

Currently released so far... 12553 / 251,287
Browse latest releases
2010/12/01
2010/12/02
2010/12/03
2010/12/04
2010/12/05
2010/12/06
2010/12/07
2010/12/08
2010/12/09
2010/12/10
2010/12/11
2010/12/12
2010/12/13
2010/12/14
2010/12/15
2010/12/16
2010/12/17
2010/12/18
2010/12/19
2010/12/20
2010/12/21
2010/12/22
2010/12/23
2010/12/24
2010/12/25
2010/12/26
2010/12/27
2010/12/28
2010/12/29
2010/12/30
2011/01/01
2011/01/02
2011/01/04
2011/01/05
2011/01/07
2011/01/09
2011/01/10
2011/01/11
2011/01/12
2011/01/13
2011/01/14
2011/01/15
2011/01/16
2011/01/17
2011/01/18
2011/01/19
2011/01/20
2011/01/21
2011/01/22
2011/01/23
2011/01/24
2011/01/25
2011/01/26
2011/01/27
2011/01/28
2011/01/29
2011/01/30
2011/01/31
2011/02/01
2011/02/02
2011/02/03
2011/02/04
2011/02/05
2011/02/06
2011/02/07
2011/02/08
2011/02/09
2011/02/10
2011/02/11
2011/02/12
2011/02/13
2011/02/14
2011/02/15
2011/02/16
2011/02/17
2011/02/18
2011/02/19
2011/02/20
2011/02/21
2011/02/22
2011/02/23
2011/02/24
2011/02/25
2011/02/26
2011/02/27
2011/02/28
2011/03/01
2011/03/02
2011/03/03
2011/03/04
2011/03/05
2011/03/06
2011/03/07
2011/03/08
2011/03/09
2011/03/10
2011/03/11
2011/03/13
2011/03/14
2011/03/15
2011/03/16
2011/03/17
2011/03/18
2011/03/19
2011/03/20
2011/03/21
2011/03/22
2011/03/23
2011/03/24
2011/03/25
2011/03/26
2011/03/27
2011/03/28
2011/03/29
2011/03/30
2011/03/31
2011/04/01
2011/04/02
2011/04/03
2011/04/04
2011/04/05
2011/04/06
2011/04/07
2011/04/08
2011/04/09
2011/04/10
2011/04/11
2011/04/12
2011/04/13
2011/04/14
2011/04/15
2011/04/16
2011/04/17
2011/04/18
2011/04/19
2011/04/20
2011/04/21
2011/04/22
2011/04/23
2011/04/24
2011/04/25
2011/04/26
2011/04/27
2011/04/28
2011/04/29
2011/04/30
2011/05/01
2011/05/02
2011/05/03
2011/05/04
2011/05/05
2011/05/06
2011/05/07
2011/05/08
2011/05/09
2011/05/10
2011/05/11
2011/05/12
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Apia
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Auckland
Consulate Amsterdam
Consulate Adana
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belmopan
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Casablanca
Consulate Cape Town
Consulate Calgary
Embassy Dushanbe
Embassy Dublin
Embassy Doha
Embassy Djibouti
Embassy Dili
Embassy Dhaka
Embassy Dar Es Salaam
Embassy Damascus
Embassy Dakar
Consulate Dubai
Embassy Helsinki
Embassy Harare
Embassy Hanoi
Consulate Ho Chi Minh City
Consulate Hermosillo
Consulate Hamilton
Consulate Hamburg
Consulate Halifax
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kingston
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Kolkata
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Lahore
Consulate Lagos
Mission USOSCE
Mission USNATO
Mission UNESCO
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manila
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Consulate Melbourne
Embassy Nicosia
Embassy Niamey
Embassy New Delhi
Embassy Ndjamena
Embassy Nassau
Embassy Nairobi
Consulate Naples
Consulate Naha
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Of Spain
Embassy Port Louis
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Peshawar
REO Basrah
Embassy Rome
Embassy Riyadh
Embassy Riga
Embassy Reykjavik
Embassy Rangoon
Embassy Rabat
Consulate Rio De Janeiro
Consulate Recife
Secretary of State
Embassy Suva
Embassy Stockholm
Embassy Sofia
Embassy Skopje
Embassy Singapore
Embassy Seoul
Embassy Sarajevo
Embassy Santo Domingo
Embassy Santiago
Embassy Sanaa
Embassy San Salvador
Embassy San Jose
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate St Petersburg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sapporo
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Toronto
Consulate Tijuana
USUN New York
USEU Brussels
US Office Almaty
US Mission Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
UNVIE
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
APECO
ASEC
AMGT
AFIN
APER
ACABQ
AORC
AEMR
AF
AE
AR
AGMT
AU
AY
ABLD
AS
AG
AJ
APCS
AX
AM
AMEX
ATRN
ADM
AMED
AFGHANISTAN
AZ
AL
ASUP
AND
ARM
ASEAN
AFFAIRS
AQ
ATFN
AMBASSADOR
AODE
APEC
ACBAQ
AFSI
AFSN
AO
ABUD
AC
ADPM
ADCO
ASIG
ARF
AUC
ASEX
AGAO
AA
AER
AVERY
AGRICULTURE
AIT
AADP
ASCH
AORL
AROC
ACOA
ANET
AID
AMCHAMS
AINF
AMG
AFU
AN
ALOW
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
ACS
ADANA
AECL
ACAO
AORG
AGR
BEXP
BR
BM
BG
BL
BA
BTIO
BO
BP
BC
BILAT
BK
BU
BD
BRUSSELS
BB
BF
BBSR
BIDEN
BX
BE
BH
BT
BY
BMGT
BWC
BTIU
BN
CA
CASC
CFED
CO
CH
CS
CU
CE
CI
CM
CMGT
CJAN
COM
CG
CIS
CVIS
CR
CKGR
CHR
CVR
COUNTER
CIA
CLINTON
CY
CPAS
CD
CBW
COUNTERTERRORISM
CITEL
CDG
CW
CODEL
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
COE
CN
CARICOM
CB
CONDOLEEZZA
CWC
CACS
CSW
CIDA
CIC
CITT
CONS
CL
CACM
CDB
CDC
CAN
CF
CJUS
CTM
CBSA
CARSON
CT
CLMT
CBC
CEUDA
CV
COPUOS
CTR
CROS
CAPC
CAC
CNARC
CICTE
CBE
ECON
ETRD
EIND
ENRG
EC
ELAB
EAGR
EAID
EFIS
EFIN
EINV
EUN
EG
EPET
EAIR
EU
ELTN
EWWT
ECIN
ERD
EI
ETTC
EUR
EN
EZ
ETC
ENVI
EMIN
ET
ENVR
ER
ECPS
EINT
EAP
ES
ENIV
ECONOMY
EXTERNAL
EINN
EFTA
ECONOMIC
EPA
EXBS
ECA
ELN
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ENGR
ECUN
ENGY
ECONOMICS
ELECTIONS
EIAR
EINDETRD
EREL
EUC
ECONEFIN
EURN
EDU
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ECIP
ENERG
EFIM
EAIDS
EK
ETRDECONWTOCS
EINVETC
ECONCS
EUNCH
ESA
ECINECONCS
EUREM
ESENV
EFINECONCS
ETRC
ENNP
EAIG
EXIM
EEPET
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EUMEM
ETRA
ERNG
ETRO
ETRN
EINVEFIN
ICTY
IN
IS
IR
IC
IZ
IA
INTERPOL
IAEA
IT
IMO
IO
IV
ID
IRAQI
IEA
INRB
IL
IWC
ITU
ICAO
ISRAELI
ICRC
IIP
IMF
IBRD
ISLAMISTS
ITALY
ITALIAN
ILO
IPR
IQ
IRS
IAHRC
IZPREL
IRAJ
IDP
ILC
ITF
ICJ
IF
ITPHUM
INMARSAT
ISRAEL
IACI
IBET
ITRA
INR
IRC
IDA
ICTR
IGAD
INRA
INRO
IEFIN
INTELSAT
INTERNAL
INDO
ITPGOV
KWMN
KSCA
KDEM
KTFN
KIPR
KCRM
KPAL
KE
KPAO
KPKO
KS
KN
KISL
KFRD
KJUS
KIRF
KFLO
KG
KTIP
KTER
KRCM
KTIA
KGHG
KIRC
KU
KPRP
KMCA
KMPI
KSEO
KNNP
KZ
KNEI
KCOR
KOMC
KCFC
KSTC
KMDR
KFLU
KSAF
KSEP
KSAC
KR
KGIC
KSUM
KWBG
KCIP
KDRG
KOLY
KAWC
KCHG
KHDP
KRVC
KBIO
KAWK
KGCC
KHLS
KBCT
KPLS
KREL
KCFE
KMFO
KV
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KFTFN
KVPR
KTDB
KSPR
KIDE
KVRP
KTEX
KBTR
KTRD
KICC
KCOM
KO
KLIG
KDEMAF
KMRS
KRAD
KOCI
KSTH
KUNR
KNSD
KGIT
KFSC
KHIV
KPAI
KICA
KACT
KHUM
KREC
KSEC
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KCMR
KPIN
KESS
KDEV
KNAR
KNUC
KPWR
KENV
KWWMN
KWMNCS
KPRV
KOM
KBTS
KCRS
KNPP
KWNM
KRFD
KVIR
KTBT
KAID
KRIM
KDDG
KRGY
KHSA
KWMM
KMOC
KSCI
KPAK
KX
KPAONZ
KCGC
KID
KPOA
KIFR
KFIN
KWAC
KOMS
KCRCM
KNUP
KMIG
KNNPMNUC
KERG
KTLA
KCSY
KJUST
MOPS
MARR
MASS
MNUC
MX
MCAP
MO
MR
MI
MD
MK
MA
MP
MY
MTCRE
MOPPS
MASC
MIL
MTS
MLS
MILI
MAR
MU
MEPN
MAPP
MTCR
MEPI
MZ
MEETINGS
MG
MW
MAS
MT
MCC
MIK
ML
MARAD
MV
MERCOSUR
MTRE
MPOS
MEPP
MILITARY
MDC
MQADHAFI
MUCN
MRCRE
MAPS
MEDIA
MASSMNUC
MC
NZ
NZUS
NL
NU
NATO
NP
NO
NIPP
NE
NH
NR
NA
NPT
NI
NSF
NG
NSG
NAFTA
NC
NDP
NEW
NRR
NATIONAL
NT
NS
NASA
NAR
NV
NORAD
NSSP
NK
NPA
NGO
NSC
NATOPREL
NW
NPG
NSFO
OPDC
OTRA
OIIP
OREP
OVIP
OSCE
OEXC
OIE
OPRC
OAS
OPIC
OTR
OMIG
OSAC
OFFICIALS
OECD
OSCI
OBSP
OFDA
OPCW
ODIP
OFDP
OES
OPAD
OCII
OHUM
OVP
ON
OIC
OCS
PHUM
PREL
PGOV
PINR
PTER
PARM
PREF
PM
PE
PINS
PK
PHSA
PBTS
PRGOV
PA
PORG
PP
PS
PGOF
PL
PO
PARMS
PKFK
PSOE
PEPR
PAK
POL
PPA
PINT
PMAR
PRELP
PREFA
PALESTINIAN
PBIO
PINF
PNG
PMIL
PFOR
PUNE
PGOVLO
PAO
POLITICS
PHUMBA
PSEPC
PTBS
PCUL
PROP
PNAT
PNR
POLINT
PGOVE
PROG
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PDEM
PECON
PROV
PHUMPREL
PGOC
PY
PCI
PLN
PDOV
PREO
PGIV
PHUH
PAS
PU
POGOV
PF
PINL
POV
PAHO
PRL
PG
PRAM
POLITICAL
PARTIES
POLICY
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PGGV
PHUS
PSA
PHUMPGOV
PEL
PSI
PAIGH
POSTS
PBT
PTERE
RS
RU
RW
RM
RO
RP
REGION
RSP
RF
RICE
RCMP
RFE
RIGHTS
RIGHTSPOLMIL
ROBERT
RUPREL
RELATIONS
ROOD
REACTION
RSO
REPORT
SENV
SNAR
SCUL
SR
SC
SOCI
SMIG
SI
SP
SU
SO
SW
SY
SA
SZ
SAN
SF
SN
STEINBERG
SG
ST
SIPDIS
SNARIZ
SNARN
SSA
SK
SPCVIS
SOFA
SAARC
SL
SEVN
SARS
SIPRS
SHUM
SANC
SWE
SHI
SYR
SNARCS
SPCE
SYRIA
SEN
SH
SCRS
SENVKGHG
TRGY
TSPL
TPHY
TSPA
TBIO
TI
TW
THPY
TX
TU
TS
TZ
TC
TH
TT
TIP
TO
TERRORISM
TRSY
TINT
TN
TURKEY
TBID
TL
TV
TNGD
TD
TF
TP
TFIN
TAGS
TK
TR
UNSC
UK
UNGA
UN
US
UNHRC
UG
UP
UNMIK
UNHCR
UE
USTR
UNVIE
UAE
UZ
UY
UNO
UNESCO
USEU
USOAS
UV
UNODC
UNCHS
UNFICYP
UNEP
UNIDROIT
UNDESCO
UNDP
UNPUOS
UNC
UNAUS
USUN
UNCHC
UNCHR
UNCND
UNICEF
UNCSD
UNDC
USNC
USPS
USAID
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 08STATE91332, AFTER-ACTION REPORT FOR DEMETER'S RESILIENCE, THE
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
- The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
- The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
- The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #08STATE91332.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
08STATE91332 | 2008-08-25 20:32 | 2011-04-28 00:00 | UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY | Secretary of State |
VZCZCXYZ0003
RR RUEHWEB
DE RUEHC #1332 2382040
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 252032Z AUG 08
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN 0000
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0000
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0000
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 0000
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0000
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 0000
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 0000
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
UNCLAS STATE 091332
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CA EUN FR GM IT JA PTER RS TBIO UK
SUBJECT: AFTER-ACTION REPORT FOR DEMETER'S RESILIENCE, THE
G8 FOOD DEFENSE EXERCISE
REF: A. STATE 14591
¶B. STATE 39260
¶1. (U) Summary: Following the recommendations of the G8
Bioterrorism Experts (BTEX) Group in 2005, a series of G8
workshops dealing with decontamination, food defense and
public health/law enforcement cooperation was organized.
"Demeter,s Resilience" was the second G8 food defense event
and was held May 27-29, 2008 at the U.S. National Center for
Food Protection and Defense (NCFPD) in Minneapolis, Minnesota
(reftels). The exercise was designed to stimulate national
and international cooperation and communication in
identifying, responding to and recovering from a terrorist
attack on the food supply. The NCPFD, a DHS Center of
Excellence, designed the exercise scenario and facilitated
the exercise. Exercise participation was lively and robust,
although not all G8 nations attended. The After-action
Report (para 4) contains further details on the exercise
format, scenario, emerging themes and key recommendations.
End Summary.
¶2. (U) U.S. Delegation: The U.S. delegation consisted of
Lindsey Hillesheim (State), John Guzewich (FDA), Perfecto
Santiago (USDA), Robert Hooks (DHS), and Bill Zinnikas (FBI).
The U.S. also sent several additional observers from FDA,
USDA, DHS, FBI, and OSTP.
¶3. (SBU) Other Delegations:
- The Government of Germany,s (GOG) delegation came
well-prepared for the exercise with answers in hand for many
of the discussion questions. Their delegation was composed
of representatives from the Federal Foreign Office, the
Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, and the Federal
Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection.
Since Germany is organized as a federal system like the U.S.,
much of the detection and response tasks fall to the Landers
(similar to states). Thus GOG emphasized the importance of
robust local public health and food safety systems and the
need to coordinate these systems across a federal
organization.
- In addition to several observers, the Government of
Canada,s (GOC) official delegation was robust and balanced
including representatives from the Department of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade Canada, Royal Canadian
Mounted Police (RCMP), Canadian Food Inspection Agency,
Health Canada, and the Department of Public Safety. The GOC
food defense response system is similar to the U.S. system,
thus providing significant opportunities to share best
practices.
- Her Majesty,s Government,s (HMG) delegation, while
missing a foreign affairs representative, was very active
during the exercise and included officials from the Health
Protection Agency, Food Standards Agency, and the Centre for
the National Protection of Infrastructure. Participants from
the G8 other delegations found many of the lessons
identified by HMG as a result of the Sudan Red recall in 2005
to be particularly useful, including the use of "scoping
meetings" that include experts from industry to map out how
an ingredient was distributed.
- The Government of Japan (GOJ) sent only one
person from the Cabinet Office,s Consumer Safety Division.
This small delegation was surprising given that GOJ holds the
G8 presidency and gave approval for the exercise to be held
and hosted by the USG.
- The Government of France (GOF) sent technical experts from
the Ministries of Health, and of Agriculture and Fishery.
Due to the lack of foreign affairs and law enforcement
officials, a complete picture of GOF,s response to a
terrorist attack on the food supply is not possible.
- The Governments of the Russian Federation and Italy did not
send delegations.
- The European Commission and the World Health Organization
both sent observers to the exercise.
¶4. (U) The following "After-action Report for Demeter,s
Resilience" includes input and comments from the countries
present at the exercise. A formatted version of the
After-action Report has already been shared with participants
and G8 BTEX points of contact.
Begin text of After-action Report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Demeter,s Resilience was a three-day exercise on food supply
protection for the G8 nations with fifty participants from
Japan, Canada, France, Germany, United Kingdom, and United
States. The exercise aimed to strengthen coordination,
cooperation, and communication between G8 nations in the
event of an intentional attack on the food supply. In
addition, the World Health Organization and the European
Commission along with a private industry representative
participated in the exercise. The exercise was hosted by The
National Center for Food Protection and Defense (NCFPD) at
the University of Minnesota.
The exercise provided nations an opportunity to discuss roles
and responsibilities of various stakeholders in event of a
terrorist attack, and enhance strategies for working together
to prevent and respond to a terrorist attack on the food
supply. In addition, Country representatives shared insights
on preparedness planning and lessons learned from previous
experiences.
Key recommendations resulting from this exercise include:
¶1. Establish and maintain key functional contacts in areas
relevant to food defense.
¶2. Establish a mechanism or leverage an existing one to
develop complementary risk communication messages during a
widespread outbreak.
¶3. Foster collaboration between countries to address gaps in
knowledge and capabilities in food-related surveillance,
diagnostics, decontamination procedures, and risk assessments
of threat agents.
¶4. Foster and develop relationships among stakeholders within
and between countries as these informal networks can enhance
the communications between nations and between sectors
relevant to food defense, as well as strengthen the
collective capacity of G8 nations to anticipate, prevent,
respond to, and recover from intentional contamination of the
food supply.
EXERCISE DESIGN AND FORMAT
In 2004 and 2005, G8 leaders committed to defending against
bioterrorism by; strengthening national and international
biosurveillance capabilities, increasing protection of the
global food supply, and improving bioterrorism investigation,
response and mitigation capabilities. In 2005 the G8
Bioterrorism Experts Group (BTEX) agreed on a work plan that
included the development of a food defense tabletop exercise.
Demeter,s Resilience served to initiate a dialogue between
G8 member nations on communication mechanisms during an
intentional bioterrorist attack upon the G8 food supply. The
exercise provided an opportunity for G8 nations to strengthen
lines of communication, which may enhance prevention,
mitigation and recovery efforts on food system events. The
simulated attack was based around a hypothetical food product
that is widely exported to and/or imported from all G8
nations.
Demeter,s Resilience was intended to accomplish the
following primary objectives:
-- Examine food defense communication and coordination
procedures within and among G8 countries in response to a
terrorist attack on the food supply.
-- Discuss the roles and responsibilities of the various
ministries, organizations, and sectors in responding to a
terrorist threat or attack on the food supply (e.g. law
enforcement, foreign affairs, food/agriculture/public health
agencies, and the private sector).
-- Through facilitated discussion and simulation, examine G8
countries, responses to a bioterrorism incident targeted at
the food supply system.
Demeter,s Resilience took place on May 27-29, 2008, and was
hosted by the National Center for Food Protection and Defense
(NCFPD) at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
Minnesota. Established in 2003 and led by the University of
Minnesota, the NCFPD is a Department of Homeland Security
Center of Excellence. The Center is a consortium of
academic, public sector, and private sector partners tasked
with developing technologies and strategies to prevent,
respond, and recover from intentional contamination of the
food system in order to mitigate the public health and
economic impact of the event.
In addition to the time participants spent engaged in the
exercise itself, an informal evening reception and lunches
allowed participants to interact outside of the structured
exercise. These informal events strengthened the personal
relationships and communication networks of exercise
participants. Besides the interactions among participants
physically present at the exercise, World Health Organization
(WHO) representatives participated via a web link from the
WHO,s global Strategic Health Operations Center (SHOC) in
Geneva, Switzerland.
To familiarize participants with other countries, response
plans and capabilities, each country provided an overview of
how response to food safety and/or food defense events was
organized in their respective country.
Demeter,s Resilience employed a fictitious scenario and
scenario elements or information--including descriptions,
timelines, and instructions--were provided by the exercise
facilitators to stimulate participant activity. The scenario
ensured necessary events occurred so that all objectives were
met. The exercise was divided into four distinct phases
representing significant periods in a food defense event:
notification, identification, investigation, and recovery -
followed by an interactive discussion session to capture key
features, lessons learned, and identify opportunities for
further work. Each phase began with an overview of key events
and communications occurring within the phase. Following the
phase overview and facilitator instructions, participants
reviewed the situation and engaged in group discussions
within and between G8 countries regarding an appropriate
response.
The exercise was intended to be a safe, open, and stress-free
environment to allow all participants to openly share their
perspectives. Varying viewpoints were encouraged, as there
are no international standards for handling a terrorist
attack on the food supply. Participants were encouraged to
focus on the communication process, and identify
opportunities to strengthen communication within and between
governments. Participants were encouraged to move among
groups and interact with the experts to ensure thorough,
thought-provoking discussion and problem resolution.
Exercise participants representing various government
agencies from six of the eight G8 countries were present.
Government agencies represented included those in the fields
of law enforcement, food safety, public health, agriculture
and foreign affairs. The World Health Organization and the
European Commission also had representatives present at the
exercise. A representative from industry was also present to
answer questions about their experiences in responding to
incidents of contamination occurring in the food supply.
SCENARIO OVERVIEW
An unspecified poultry processing facility in the United
States is the source of a breaded chicken product designed
primarily for restaurant distribution both in the United
States and for export. The contaminated poultry product is
shipped from the United States to all G8 member countries
through various modes of transport. The product is
contaminated during production via adulteration of the
breading mix, resulting in 24 breading batches contaminated
in a single day. The contaminant is relative heat stable,
with little or no organoleptic impact on the finished product
(i.e. not altering the taste, texture or smell). Clinical
presentation of acute gastroenteritis, often accompanied by
vomiting and diarrhea, occurs after a one day latency period.
Severely affected patients developmultiple organ failure
five days after apparent initial recovery.
Phase one consisted of public health identification and
notification of the initial illness. Because shipment times
and product consumption varied over different countries,
various numbers of illnesses were reported to the relevant
agencies at different times. This phase focused on illness
reporting within country, and how this information would be
both handled within the country and relayed internationally.
The phase ended with a fictional video news clip shown to the
entire group from "Global News Network" announcing unusual
and widespread illnesses occurring around the globe.
Phase two consisted of the initial epidemiological
investigation suggesting a single common source for many of
those affected during the outbreak. Some individuals, who
had previously gone to hospitals with vomiting and diarrhea,
returned later with multiple organ failure. This led to a
large number of hospitalizations, with several patients
dying.
Phase three began with a video news clip from "World News" in
which a terrorist organization claimed responsibility for the
outbreak. During this phase the specific product responsible
and the lot and shipment information were also confirmed.
Phase four focused on recovery. Contaminated product lots
were retrieved, and decontamination protocols were issued.
The rate of new illnesses rapidly declined, while new threats
to the food supply were received.
EMERGING THEMES
Food safety authorities and responsibilities are distributed
in different ways across countries and investigations into a
food borne illness outbreak vary by agency, country and
event. When an event is recognized as a food safety problem,
the roles of various agencies involved are fairly well
defined; however in intentional contamination (e.g. a food
defense problem), the triggers which initiate a concurrent
criminal investigation are more difficult to determine.
Recognition of a food borne disease outbreak is driven by the
characteristics of the illness, rather than actual numbers of
ill individuals. Some patterns considered were geography,
population demographics, as well as exposure information.
The event characteristics often determine which agencies are
involved in the investigation, and how soon other agencies
would be contacted. While international reporting may vary
due to legal constraints and uncertainty during an outbreak,
the effectiveness of international communication channels are
greatest when utilized as soon as possible after
identification of an outbreak.
During the course of a food borne disease outbreak there are
often multiple levels of communication underway. These often
include government communications to their affected or
at-risk populations, within country communications between
agencies or ministries, bilateral ministerial communications
between countries, ad hoc communications between scientists,
and perhaps communication with the media. Due to the
multiple levels of communication which occur, it is often
difficult to achieve consistent risk communication messages.
In addition, multiple communication messages may be needed to
reach different cultures or audiences.
On a global scale, it is challenging to develop a common case
definition. Several factors contribute to this challenge
including country differences in data collection and one
country,s ability, or inability, to utilize another
country,s investigative data. There is also variability in
the degree to which countries would involve the private
sector and civil organizations at different stages in a
response.
During an intentional contamination event, the health and
safety of the public remain the priority of all agencies
involved. A claim or suspicion of terrorism shifts
leadership of the overall investigation to law enforcement,
but not at the expense of the public health investigation.
Multiple agencies continue to provide active support for the
investigation. Uncertainty as to the route of contamination,
the contaminating agent, and the scale of the event all
contribute to the challenge of managing the response to a
widespread food contamination event. Law enforcement, food
safety, and public health working together on a major food
defense issue is a relatively new paradigm, and, as such,
there is a recognized need for increasing the knowledge of
public health, food safety, and law enforcement response
protocols within each country and between countries.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
Establish and maintain key functional contacts in areas
relevant to food defense. A system for up to date
information for key contacts and for promoting a network
among key individuals/agencies is needed both within
countries and across the G8 to ensure a timely and
coordinated response to a food contamination event. Existing
global forums should be utilized and expanded to discuss and
share lessons identified after an international bioterrorism
attack on the food supply.
Establish a mechanism, or leverage an existing one, to
develop complementary risk communication messages during a
widespread outbreak. Current global communication channels
(e.g. WHO INFOSAN and IHR notification) can be strengthened
to facilitate multi-national communication in the event of a
terrorist attack on the food supply. The sharing of
information needs to be fostered, and processes created to
forewarn countries of upcoming public announcements, as well
as exchange public messages and risk communication materials.
Foster collaboration between countries to address gaps in
knowledge and capabilities in food-related surveillance,
diagnostics, decontamination procedures, and risk assessments
of threat agents. A process to facilitate collaboration
among relevant researchers in multiple countries to address
these gaps should be developed.
Foster and develop relationships among stakeholders within
and between countries as these informal networks can enhance
the communications between nations and between sectors
relevant to food defense, as well as strengthen the
collective capacity of G8 nations to anticipate, prevent,
respond to, and recover from intentional contamination of the
food supply. Particular attention should be given to
developing relationships among public health, food safety,
and law enforcement agencies within countries and to
understanding the roles, responsibilities, and statutory
authorities of the various agencies required in responding to
an intentional contamination of the food supply. Tabletop
exercises could continue to be integrated to build capacity
and expand the personal networks of individuals responding to
during a bioterrorism event. Developing memoranda of
understanding and agreements between agencies ahead of time
will avoid confusion during an actual event. In addition to
public health, food safety, and law enforcement agencies,
non-traditional partners, such as private industry
representatives, consumer organizations, environmental
agencies and other stakeholders, should also be considered
for inclusion in training exercises.
CONCLUSION
Demeter,s Resilience increased participants, awareness of
G8 member nation,s food safety authorities and protocols in
G8 member nations for responding to incidents of intentional
contamination of the food supply. Exercise discussions
recognized the need for increased communication and
information sharing on an international level during a
bioterrorism attack on the food supply. The discussions also
reinforced the need for international communication channels
to be utilized early during an emerging event.
End text of After-action Report.
¶5. (U) Additional Information: Please contact OES/IHB,s
Lindsey Hillesheim (HillesheimLN@state.gov, 202-647-6922) for
additional information on this event, including the
participant list and a formatted version of the report.
Other inquiries related to G8 BTEX activities should be
directed to ISN/CTR,s Kendra Chittenden
(ChittendenKA@state.gov, 202-647-6294).
RICE