are afraid of “fear” or are driven by fear of panic we use wise | |

| | |strategies such as: | |

| | |Withhold information (“Don’t want to ‘scare’ the public… or cause panic.”) | |

| | |Or over assure (“You are absolutely safe, we have the situation completely | |

| | |under control…”) | |

| | | | |

|T1.15 |[pic] |TBD | |

| |M2 Topic Two |15 minutes |

| | | |

| |The Food System as a Potential Target of Attack | |

|# |SLIDES |TRAINER NOTES |RESOURCES |

|T2.16 |[pic] |TOPIC 2: THE FOOD SYSTEM AS A POTENTIAL TARGET OF ATTACK | |

|T2.17 | |WARNING FROM FORMER SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES TOMMY THOMPSON | |

| |[pic] | | |

|T2.18 |[pic] |FOOD SAFETY – FOOD SECURITY – FOOD DEFENSE | |

| | | | |

| | |Food defense refers to protection of our nation’s food supply against | |

| | |intentional attack. | |

| | | | |

| | |Food Safety – refers to naturally occurring contamination | |

| | | | |

| | |Food Security – refers to access to adequate food | |

| | |supply to sustain life – usually associated with an emerging country | |

| | | | |

| | |Food Defense describes our efforts to respond to an intentional attack on the | |

| | |food system. Sometimes labeled “agro-terrorism.” | |

|T2.19 |[pic] |FOOD SYSTEM VULNERABILITIES |Source: Paul DeVito, ERDLC |

|T2.20 |[pic] |STRATEGIC VULNERABILITIES FOUND IN THE NATION’S FOOD SUPPLY |Source: Paul DeVito, ERDLC |

| | | | |

| | |Why food defense is critical. | |

|T2.21 |[pic] |WHO COULD COMMIT AN INTENTIONAL ATTACK ON THE FOOD SYSTEM |Source: Paul DeVito, ERDLC |

| | | | |

| | |An intentional attack on the food system could be perpetrated by domestic or | |

| | |international sources. | |

| | | | |

|T2.22 |[pic] |CDC Bioterrorism Diseases/Agents categories |Source: |

| | | |

| | |Categories based on: |.asp#a |

| | |Ease of disseminate or transmission | |

| | |Morbidity, mortality rates, public health impact | |

| | |Potential public panic & social disruption | |

| | | | |

| | |These are a portion of the agents – ones that could involve intentional food | |

| | |contamination | |

| | | | |

| | |Category A is the highest priority because: | |

| | |Includes organisms that pose a risk to national security because they can be | |

| | |easily disseminated or transmitted from person to person; | |

| | |Result in high mortality rates and have the potential for major public health | |

| | |impact | |

| | |Might cause public panic and social disruption; | |

| | |Require special action for public health preparedness | |

|T2.23 |[pic] |THE IMPACT OF A FOOD SAFETY OR FOOD DEFENSE EVENT |Source: Food Source |

| | | | |

| | |Consider the costs to industry, consumers and the public of a foodborne | |

| | |disease outbreak (natural or intentional). | |

|T.24 |[pic] |FALSE CLAIMS AND HOAXES | |

| | | | |

| | |False claims and hoaxes can have the same impact as an actual contamination | |

| | |event | |

|T.25 |[pic] |RESPONSE TO HOAX | |

| | | | |

| | |False claim of introduction of foot and mouth disease in 2005 | |

| | |Resulted in $1.5-2 million compensation cost to dairy farmers on Waiheke | |

| | |Island, New Zealand | |

|T2.26 |[pic] |INTENTIONAL CONTAMINATION | |

| | | | |

| | |One most well-known cases of intentional contamination occurred in 1984. | |

| | |751 people became ill after members of a religious cult contaminated salad | |

| | |bars in 10 restaurants in Oregon with Salmonella typhimurium. | |

| | |The purpose of the attack was to disrupt a local school board election. | |

|T2.27 |[pic] |1989 RESPONSE TO CLAIM | |

| | | | |

| | |Terrorist phoned in claim | |

| | |Cyanide was confirmed upon inspection | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|T2.28 |[pic] |SURVEILLANCE LEADS TO PREVENTION | |

| | | | |

| | |Incident was prevented due to successful surveillance | |

|T2.29 |[pic] |EVENT PERPETRATED BY COMPETITOR | |

| | | | |

| | |Perpetrator was a business competitor | |

| | |Resulted in 38 fatalities | |

|T2.30 |[pic] |WHAT THE PUBLIC THINKS ABOUT FOOD DEFENSE |Source: |

| | | |Kinsey J et al. The Food Industry Center, |

| | |The Food Industry Center (TFIC) at the University of Minnesota conducted a |University of Minnesota |

| | |survey to assess consumers priorities on spending for terrorism defense. |

| | | |paperid=20453&ftype=.pdf |

| | |Peoples’ beliefs are consistent with economic theory of consumer behavior. | |

| | |Food is assumed to be safe | |

| | |Eating food is ultimately involuntary and information about its safety is | |

| | |unknowable | |

| | |The loss of safe food is a dread result | |

| | |So – there is a greater willingness to pay to prevent that loss than to | |

| | |protect us from using an airplane for terrorism | |

| | |Flying is a voluntary act! | |

|T2.31 |[pic] |SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS |Source: |

| | | |The Food Industry Center, University of |

| | | |Minnesota |

| | | |

| | | |paperid=20453&ftype=.pdf |

|T2.32 |[pic] |Peoples’ beliefs are consistent with economic theory of consumer behavior |Source: |

| | | |Stinson, T: How should America’s |

| | |Food is assumed to be safe |anti-terrorism dollars be allocated? |

| | |Eating food is ultimately involuntary and information about its safety is |

| | |unknowable |paperid=20453&ftype=.pdf |

| | |The loss of safe food is a dread result | |

| | |So – there is a greater willingness to pay to prevent that loss than to | |

| | |protect us from using an airplane for terrorism | |

| | |Flying is a voluntary act | |

| |M2 Topic Three |15 minutes |

| | | |

| |Natural Disasters, Terrorism & Catastrophic Incidents | |

|# |SLIDES |TRAINER NOTES |RESOURCES |

|T3.33 |[pic] |TOPIC 2: NATUAL DISASTERS, TERRORISM & CATASTROPHIC INCIDENTS | |

|T3.34 |[pic] |Types of natural and “traditional” disasters | |

|T3.35 |[pic] |Shared characteristics of natural events | |

| | | | |

| | |Well-defined time frame in terms of beginning and ending (not predictable, but| |

| | |there is a beginning and end) | |

| | |Sensory cues are readily available: wind, rain, fire | |

| | |Exceptions: epidemics | |

| | | | |

| | |Sensory cues: | |

| | |Where is the danger? [Example: on the coast during hurricane season] | |

| | |Where is safety? [Example: 100 miles inland] | |

|T3.36 |[pic] |WHAT IS INVOLVED WITH A FOOD TERRORIST EVENT? |Paul DeVito, ERDLC |

|T3.37 |[pic] |CHARACTERISTICS OF TERRORIST EVENTS |Paul DeVito, ERDLC |

|T3.38 |[pic] |THE MYSTERY OF A TERRORIST INTENSIFIED FEAR |Source: |

| | | | |

| | |Who is doing this? | |

| | |Why are they doing this? | |

| | |Will they do it again? | |

| | |Am I the next victim? | |

|T3.39 |[pic] |FOOD TERRORISM CHALLENGES | |

|T3.40 |[pic] |FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED PUBLIC CONCERN |Source: Vincent Covello |

| | | | |

| | |Discussion: | |

| | |Which of these factors could be found in a food defense event? | |

|T3.41 |[pic] |RISK COMMUNICATION’S ROLE IN RESPONDING TO A FOOD-RELATED TERRORIST EVENT |Paul DeVito, ERDLC |

|T3.42 |[pic] |SUMMARY | |

|T3.43 |[pic] | | |

|T3.44 |[pic] |BEST PRACTICES INTRODUCED IN MODULE 2 | |

| | | | |

| | |Listen to public’s concerns and understand audience | |

| | |Respond to the public’s beliefs whether or not they are accurate | |

| | |Monitor a full range of communication formats: hotlines, letters to the | |

| | |editor, radio talk shows, public forums, blogs, etc. | |

Module 2 Glossary Terms

Agroterrorism - subset of bioterrorism and is defined as the deliberate introduction of an animal or plant disease with the goal for generating fear, causing economic losses, and/or undermining stability (Congressional Research Report, August 2004)

Bioterrorism - unlawful use of biological agents, such as toxic pathogenic organisms or agricultural pests, for terrorist purposes, such as intimidation, coercion or death; can differ from bombs or hijackings, considered conventional terrorism, in that bioterroristic events have an extended incubation period

CFSAN - Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition in FDA responsible for ensuring that the nation’s food supply is safe, sanitary, wholesome and honestly labeled. (FDA)

Contagion - transmission of infection by direct contact, droplet spread, or contaminated formites

Contagious - transmitted by contact (CDC)

Contamination - presence of an infectious agent on a body surface; also on clothes, bedding, surgical instruments, or other inanimate articles or substances; also the undesirable deposition of a chemical, biological, or radiological material on the surface of structures, areas, objects, or people (CDC)

Disaster - occurrence of a natural catastrophe, technological accident, or human-caused event that has resulted in severe property damage, deaths, and/or multiple injuries

A "large-scale disaster" is one that exceeds the response capability of the local jurisdiction and requires state, and potentially federal involvement. As used in the Stafford Act, a "major disaster" is "any natural catastrophe [...] or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under [the] Act to supplement the efforts and available resources of states, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby." (CDCynergy)

EDEN - The Extension Disaster Education Network is a collaborative multi-state effort by Extension Services across the country to improve the delivery of services to citizens affected by disasters (EDEN)

Emergency Management - Organized analysis, planning, decision-making, and assignment of available resources to mitigate (lessen the effect of or prevent) prepare for, respond to, and recover from the effects of all hazards. The goal of emergency management is to save lives, prevent injuries, and protect property and the environment if an emergency occurs. (FEMA)

Emergent Collective Behavior – social aspects of disasters (E.L. Quarantelli)

Etiology – cause of disease

FERN - Food emergency response network: a network of state and federal laboratories that analyze food samples in the event of a biological, chemical or radiological terrorist attack

Foodborne disease outbreak (FBDO) - occurrence of two or more cases of a similar illness resulting from the ingestion of a common food (CDC)

Food defense - collective term used by the FDA, USDA, DHS, etc. to encompass activities associated with protecting the nation's food supply from deliberate or intentional acts of contamination or tampering. (FDA website - 3/28/06)

Food safety - guarding against unintentional contamination of food

Food security - access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life. Food security includes at a minimum: 1) ready availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods, and 2) an assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways. (USDA)

Food terrorism – an act or threat of deliberate contamination of food for human consumption with chemical, biological or radio-nuclear agents for the purpose of causing injury or death to civilian populations and/or disrupting social, economic or political stability. (WHO)

FoodNet – Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) is the principal foodborne disease component of CDC's Emerging Infections Program (EIP)

FSIS - Food Safety and Inspection Service, public health agency of the USDA

MCI – massive casualty incidents

Mental noise theory – when people are stressed or upset, they have difficulty: hearing information, understanding information, remembering information (Covello)

MUPS - multiple unexplained physical symptoms

New normal – a term signifying a broader public understanding of new risks, and specific organizational responses to that risk.

OFDER - Office of Food Defense & Emergency Response manages all homeland security activities within FSIS/USDA

Outbreak - two or more cases of the same disease related to a common exposure (CDC)

Panic - sudden strong feeling of fear that prevents reasonable thought or action

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) - special clothing, footwear, and devices designed to protect agricultural workers’ health and safety. Examples include disposable coveralls, chemical gloves, eye goggles, and respirators. (EDEN)

PulseNet - a national network of public health and food regulatory agency laboratories coordinated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Quarantine - a legally-binding mandate issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to restrict land use and the movement of agricultural commodities during a confirmed plant disease outbreak (EDEN)

Recall - actions taken by a firm to remove a product from the market. Recalls may be conducted on a firm's own initiative, by FDA request, or by FDA order under statutory authority (FDA)

Surveillance - systematic ongoing collection, collation and analysis of data and the timely dissemination of information to those who need to know so that action can be taken (WHO)

Terrorism - the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political of social objectives (FBI)

Terrorist - one who uses systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Vicarious rehearsal – responding vicariously to a crisis in which they are not in immediate danger

Worried well - people who seek medical attention in the wake of a biological, chemical or nuclear attack who are not ill, but are concerned they might be (RTNDA)

Zoonosis - an infection or infectious disease transmissible under natural conditions from vertebrate animals to man. (CDCynergy)

Module 2 Sources

1. Akey B. (2003). Addressing the threat of food and agricultural terrorism. Grand Rounds Series, School of Public Health, University of Albany. Video broadcast Oct. 2, 2003.

2. Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). Chapter 6: Terrorism and the food supply. Risk Communications during a Terrorist Attack and Other Public Health Emergencies: A Reference Guide for Media. Available online: emergency/mediaguide/PDF/11.pdf

3. Dyckman L. (2003) Bioterrorism, a threat to agriculture and the food supply. Testimony before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. Available online:

▪ 4. Glass T, Disasters and public health preparedness: Lessons for bioterrorism preparedness. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Online presentation available:

Sandman P and Lanard.J. (2005) Adjustment reactions: the teachable moment in crisis communication. Available online:

Sandman P. and Lanard J. (2003). Fear of fear: the role of fear in preparedness ... and why it terrifies officials. Available online:

Seeger M. (2005) “From farm to fork: communication and best practices in food safety.” Lessons Learned about Protecting America’s Food Supply, (pp. 77-85) Sellnow, T. and R. Littlefield (eds.). Institute for Regional Studies, Fargo: North Dakota State University.

Stinson, T et al. (2006). How should America’s anti-terrorism budget be allocated? Findings from a national survey of attitudes of U.S. residents about terrorism. National Center for Food Protection and Defense. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Available online:

World Health Organization. (2002) Terrorist threats to food: guidance for establishing and strengthening prevention response systems. Available online:

Additional Resources

Center for Science in the Public Interest, Closing the gap in our federal food-safety net. Revised March 2004. cspi@

Early Responders Distance Learning Center

Hager, Erin. Bioterrorism and Food Safety. Johns Hopkins Disasters and Public Health Preparedness. Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins. Free online course available at:

Hawley, S. et al. Mental Health, Terrorism, Disaster 101: An Ecological Approach to Preparedness. PPT presentation available online at:

National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Frequently asked questions about the effects of terrorism. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Available online at:

Module 2 Contributors

Paul DeVito, Director, Early Responder Learning Center, Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, PA

Robert Gravani, Professor, Department of Food Safety, Cornell University, Ithica, NY

Will Hueston, Director, Center for Animal Health and Food Safety, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN

Peter Sandman, Risk Communication specialist,

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download