|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
ABCN Giving Terrorist Support in Boston! |
Current rating: 0 |
by FLIPSIDE
(No verified email address) |
13 Dec 2005
|
|
|
As I have said before, Anarchist Black Cross Network supports domestic terrorist groups (like ELF), and they publicize their fundraisers on Boston Indymedia Center. This is an update of recent developments. While most of us were doing our Christmas shopping, these guys were organizing material, financial, and organizational support for Gender Marxists who harass people at their homes, and for Unabomber types. Several of these persons are from Cambridge or Somerville, MA.
While the offensive wing of their organization remains closed to the public, the defensive wing remains open. Occasionally, little tidbits get through like these four postings. Here is a Table of Contents for what follows this story:
I: In which anarchist Jamal Hannah from Boston's Jericho Project rants against Animal Rights Activists.
II: In which communist Michael Patrick from ABCN and IWW cajoles him into aiding Terrorists.
III: In which Mark Laskey of NEFAC and the Lucy Parson's Center agrees with Michael Patrick.
IV: In which Matt Carroll of ABCN Cambridge MA agrees with Michael Patrick.
The significance of this exchange is that there is a general understanding even amongst lefties, that 1) Animal Rights Activists are wackos, and 2) nobody can agree on what to eat. These are two a priori (irrevokable) conditions of the universe. Thus, agents from Industrial Workers of the World (The Communist Party) reduce the issue to a moral imperative: "Thou Shalt support anyone who destroys stuff, as it helps The Cause." In this case, Michael, Mark and Matt sing in unison their support of arson.
The group "bostonanarchists" membership overlaps and/or composes Boston's anarchist union, "BAAM." BAAM is also ABCN. Industrial Workers of the World member Michael Patrick is also the meeting caller of ABCN. IWWs are known for their hatred of capitalism, their advocacy of violence at WTO meetings and their strange mission to destroy every Starbucks and Wal-Mart for reasons wholly unrelated to taste.
Matt Carroll is a Smiths fan, Jafaican, and graduate of St. John's Preparatory School, and Mark Laskey is a street urchin from Boston.
Notes:
International Action Center, IWW, Workers' World Party, ISO, ANSWER, BAAM are all affiliated. Members overlap Boston Indymedia Center and ABCN which support all the same people and causes. BIMC syndicates their garbage in support of Mumia/Crips/HugoChavez/Buttfucking/RosaParks/Illegal Aliens/EatingFromDumpsters/Communism. (Did you see something there that did not belong?) That is because they pander to the hip-hop and black community by combining its heroes with their causes, hoping to gain some melanin in their "Revolution" by linking gay vegan communism with black nationalism. They are collectively responsible for the proliferation of pussified and antiquated notions of liberation that are out of step with technology and modernity. They support weak rap acts like The Foundation. These are the people spamming hip hop blogs with crap about Tookie Williams and the latest racist hype.
Disclaimer: Some well respected emcees have advocated Mumia, Eating From Dumpsters, and Veganism.
People like to justify shit they did. Fuck them too.
An Anarchist Opinion About (And Analysis of) "Animal Rights Activists" Jamal Hannah
# From: "Jamal Hannah" < jah (at) bronze.lcs.mit.edujah@bronze.lcs.mit.edu>
# To: < bostonanarchists (at) lists.riseup.netbostonanarchists@lists.riseup.net>
# Subject: An Anarchist Opinion About (And Analysis of) "Animal Rights Activists"
# Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 05:53:47 -0500
# References: <50727.trenchesfullofpoets.1134070277.squirrel (at) mail.riseup.net>
I have a bit of an angry rant here, but I aso want to offer some opinion and analysis that migth be helpful if people actually feel like thinking carefully about this subject.
You know, I am a bit uncomfortable with people conflating anarchists (which I am) with animal rights activists (which I am not), and using the term "animal rights activists" as a catch-all term that includes people who actually do destructive stuff that violates federal law. Do we even get to debate this, like, how much we "are" the same as these people? I mean is there any democratic or consensual process or discussion allowed? Can an anarchist "opt out", or are we all supposed to support/go along with this stuff amost blindly?
If I'm going to go to jail, it isn't going to be for rescuing some lab animal or attacking some animal testing facility clandestinely. I'm more concerned about human beings not taking ther own destiny and control of their own lives and communities into their own hands, and I work toward that. I'd trather be arrested for taking action against fascists, christian fundamentalists, of various corporate authoritarians when they are _activly trying to kill people or enslave them_. (Which is a slow process in America but considerably faster in the 3rd World.)
People might tell me "oh how heartless you are for not caring about the poor animals", but what happens when *I* am _homeless_, with no medication, and I need a place to stay? My experiance is that "activists" will leave people like me to rot. I have no sympathy for people like that. (I spent over a month homless in San Francisco in early 2004) You are scum. You SUCK. You only think about emotional issues that are abstract with respect to humans, but when it comes to real people, it seems that you hate human beings... that PEOPLE are a "bother", and obsticle. That "people suck". Well I _disagree_.
We have Area 4 here in Cambridge, North Cambridge, in Boston there is Roxbury and Dorchester - not to mention many more (wite and nonwhite) poor and working class communities in and surrounding Boston. People there are poor and kept ignorant and unhealthy and manipulated by corporations and the government that serves the corporations. They need qality basic education. They need alternative news media that really speaks to and for them. They need social bonds. They need to see the lessons of history and they need to know what to do in a country with a federal government that doesnt care about them at all. I'm more concerned about that kind of stuff. I'd rather agetate politically to work to spread libertarian socialist ideas in those communities, and elsewhere.
I don't really know what to say to the animal rights people, besides that I resent the idea of being pulled down with them when they are in this kind of trouble (with the feds), because that isn't my fight, as an anarchist. It's not MY fight. I do not agree with their behavior, attitude, or tactics. (I'll go into this in more depth below).
I'd like to know why it is that we're supposed to panic when we hear about the FBI going after these people- do we really expect the feds to do nothing reponse to the ALF and ELF? (Saying this does not mean I support the feds, I'm just talking common sense here. The feds are going to do their jobs.)
If you want to know where this stuff really stands, then go out in some public place and poll ordinary Americans about the kind of tactics the ALF and ELF use. You can tell them what the labs do, too... use all the gorey details - but also show reports and proof of the ELF and ALF actions and the results. The fact is, if ordinary people don't like it after they have a chance to fully understand and comprehend it, and there isn't much you can do to change that (and yelling and screaming at them will make it worse, trust me), then you are in the wrong. You don't have popular support, yet you say "fuck the people, fuck public opinion, im going to go and do this anyway, because my ideals are better than theirs, I know better than those people". That is CRAZY ASS SHIT.
When racism was being fought aggresivly in the past, you had a far more participatory process with the public, because the fact was, when the pubic was exposed to testemonials of the effects of racism, the public tended to shift toward an anti-racist position. It was the corporate media and political leaders and racist institutions which resisted (and some sections of the ordinary population, of course). In cases where the effects of racism and poverty stemming from it were obvious to everyone, the situation came to a point where the goverment and corporations had NO CHOICE but to change and impliment new laws.. law which they can't destroy directly but have to instead chip away over decades, with the help of cultural and psychological tactics like the "PC conspiracy" mythology.
In the case of fighting for animal rights, since the animal rights people have to speak for the animals instead of the animals themselves, it gets problematic. If a lot of the propaganda is old, and reused stuff, it becomes less effective, or even silly. PETA and the ALF also have alot of activists who act like anti-abortion people: they talk in that loud, panicked, rushed voice that suggests they are on a different psychological and emotional track than the rest of us (and most importantly they do not care about our opinion or input when they talk to us on the street: they have made up their minds, it is our job to be "convinced" or converted). It's hard to sympathize with them. We do know, however, that the public responds strongly to accurate, timely information about real animal abuse (which we know the labs and meat processing industry are keeping hidden from cameras), and does not tolerate it from the government or corporations (though meat eating is a far larger issue than animal testing and many Americans will not give it up in spite of knowing how the animals they eat are slaughtered - though it is likely that the public would not tolerate how the animals in factory farms are treated, this is a very broad and extensive propaganda project that will take a lot of time and resources and persistance - burning shit down wont help _at all_).
I believe that the ALF and ELF are going about what they do all wrong... instead of trying to expose what is going on and present proof to the public, they instead have done destructive actions that break federal law, and then they self-rightiously expect the public (or completely different kinds of activists) to support them, when the public - if honestly informed would very likely not. It doesnt work that way (to ignore the public, to not even make attempts to engage them). I'd like to see accurate figures of the public's response to the ALF or ELF actions, and if it changes over time, or if seeing a building on the news burning down fills ordinary people with any kind of feeling that they need to support ALF/ELF, or they need to care more than usual for animals. I very much doubt it does, and that year after year the property destruction tactic does not help the animal rights cause - as some kinda of non-physically-destructive media-based exposure tactic *would* help - actions which even if clandestine would only violate lesser laws (trespassing, breaking-and-entering) and would not give the "mad bomber" stigma to the activists. And don't you tell me that the more violent or flame-enshrouded an action is the "better" or more "bad ass" or "effective" it is. That is nonsense.
So I'm saying here that I disagree with the "animal rights activists" (to use the sweeping term), because I think the tactics and attitude of the ALF, ELF and even PETA tend to suck, and I do not think there is enough if an appreciation for the principles of liberty, solidarity, and equality, when it comes to their mindset. To say my non-support says I dont care about solidarity, too, would be wrong, because my solidarity with anyone is based on my ability to freely choose if I agreee with something after hearing all sides of the issue. If that does not exist and there is only their emotion and rage (over abstract, detached concepts) to convince me, then I say no, I don't support it, and I don't feel any association or share any "collective guilt" with such people.
I would like to add, too, that I think the disregard for other people's opinions - especially the "person on the street" is part of a larger trend that has affected some of the radical scene in the past few decades (especially the "anti-civ" or "insurrectionary" types) - the anti-democracy position, anti-concensus position (as much as people may use the term concensus in positive ways, it's clear that some people do not even care for it as well - they do not grasp that other opinions than their own can exist or hav legitimacy and that they have to work hard to convince people with good arguments, proof and examples), or the "anti majoritarian" position, in which freedom and liberty is seen not as an aspect of human nature we all desire and want to share in a social context ... but individual freedom is a central part of democracy and concensus- this fact was obscured by the polarizing effects of the Cold War, in which both sides (the Authoritarian Left and the Capitalist Right) tried to convince us that "the social" and "the individual" were seperate worlds or opposing forces: it was the greatest scam and bamboozlement of ordinary people of the 20th Century. Freedom and Liberty in America has been translated into a more narrow concept than what was in the minds of the people before the Cold War: merely an excuse to do whatever the fuck one wants and not care about what other people around you think or how they are affected. You see this attitude expressed on TV all the time.. in sit-coms, in cartoons, in the news, in novels... and I fear it has affected activists as well. Hate people. Hate other opinions. Disregard trying to come to agreement, trying to convince people with honesty and hard work. When I think of the ALF and ELF I feel similarly to the way I see the moslem fundamentalists in the middle east - they made up their minds about what they want and they wont accept any disagreement or variation.
-J
Re: [bostonanarchists] An Anarchist Opinion About (And Analysis of) "Animal Rights Activists" michael_patrick
# From: michael_patrick (at) riseup.netmichael_patrick@riseup.net
# To: bostonanarchists (at) lists.riseup.netbostonanarchists@lists.riseup.net
# Subject: Re: [bostonanarchists] An Anarchist Opinion About (And Analysis of) "Animal Rights Activists"
# Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:47:31 -0800
# References: <50727.trenchesfullofpoets.1134070277.squirrel (at) mail.riseup.net> <008101c5fcae$d53d4a80$2e01a8c0 (at) aoldsl.net>
# User-agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.0.4)
Jamal,
I don't even know how to respond to this. In a time of increased federal repression, anarchists are supposed to come together and defend the greater community and common goal. You seem to romanticize the farcical division of red v green anarchism, and specifically object to anything remotely ecological on some strange ideological level. I'm sorry if eco-defense does not conform to whatever rigid platform you adhere to, but the fact of the matter is there can be no red revolution without green sustainability. The two issues go hand in hand with anarchism as represented in the common black half of the two flags. Under capitalism, the ELF is a necessity as the earth cannot properly defend itself from big timber, GMO crops, mountain top removal, etc. No, the ELF is not a revolutionary organization - they never have claimed to be. The Elves are simply making sure that the earth is still habitable when state and capital are finally abolished. What good is a stateless/classless society if there is no breathable air?
Even if you disagree with the tactics and/or politics of the Elves and their supporters, you must support any action to defend them from the state. Remember the old "First they came for the Jews..." verse. If you do not support all anti-authoritarian comrades under state repression, factional divisions will be driven into the community that we all have worked damn hard to build up. Its an issue of divide and rule. The state exploits the farcical divisions between black and white, blue collar and white collar, and, yes, red and green anarchism. We all must support eachother and recognize the overlapping agenda points that our different approaches render. It's called solidarity.
Remember your security culture. Do not talk shit about comrades under increased federal repression.
--
Michael Patrick
Boston ABC
www.anarchistblackcross.org
www.bostonabc.org
Re: An Anarchist Opinion About (And Analysis of) "Animal Rights Activi sts" kronstadt (at) juno.com
# From: " kronstadt (at) juno.comkronstadt@juno.com" < kronstadt (at) juno.comkronstadt@juno.com>
# To: bostonanarchists (at) lists.riseup.netbostonanarchists@lists.riseup.net
# Subject: Re: An Anarchist Opinion About (And Analysis of) "Animal Rights Activi sts"
# Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:48:56 GMT
Red anarchist, green anarchist... is there really anyone on this list who
doesn't smile at least a little bit everytime a luxury condo goes up in
flames? Or the stockholders of a major corporation are being attacked? I
don't know about the longterm effectiveness of these tactics (although, you
have to admit SHAC has been very effective), but whatever, just the fact that
some anonymous person was able to brighten my day a little as I read about
their actions while I am on my way to work gets at least my passive support.
I dunno, I definitely fall squarely in the "red" camp anarchist-wise. I also
eat meat, and have pretty mixed opinions about issues like animal testing,
biotech, genetic engineering, etc. But I also know my friends from my
enemies, and would not publically condemn anyone fighting battles for
liberation... even if I did not agree 100% with their tactics or strategies,
or even necessarily their conception of liberation.
I guess I would echo Mike and Tania's sentiments. I don't know that anyone
expects you to actively support anarchists or liberation activists who's
politics and tactics you disagree with, or even that you not hold critical
views of them. But I think there should be an unspoken expectation that you
do not publically condemn them. Particularly while federal investigations are
being conducted. Why make the feds work any easier for them?
Cheers,
----MaRK
Re: [bostonanarchists] Re: An Anarchist Opinion About (And Analysis of) "Animal Rights Activi sts" coweatman
# From: coweatman (at) riseup.netcoweatman@riseup.net
# To: bostonanarchists (at) lists.riseup.netbostonanarchists@lists.riseup.net
# Subject: Re: [bostonanarchists] Re: An Anarchist Opinion About (And Analysis of) "Animal Rights Activi sts"
# Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:35:08 -0800 (PST)
# Importance: Normal
# References: <20051210.134946.4293.103840 (at) webmail51.lax.untd.com>
# User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.5
although i think my politics have probably been greening a little in the
past couple of years, like mark, i'm pretty red. on the other hand, the
same factories that treat their workers like shit often also make the air
harder to breathe and the water harder to drink, and i don't know what
kind of workers' revolution can survive with no air and no water. i feel
that your jabs at people who are under direct state repression for doing
activist work are completely uncalled for, and if there were folks sitting
in jail for some kind of labor organizing, you probably wouldn't react
kindly to some greens refusing to support them because they were
"workerist". i don't think the state really splits too many hairs over
those it considers its enemies, and it's to our benefit to put aside petty
differences and take the fuck care of each other.
matt |
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
Sounds Like Bushies |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Dec 2005
|
Now, what kind of decent people run around accusing others of being "terrorists"? -- whatever the devalued meaning that hoary old McCarthyism still has.
And the IWW and CP in alliance? Maybe in Urbana, but this seems rather non-sectarian to me for Boston, which is a good thing. Maybe there's hope for the East Coast after all.
But that doesn't seem tlike a shared value with the opinion above. |
|
"Agroterrorists" Needn't Bother |
by Stan Cox
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Dec 2005
|
“In the war on terrorism, the fields and pastures of America’s farmland might seem at first to have nothing in common with the towers of the World Trade Center or busy seaports. In fact, however, they are merely different manifestations of the same high-priority target, the American economy.â€
That's Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) warning us about "agroterrorism", a specter that she and others in Washington say is stalking rural America. Here in the Great Plains, we're all being exhorted to keep a round-the-clock lookout for agroterrorists lurking around farms or feedlots.
Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, Republican chair of the Intelligence Committee, has been hyping agroterrorism since 1999. But it took the 9/11 attacks to get some action. Roberts recently told the Wichita Eagle, "At least now, when I talk about agroterrorism, people don't tell me to talk about something else."
Keeping in mind that terrorists never seem inclined to take targeting suggestions from US politicians, we know these days to treat any use the word "terrorism" with deep skepticism. But when a prefix is attached, we should be especially wary.
Given the lack of standardization (the prefix of "bioterrorism" denoting the means of attack, of "narcoterrorism" the means of finance, of "ecoterrorism" the beneficiary, and of "agroterrorism" the target) it's clear that "terrorism" is simply a device to draw attention to whatever is in the prefix, and maybe scare up some funding.
The Current Research Information System (CRIS -- http://cris.csrees.usda.gov/Welcome.html) is a database describing all agricultural research projects funded by the US Department of Agriculture through grants, contracts, or its own agencies. A search of CRIS for variants of the terms "agroterrorism" or "terrorism" turns up 18 agriculture-related projects initiated during the four-year period 1998-2001. For the following four years, 2001-05, there are precisely 100 projects that mention terrorism or related terms.
Titles of the projects range from "Semiochemical Management Tactics for Filth Flies in Animal Production" to "A Partnership for Pharmaceutical and Economic Development of Wild Lebanese Plants". Some of the projects are actually aimed at thwarting or investigating agroterrorism. Many others simply mention it as one among many applications of research that the scientists would likely be doing anyway for other reasons. Either way, agroterrorism is 'in' in Washington.
This past summer, the federally funded National Agricultural Biosecurity Center at Kansas State University prepared a report (http://php.nabc.ksu.edu/content/weblog/article/19) for the US Department of Justice entitled "Defining Law Enforcement's Role in Protecting American Agriculture Against Agroterrorism" (their italics). It defined "four categories of potential terrorists", only one of them identifiably foreign, who might spread foot-and-mouth or other diseases among cattle, causing billions in economic losses but no human illness:
1. International terrorists
2. Economic opportunists
3. Domestic terrorists (either a Timothy McVeigh type or a "disgruntled employee")
4. Militant animal rights activists (The report notes that "militant elements, such as the Animal Liberation Front, could view an attack on the animal food industry as a positive event.")
It seems that agroterrorism is just a new name for old-fashioned sabotage.
Out here in the red states, we often worry that the average American has little knowledge or interest in agriculture. But we need to change our attitude, according to the "Agro-Guard" program sponsored by the NABC and Kansas Bureau of Investigation. Its brochure (http://php.nabc.ksu.edu/images/uploads/Agrobrochure.pdf) urges citizens to report to the authorities anyone showing an interest in agricultural matters who has "no logical reason or purpose" for such interest. It exhorts rural Americans to "report any activity around facilities that YOU deem suspicious or out-of-place."
So now I suppose we do things this way:
New Jersey traveler: "Say, do you guys give tours?"
Slaughterhouse manager: "May I see your papers, please? ... Hey, Merle, call the sheriff!"
In Kansas City each spring, The FBI and federal Joint Terrorism Task Force convene an International Symposium on Agroterrorism. Relying on some of the concepts discussed at the 2005 Symposium (http://www.fbi-isa.org/presenters.htm) and other oft-mentioned scenarios, I composed the following list of six potential threats.
Then I realized that much of the damage agroterrorism is expected to cause is already a reality:
"Agroterrorists might sicken or kill thousands of Americans by contaminating the food supply with biological agents."
Thousands of Americans? The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/food/index.htm) that "76 million Americans get sick, more than 300,000 are hospitalized, and 5,000 people die from foodborne illnesses each year."
The flow of food contaminated with nasty microorganisms coming from of an ever-more-industrialized countryside is heavy and constant. Of the 10 organisms listed by the US Public Health Service (http://www.fightbac.org/10least.cfm) as the most serious threats, 7 are carried by meat and dairy products.
In promoting the agroterrorism threat, Senator Collins conjured up a bucolic image: "the fields and pastures of America's farmland." But the overcrowded, filthy conditions of gigantic feedlots and animal-confinement facilities that produce most of our meat are well-known, as are the opportunities for contamination in high-throughput, lightly inspected slaughterhouses.
Cattle consuming a grain-based diet in feedlots (and that's the vast majority of beef cattle in this country) are more likely to have the deadly bacterium E. coli 0157:H7 in their feces (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010511074623.htm) than are grass- or hay-fed cattle, and meat is frequently contaminated with feces as it leaves the slaughterhouse.
What if someone were to poison the rural water supply?
Someone's already doing it. A 1998 CDC report showed that 15% of domestic wells in Illinois, 21% in Iowa, and 24% in Kansas were contaminated with nitrates above a safe level. Most of the nitrates get into wells by escaping the roots of heavily fertilized crops and leaching into groundwater. Consumption of nitrates is associated with methemoglobenemia ("blue baby syndrome") in infants. Many, but not all, studies have shown links between nitrates and various cancers (http://www.cheec.uiowa.edu/nitrate/health.html) in adults.
A 2004 report by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (http://www.kdheks.gov/befs/download/305b04text12f.pdf) surveyed 19,500 miles of rivers and streams in the state. More than half of those miles -- 10,800 -- were "impaired for one or more uses" by pollution. Of more than 180,000 acres of lakes, 75% were similarly polluted. More than 40% of stream mileage and lake acreage was unable to "fully support" aquatic life, and 69% of lake acreage could not fully support domestic water uses.
In the Kansas study, agriculture was by far the biggest cause of damage to surface waters -- exceeding industry, municipal discharge, sewage, urban runoff, mining, and oil drilling combined.
Terrorists might breed bacteria resistant to most or all antibiotics, spreading hard-to-cure diseases among animals and humans.
But they'd be too late (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/safe/overview.html). According to a study published this year by CDC scientists, bacterial resistance to multiple antibiotics in human patients comes chiefly from feeding antibiotics to livestock. The bacteria that survive and contaminate the meat of such animals are likely to be resistant.
And, the study showed, resistant bacteria are more likely to cause bloodstream infections (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15655779&dopt=Citation) requiring hospitalization. A 2004 study found that an outbreak of antibiotic-resistant urinary tract infections (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/urinary-tract-infections-in-women-may-be-difficult-to-treat-because-of-overuse-of-antibiotics-in-food-animals.html) of women in California was caused by meat-borne bacteria from antibiotic-treated animals.
In this country, antibiotics are widely fed to livestock even when they aren't sick, because the drugs promote weight gain and profits. That practice has been banned in Europe because it accelerates the development of hard-to-kill bacterial strains.
"Vast acreages of crops could be wiped out by inoculation with plant diseases."
Mother Nature is already busy inoculating crops with a massive array of fungi, bacteria, viruses, and insects -- some beneficial and some harmful. Over the past 30 years, Kansas wheat production has been reduced by an average 30 to 40 million bushels per year by a dozen different fungal and viral diseases -- and that doesn't count insects and mites.
The disease organisms are natural, but epidemics are not; they result when vast acreages are sown to one or a few crop species (e.g., corn and soybeans in the Upper Midwest, wheat in the Great Plains), the fields are kept as free as possible of any other flora or fauna, and only a handful of genetically similar crop varieties are grown.
As late as the 1960s, the United States bioweapons program worked on "weaponizing" two crop diseases, wheat stem rust and rice blast, and the Soviets worked on such pathogens for another couple of decades after that, but neither seems to have come up with an effective way to wipe out a nation's crop entirely.
Terrorists might use chemical weapons. Remember, the 9/11 gang showed an interest in flying crop dusters!
Of the 1.2 billion pounds of pesticides (fungicides, insecticides, herbicides, and others) used in the United States, 75% are used in agriculture, and that proportion has been fairly constant over the past 20 years.
The consequences? The following is reproduced from a report (http://www.nrdc.org/health/kids/farm/exec.asp) by the Natural Resources Defense Council:
"Children living in farming areas or whose parents work in agriculture are exposed to pesticides to a greater degree, and from more sources than other children.
"The outdoor herbicide atrazine was detected inside all the houses of Iowa farm families sampled in a small study during the application season, and in only 4 percent of 362 non-farm homes.
"Neurotoxic organophosphate pesticides have been detected on the hands of farm children at levels that could result in exposures above U.S. EPA designated "safe" levels.
"Metabolites of organophosphate pesticides used only in agriculture were detectable in the urine of two out of every three children of agricultural workers and in four out of every ten children who simply live in an agricultural region.
"On farms, children as young as 10 can work legally, and younger children frequently work illegally or accompany their parents to the fields due to economic necessity and a lack of child care options. These practices can result in acute poisonings and deaths."
By far the most comprehensive epidemiological study of the effects of ag chemicals is the National Institutes of Health / EPA Agricultural Health Study (http://www.aghealth.org/), which has been running since 1993. Scientists have been monitoring the health of private and commercial pesticide applicators and spouses -- almost 90,000 of them so far. The still-unfinished research is suggesting that some ag chemicals present risks to humans. "Outcomes of concern" include cancer, neurologic diseases, reproductive problems, and nonmalignant respiratory diseases.
Meanwhile, the EPA, at industry's urging, continues to permit dosing of human subjects (http://www.beyondpesticides.org/photostories/week_75_11_29_05/week75.htm) with pesticides in order to test their effects.
"A highly trained agroterrorist might infect crops with a toxin-producing fungus and contaminate our food that way."
No terrorists or training necessary. Vomitoxin, produced by the "scab" fungus Fusarium graminearum, and aflatoxin, produced by Aspergillus flavis, have been inflicting enormous headaches and costs on farmers and the grain industry for years. Vomitoxin makes a wheat or barley crop unusable as human food and drastically reduces or destroys its value as livestock feed. Aflatoxin, found most often in peanuts or corn, is carcinogenic (http://www.nal.usda.gov/fsrio/research/fsheets/fsheet01.htm).
n the state North Dakota alone, scab has cost farmers $162 million this year and $1.5 billion (http://www.grandforks.com/mld/agweek/13191844.htm) since 1993. It caused a disastrous epidemic in the southeastern United States in 2003.
Two factors have converged in recent years to make scab much more severe: (a) farmers concerned about soil erosion have reduced or eliminated tillage in many fields, leaving infected crop residue on the soil surface, and (b) grain agriculture in the US continues to emphasize continuous monocultures or unsustainable rotations such as wheat following corn.
Those who are sounding the agroterrorism alarm acknowledge that the increasing concentration of US agriculture, and its increasingly industrial infrastructure, make it more vulnerable. But those same, homegrown forces are already having consequences that are not easy to distinguish from the results of a hypothetical agroterror attack.
With an agriculture like this, who needs terrorists?
Stan Cox is a plant breeder (perennial crops -- http://www.landinstitute.org/ , resistant to terrorism) and writer in Salina, Kansas. He can be reached at: t.stan (at) cox.net. |
|
