Tommy Thompson's Words of Warning

[Dogstar]

Was watching the Daily Show, and they featured some of the coverage from what I guess was HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson's outgoing press conference. He commented that he was suprised terrorists hadn't tried to attack America's food supply, given how unprotected it is. It only takes a few seconds of thinking about it to panic just a little -- how easy would it be to deposit anthrax spores on vegetables or some other germ/virus into a cereal box?

If that isn't concerning enough, when asked Thompson was asked why he was only mentioning it now, his response was that he basically didn't feel bound by the Bush administration anymore, and it was time to present his ideas, not other ones. (Paraphrasing). Anyone else think that that it's interesting that he made that statement?

[Poleaxe]

Anyone else think that that it's interesting that he made that statement?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Kerry supporters were telling us that fear of terrorism was being overblown by the administration to scare the public.

If we can't completely guard what comes in our ports, or who crosses our borders is there any damned way in hell that we could adequately protect our food supply? Why scare the country over poisoned pop tarts, when there isn't a lot that can be done about it.

[Dirt]

Things will be done if we make a big deal out of it.

[Poleaxe]

Things will be done if we make a big deal out of it.

Think long and hard about what it would take to guard the food supply of 300 million people from start to consumption.

[Dirt]

Things will be done if we make a big deal out of it.

Think long and hard about what it would take to guard the food supply of 300 million people from start to consumption.

Think long and hard about how many people (particularly children) will die if we don't at least try.

[Poleaxe]

Things will be done if we make a big deal out of it.

Think long and hard about what it would take to guard the food supply of 300 million people from start to consumption.

Think long and hard about how many people (particularly children) will die if we don't at least try.

Try what? I'm waiting for suggestions. Also, how do we pay for it? Specificly.

[Dirt]

Things will be done if we make a big deal out of it.

Think long and hard about what it would take to guard the food supply of 300 million people from start to consumption.

Think long and hard about how many people (particularly children) will die if we don't at least try.

Try what? I'm waiting for suggestions. Also, how do we pay for it? Specificly.

We could use the money we've been spending on Iraq protecting their food, their oil and their people.

[Padre]

Things will be done if we make a big deal out of it.

Think long and hard about what it would take to guard the food supply of 300 million people from start to consumption.

Think long and hard about how many people (particularly children) will die if we don't at least try.

Erm, what?

Taking the attitude that we have to try and stop all possible avenues for terrorist attack because of the possible horrific consequences, however unlikely, is precisely the problem with the "war on terror".

There is no way any security regime will be able to cover all the angles. And while we're happily expending resources, ceding civil liberties and working ourselves up into a frenzy worring about every possible avenue of attack, the terrorists are WINNING.

The biggest impact of terrorism is not in the deaths or injuries the acts cause, but the psychological damage that occurs afterward. Feeling perpetually scared about everything from your food supply to commercial airliners is exactly where the terrorists want the average American Joe to be.

Yes, the food supply is massively insecure. But do you know what? LIFE is massively insecure. Every day we take risks with our health, expose ourselves to threats of all kinds, and take it on trust that things will work out. Does this attitude cause us to come unstuck occasionally? Yes, of course it does. But inbetween the disasters, we're having a far better quality of life.

I'd rather die in freedom than live in fear.

[Dogstar]

I tend to agree with Poleaxe that it's impossible to protect our food supply. I also tend to agree that it would be impossible to pay for such, too. I'm sure the guys at the US Army Bio Center (forget which fort it is, think it's in MD) and the CDC have food contamination possibilities gamed out. Not that that makes us a great deal safer. I'm with Thompson on this one. I'm kind of surprised the food supply hasn't been targeted. And to me, that scares me more than Cheney constantly rumbling about some WMD being detonated in a city. Nice to alert the populace that it's an issue, though.

[$iljanus]

I also tend to agree that it would be impossible to pay for such, too. I'm sure the guys at the US Army Bio Center (forget which fort it is, think it's in MD) and the CDC have food contamination possibilities gamed out. Not that that makes us a great deal safer.

Ft. Detrick in Frederick, MD. And I'm sure that this was studied back in the bad old days of the Cold War as well.

[Dogstar]

Thanks Siljanus! Just couldn't remember it. And you're right, I'm sure it was. However, then there was the threat/logic of MAD. Now, not so much. Although before anyone dumps weaponized ebola on our food, they'd do well to remember that germs/viruses don't really care whom they kill. And given that we're a transportation hub, the risk of something spreading beyond our borders...

[$iljanus]

Thanks Siljanus! Just couldn't remember it. And you're right, I'm sure it was. However, then there was the threat/logic of MAD. Now, not so much. Although before anyone dumps weaponized ebola on our food, they'd do well to remember that germs/viruses don't really care whom they kill. And given that we're a transportation hub, the risk of something spreading beyond our borders...

Or the spread of hoof and mouth disease among the domestic cattle population would wreak economic havoc. Not as sexy as Ebola laden Quaker Oats though, but the microbe responsible for hoof and mouth might be easier to obtain and grow perhaps.

[Zarathud]

The food supply wasn't secure even WITHOUT terrorists. The US cattle industry has spent a lot of time and money denying that mad cow disease could effect the US -- but do a little research and you'll realize that it takes a long time for symptoms to show. And the US isn't really checking, either. I'm worried because I *LIKE* to eat cows (only one-generation away from family farmers) and the chemical properties of the abnormal protein is extremely scary stuff.

The same reason why the food supply isn't secure is the same reason the ports aren't secure --- MONEY. After the first World Trade Center, a family member who held a high position in the New York Port Authority proposed a plan to take basic steps to secure the containers coming into the NY/NJ harbors. Only after 9/11 were his plans looked at seriously and implemented. Why? No one wanted to pay even for some basic, common sense steps to reduce the probability of a terrorist attack.

No one's suggesting that the food supply or the ports can be completely secured -- the issue is taking basic, common sense steps rather than rushing to commerce at all costs and denying insecurity at home. Instead, the homeland security money is spent on "high visibility projects" which definitely have NIL effect except to show your tax dollars at work. For example, the underpasses of the Chicago highways are now fenced off for "national security" reasons. But you can still drive by O'Hare and see huge exposed fuel tanks. There is little accountability for the supply of food at the most likely targets -- processing and/or shipping.

We should fight terrorism by fighting small battles to reduce the risk, rather than engaging on futile "grand crusades" which turn out to be nothing more than a dog-and-pony show and a lightning rod for controversy. But when the President finds no fault with invading Iraq under false reasons, why should we expect a real solution to the war on terror?