Printable Page

Agriculture and Food Biosecurity Planning Committee: Summary of Meeting
July 8-9, 2003, Minneapolis

Participants
Purpose of Meeting
Outcome
Next steps
Appendix A: Committee Members
Appendix B: University of Minnesota Project Staff and Consultants
Appendix C: Other Participants
Appendix D: Goals, Scope, and Features of the Proposed Agriculture and Food Biosecurity Center
Appendix E: Organizational Chart for the Proposed Agriculture and Food Biosecurity Center

Participants

Industry

The Agriculture and Food Biosecurity Planning Committee, organized by the University of Minnesota in collaboration with industry members, is a farm-to-table group of senior executives and senior scientific leaders in the food system. The group's composition reflects a balance of interests across the entire food chain—farm inputs, livestock production, crop production, manufacturing and processing of commodities and consumer food products, wholesale food, retail, and food service. (See Appendix A for a list of participants.) The Committee held its first meeting March 25-26, 2003 (see Meeting Summary).

University of Minnesota Conveners

Three University of Minnesota groups collaboratively convened this meeting: the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP),* the Center for Animal Health and Food Safety, and the School of Public Health Division of Environmental and Occupational Health. (See Appendix B for a list of University participants.)

Other Participants

See Appendix C.

Purpose of the Meeting

This meeting focused on two distinct but interrelated topics:

1.      Assessment of a proposal for an independent agriculture and food biosecurity center and consensus on whether the Committee should move forward with plans to implement that proposal

2.      Discussion of the current federal initiatives in food system biosecurity, particularly the upcoming meetings convened by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in conjunction with the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Proposal for an Agriculture and Food Biosecurity Center

The Committee considered several major aspects of the initiative: legal options for structuring the center, given the overarching concerns about protection of confidentiality; goals, scope of activity, and primary features and services; and a framework for the center's governance, management, and funding as an independent, nonprofit organization. Highlights of these discussions follow:

Legal issues

Mark Bohnhorst and Arnie Frishman, attorneys with the University of Minnesota's Office of the General Counsel, outlined two models for the center's legal structure and discussed their implications with the committee. For the reasons summarized below, the committee unanimously favored the second model.

1.      The center affiliated with the University of Minnesota. The advantages mirror those for other centers within a major public research facility: e.g., direct access to research personnel, use of physical facilities, access to funding, availability of legal counsel, and sovereignty (limits on liability). The key disadvantage in this case is a potential loss of control over various aspects of the center's operation, given the authority of the University Board of Regents and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.†

2.      An independent center unaffiliated with the University, but maintaining a relationship to the University through its faculty and students. The critical advantages to this model are the ability to ensure confidentiality of the private sector data and the flexibility to pursue any activity or avenue of research the center's Board deems appropriate. A location in close proximity to the University would enhance the center's ability to hire University faculty as consultants and graduate students as employees.

Goals, scope, and features

The committee reviewed in detail the draft document "Goals, Scope, and Features of an Agriculture and Food Biosecurity Center," and approved the initiative as outlined. The revised version of this document (see Appendix D) reflects the committee's specific suggestions on a variety of points, including the following:

Since the food system is global, the center's activities should address the importance of the global marketplace.

• Cost-effective methods to collect data from the agricultural sector are needed, particularly for the large numbers of growers, producers, and small businesses (eg, through the use of umbrella organizations such as co-ops and growers' trade associations).
• Further work needs to be done to define member eligibility across various food system entities.

Organizational framework

Dan Dennison, project consultant, proposed options for the center's membership, governance, management, and funding (see Appendix E). The committee discussed categories of membership in the center, and the role of a Board of Directors elected by the membership. According to this proposal, an executive committee, consisting of officers and at-large positions, manages the center's programs, which include the major strategic programs (such as information sharing, analysis, response, and education and training) as well as special tactical initiatives designed for particular subsets of members. It is anticipated that the strategic programs will be funded by general membership dues and special external grants, whereas the tactical initiatives will be supported through special assessments of the member participants and outside grants.

Current Federal Initiatives

The committee discussed the current situation regarding DHS plans to convene a series of sector-wide meetings involving representatives from the lead agencies for food and agriculture, HHS and USDA, along with representatives of the private sector. [Editor's note: the first of these meetings is on August 6.] The meetings are aimed at organizing critical infrastructure protection activities for the food and agriculture sectors, as directed by two recent presidential documents, The National Strategy for Homeland Security (July 2002) and its follow-on report, The National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets (February 2003). DHS' initiative may include the designation of a sector coordinator to oversee the development of a food system information sharing and analysis center (ISAC).

Outcome

After meeting in a closed-door session, with the University of Minnesota participants excused, the committee reaffirmed the need for an independent, member-directed agriculture and food biosecurity center, whose overall goal is to protect the critical infrastructure of the food system from acts of terrorism through proactive information sharing, analysis, event response, education, and training. They reiterated strong support for the collaborative proposal to develop such a center and recommended that the group strive to accelerate its timetable for operation. In doing so, they recognized that the committee's focus is transitioning from planning to implementation; to facilitate this transition, the committee will consider becoming the center's Interim Board.

The committee strongly encouraged its members to participate fully in the current food biosecurity initiatives with DHS, HHS, and USDA. They emphasized that company officials play a critical role in defining the biosecurity needs and concerns of the sector and that substantive engagement of the companies directly (rather than through trade associations) is essential for effectively addressing these issues across the farm to table food system.

Next Steps

The committee identified two immediate goals to accommodate the rapid timeline for the center's development: to develop a business plan for the center and to conduct a pilot project to demonstrate the center's surveillance, analysis, and response capabilities (see below). Both are collaborative efforts between the committee and the University of Minnesota participants. At the next meeting in two months, the committee will review the progress of the pilot project and the draft business plan, with the goal of achieving a final version of the business plan in that session. 

The Business Plan

The committee noted that the plan should address the following key aspects of the center's value and purpose:

• Specific biosecurity threats to the food system, as distinct from food safety risks
• The need for scientific and analytical expertise to identify credible threats to the food system and to distinguish them from non-credible threats
• Assurance of confidentiality in information sharing, analysis, and response
• The need to clearly define the center's mission, goals, products, and services
• The expertise, credibility, and leadership of this project's University participants, plus the value of leveraging additional skilled resources from the University of Minnesota's food science and agriculture-related departments, other academic institutions, and private sector organizations.

The Pilot Project

The Committee recommended that the University participants conduct a pilot project among a small group of companies to demonstrate the surveillance, analysis, and response components of the proposed center. Committee members generated a list of high priority surveillance topics to be considered for this project. Participation in the pilot project is open to any of the companies, but if necessary, preference may be given to Minnesota-based companies in order to facilitate communications in this short-term exercise.

*******

Appendix A: Agriculture and Food Biosecurity Planning Committee Members

Dane Bernard, Chairman Vice President, Food Safety and Quality Assurance, Keystone Foods (West Conshohocken, PA)

Susan Ajesk a Senior Vice President, Innovations and Quality Fresh Express (Salinas, CA) Wyatt Elder Manager, Corporate Food Safety Cargill, Inc. (Minneapolis, MN) Chet England, PhD Senior Director, Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs Burger King Corp. (Miami, FL) William G. Fry Vice President, Quality Assurance and Environmental Affairs H-E-B Grocery Co. (San Antonio, TX) Fred Hegele, PhD Senior Regulatory Officer General Mills, Inc. (Minneapolis, MN) Dave Hettinga Senior Vice President, Research & Development and Technical Land O'Lakes, Inc. (Arden Hills, MN) Stan Iwanicki Vice President, Science and Technology Birds Eye Foods, Inc. (San Antonio, TX) Cindy Jiang, MS Director, Food Safety McDonald's Corp. (Oak Brook, IL) Joel Johnson CEO, President, and Chairman of the Board Hormel Foods (Austin, MN)

Beth Lautner, DVM, MS Vice President, Science and Technology National Pork Board (Des Moines, IA) Bill Lyons Vice President, Risk Management Sodexho, Inc. (Gaithersburg, MD) Jeff Sholl President The Sholl Group (Minnetonka, MN) Ray Steed Director, Incident Management Coca-Cola Co. (Atlanta, GA) David Theno, PhD Senior Vice President, Quality and Logistics Jack in the Box, Inc. (San Diego, CA) Ron Triani, PhD Director, Scientific Relations Kraft Foods, Inc. (Glenview, IL) Gary Weber, PhD Executive Director, Regulatory Affairs National Cattlemen's Beef Association (Washington, DC) Dave Wiemer Director, Quality Assurance Supervalu, Inc. (Minneapolis, MN) Fred Yoder President, National Corn Growers Association (Plain City, OH)

Appendix B: University of Minnesota Project Staff and Consultants

Jill DeBoer, MPH Associate Director Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy Dan Dennison, PhD Consultant Sue Ferenc, DVM, PhD Consultant, SAF·Risk, LC Craig Hedberg, PhD Associate Professor Division of Environmental and Occupational Health School of Public Health Will Hueston, DVM, MS, PhD Director, Center for Animal Health and Food Safety Professor, College of Veterinary Medicine and School of Public Health

Shaun Kennedy Associate Director Center for Animal Health and Food Safety Kristine Moore, MD, MPH Medical Director Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH Director Center for Infectious Disease Research  and Policy Professor, School of Public Health Julie Ostrowsky, MSc Program Manager Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy

Appendix C: Other Participants

Forrest Dryden, PhD Vice President, Research & Development Hormel Foods (Austin, MN) Sarah Geisert Director, Global Regulatory Affairs General Mills Corp. (Minneapolis, MN) Mark Bohnhorst, JD Associate General Counsel Office of the General Counsel University of Minnesota

Arnie Frishman, JD Associate General Counsel Office of the General Counsel University of Minnesota Jerry McAllister, PhD Executive Director, Research and Development 3M Corp. (St. Paul, MN)

Appendix D: Goals, Scope, and Features of the Proposed Agriculture and Food Biosecurity Center

The Agriculture and Food Biosecurity Center is characterized by the following:

• Farm-to-table scope‡
• Neutral, third party position relative to the private sector and government
• Confidential information sharing and data privacy
• Science-based analyses and guidance
• Non-profit organization
• Governance and management by representatives of member companies across the food system industry
• Staffing by scientific and technical experts from independent sources, including (but not limited to) the University of Minnesota

Overall Goal of the Center:

To assist food-related companies, associated industries such as transportation, and government to prepare for, prevent, and respond to biosecurity threats to the food system.

Objectives:

• Guard against possible intentional harm to consumers and to the farm-to-table food system
• Reduce the potential for and respond to public fears over intentional food contamination events by providing member companies with relevant information and guidance on issues or specific events
• Help to prevent economic instability in the food supply chain
• Protect public health by supporting the continuity of supply of wholesome foods
• Accomplish these objectives through cost-conscious and high value services

Scope of activity:

Types of risks and threats: Bbiosecurity threats to the food system (including its personnel, products, facilities, and assets) from biological, chemical, and radiological agents, as well as physical and cyber threats.

Sector: The farm-to-table food system, including, as necessary, coordination with related, interdependent critical infrastructure sectors (e.g., transportation, water supplies, electrical power, information technology) and with federal, state, and local government agencies (e.g., food safety, public health, agriculture, intelligence, and homeland security.)

Geographic (national/international): Initial focus on prevention and detection of intentional incidents that affect domestic food consumption, with the goal of expanding on an international basis as needed.

Role in the event of a intentional foodborne outbreak or terrorist attack: Provide all relevant information collected by the center to appropriate federal, state, and local government authorities on a timely basis and as determined by the protocol developed by the industry participants, and assist in the investigation and public health response as requested by the government authorities.

Primary clients: Member food system companies and, where appropriate, trade associations or other umbrella groups for growers, producers, and small businesses, representing all sectors of the food system—from production (agriculture and livestock) through manufacturing and processing, wholesaling, packaging, transportation and distribution, retailing, and food service.

Primary features and services

The goals will be achieved through the following features and services, phased in over a 24-month period.

Surveillance and analysis

To determine if food or the critical infrastructure of the food system is being threatened, and to enable early recognition of threats or contamination events, the Center will:

• Collect information from companies on atypical, suspicious events and unusual clusters or trends
• Analyze and prioritize threat information
• Using real time information (obtained from private sector companies, government intelligence agencies, and outside intelligence sources), implement an active, early alert network to provide consolidated advisories with meaningful, actionable guidance (with the potential for customizing levels of alerts needed in each company)
• Coordinate with veterinary reporting requirements, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and security organizations in other sectors (including transportation, water, and electric power)
• Using tabletop exercises, develop protocols for information transfer, with particular attention to preventing injury to participating companies or creating unfair advantage to any company as a result of that transfer

Response

When credible threat information has been gathered or is available through authoritative channels, the Center will:

• Facilitate rapid diagnostic responses, e.g., by maintaining a list of accredited commercial food/agricultural labs with specific capabilities and by compiling information about on-site biohazard testing methods and rapid screening techniques
• Provide company officials with information and guidance on responding to unusual outbreak and terrorism response events (such as white powder contamination and exotic infectious agents) and develop and communicate preventive measures, where known
• Provide company officials with 24/7 availability of appropriate scientific expertise (academic, industry, and third party), including individual experts and ad hoc expert groups for multidisciplinary problem solving
• Play strategic role in providing designated senior company officials with unbiased, scientific information for rapid and accurate company communications about real or threatened events; provide relevant scientific information to the media or general public, within the scope of predetermined guidelines developed by the industry participants
• Provide a secure repository for information targeted to individual companies or to specific sectors of the food system that companies can use to prepare for or respond to biosecurity issues or events

Education and training

For industry officials and government representatives on food and agriculture issues, the Center will:

• Convene expert groups for scenario planning, crisis management, triage protocols, and "blue sky" exercises.
• Compile and maintain a secure online information clearinghouse (e.g., consisting of the compilation of all alerts and public statements on specific issues from various organizations.)
• Develop educational programs for industry (current examples include the University of Minnesota's Public Health Institute and DVM/MPH dual degree program.)
• Suggest preparations that companies can make in advance of actual threats or events, such as sharing best practices and identifying emerging technologies.
• Support industry-to-government and industry-to-industry training on food and agriculture biosecurity issues.
• Conduct or stimulate the development of research programs to address gaps (identified by the companies) in technical information and preparedness capabilities.

Financial support

The Center's operation will be supported by participation from member companies and, where deemed appropriate, government agencies. Specific initiatives that contribute to the Center's operational success, such as research, education, and training programs, may be supported by independent, outside funding sources.

Appendix E: Organizational Chart for the Proposed Agriculture and Food Biosecurity Center

*CIDRAP's work in food system biosecurity is funded by a grant from NTI, a private, charitable foundation based in Washington, DC.

†The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, is a state law that controls how government data are collected, created, stored, used, and released. It applies to state agencies, including statewide systems such as the University of Minnesota.

‡The farm-to-table system includes farm inputs, such as seeds, chemicals, animal feed, fertilizer, etc.