Printer Friendly

Rehearsing the unthinkable: agrimarketers plan for bioterrorism threats. (Cover Story).

To get a sense of what an agroterrorism attack might look like, I think back to the spring of 2001 -- a time when black smoke billowed up from the placid English countryside. The source of the smoke was thousands of cattle carcasses burned to contain BASE or mad cow disease.

While the epidemic devastated the British beef industry, agrimarketers in the U.S. can find reasons for hope from the British experience. First, thanks largely to hard work by regulators and businesses, BASE did not spread to our shores. Second, following the scare, U.S. consumers continue to purchase meat products, confident of their safety.

Agrimarketers can glean many valuable lessons from the recent mad cow disease epidemic as well as similar threats such as the e-coil and Tylenol scares. The most important lesson, perhaps, is that companies need to plan now to protect themselves from a possible threat. Equally important, they need to rehearse how they'll communicate with their customers if -- heaven forbid -- they fall victim to an agroterrorism attack.

"Food is a zero tolerance issue," explains Daren Williams, senior vice president at Fleishman-Hillard's Kansas City office and crisis specialist. By zero tolerance he means that people buy food products expecting them to be 100 percent safe. Thus, if companies fail to take reasonable steps to protect their products, the public will have little sympathy if a problem arises -- even if the problem is clearly not management's fault. Put simply, "Food companies can't afford to have a bioterrorism attack and say we didn't do anything to prepare for it," Williams says.

Little surprise, following the 9-11 attacks America's food companies have rushed to create preparedness plans. "We're taking a number of steps in that area," advises Larry Cunningham, senior vice president of corporate affairs at Archer Daniels Midland, Decatur, Ill. Cunningham cited coordinated efforts with trade associations and government agencies (see related story). But like other food industry executives Agri Marketing spoke with, he was understandably reluctant to discuss specific measures.


Meanwhile, some companies have devised ways to go on the offensive against agroterrorism threats. One example: Fort Dodge Animal Health. The Overland Park, Kan. maker of animal medicines enlisted its own customers in an effort to increase vigilance. In early November, Fort Dodge, a subsidiary of American Home Products, released a booklet on bioterrorism to the firm's 50,000 veterinarian customers. A goal of the booklet was to enlist those vets as a first line of defense against potential threats.

"Veterinarians know the disease patterns in their area," says Dr. Stephen Connell who helped produce the guide. "So they may be the first to spot any unusual patterns." Using a simple chart, the guide summarizes the symptoms of potential bioterrorist diseases like foot and mouth that are harmless to humans but might devastate livestock populations. It also describes more serious threats such as plague and hemorrhagic fevers that can spread from animals to humans. Part of the guide's purpose in the post-9-11 era is to help vets recognize when something is not a threat, says Connell. "As important as our vigilance is," he says, "we must be equally mindful not to overreact to circumstances that are not immediately understood."


Knowing when and how to react in the face of a potential threat depends on knowing precisely where a company is most vulnerable, says Williams. He instructs clients to study their entire operation. The goal: Identify vulnerabilities and devise ways to nullify them. Following such a review, a company might decide to improve its packaging, for example, or conduct more aggressive employee background checks.

Sometimes, he notes, threats can arise that have nothing to do with the company's own products. Williams says a recent client asked for advice after it learned that its mail-order catalogs were processed at a postal facility later found to contain anthrax. In the end, Williams and the company sought advice from the health department that assured them the catalogs were safe.

Knowing whom to call -- from the health department to law enforcement -- for such expert advice is crucial to any preparedness plan, Williams says. But with overlapping agencies regulating the food industry, that's not always easy. If a company believes its meat products have been tainted, the local USDA should be consulted, he says. But if the problem arises from contaminated feed, then it may be an FDA problem. Failing to contact the responsible agency can waste precious hours in a time of crisis.


Besides consulting the right agencies for help during crises, it's important to have the right people supporting you when you speak to the media, advises media consultant Eileen Wixted. Much of the work of her Des Moines-based firm Wixted Pope Nora Thompson & Associates involves helping companies communicate effectively in dire times. Her client list includes Sara Lee and the National Pork Producers as well as major airlines and several dozen nuclear power plants nationwide. Wixted's advice: "Always coordinate your communications efforts with the proper agencies." Relevant trade associations, law enforcement officials, regulatory agencies and local health authorities should all speak from the same podium during news conferences, for example. "People feel more reassured when they know many organizations are working together."

Like other companies specializing in crisis management, Wixted's firm has seen a pick-up in business since 9-11. "Ninety percent of the work we're doing right now is fire drills," Wixted says. Such drills can take several days and involve people from all levels of the company. The goal is to realistically simulate an actual crisis.

Knowing what audiences to reach and when it's appropriate to speak to them is especially critical. Company employees, for example, are often the first group in need of information, Wixted says. One reason for that is employees want to know steps are being taken to protect their safety. Another reason: In a crisis, rumors inevitably spread within an organization and can quickly reach the public. "The tendency is to circle the wagons during a crisis, when in fact the opposite is necessary. In the absence of communication, people think the worst," she says.

During the fire drills, executives also learn the art of grace under pressure. To train them, reporters badger executives with hard questions in mock TV interviews, while newspaper reporters demand minute details, facts, and figures for their lengthier stories.

Wixted says FBI and law enforcement officials may take part in these drills, working with management to devise a consistent response. Company lawyers may participate, too, approving drafts of media releases.


According to Williams it's vital to get just that sort of "buy-in" from all levels of management. Likewise, it's important the public receives the right information. During an agroterrorism crisis people will want to know three things: "What did you know; when did you know it; and what did you do about it?"

Unfortunately, companies -- governments, too -- often stumble badly when they face the press. During the height of the BSE crisis, for example, a prominent U.K. official fed his child a hamburger on TV. His intent was to show the meat was safe. But the action outraged viewers. Similarly, Williams says, health officials in the U.S. made mistakes communicating details about the anthrax attacks during the early going. Some openly speculated that the disease's first victim might have caught it while hunting.

To keep communications efforts focused and helpful, Williams offers three guidelines. Don't speculate about the cause, he advises. Instead, give a detailed account of what's being done to counter the threat. Then recommend specific steps people can take to protect themselves.

Above all, Williams says, don't offer false reassurances that can come back to haunt you. Case in point: The Japanese government at first assured its people that BSE would not spread to Japan, when in fact such assurances were impossible to make. When BSE did show up in Japan, the government was forced to recant. The lesson: Companies should never proclaim their products are immune from a bioterrorist attack. "I don't think we can honestly say that we have the means to prevent someone from attacking the food supply," Williams says.

Williams says the U.S. Postal Service devised a better way to help reassure its customers. Instead of claiming the mail was 100 percent safe from anthrax, it stressed the relatively low risk of becoming infected. Then, to assist its customers, the post office sent a card to every U.S. mail recipient. The card clearly explained how to detect possibly tainted mail and how to handle it if found.

Faced with a possible agroterrorism threat, companies would do well to emulate that approach. For example, if one item on the grocery produce department were somehow contaminated, it would be a mistake for other produce firms to claim their products were safe. Rather, they should inform consumers that security measures were in place and encourage them to decide whether buying the product was worth the risk.


Bioterrorism attacks tend to be particularly frightening because even the smallest incident can cause rampant fear and devastate an entire industry. What would happen, for example, if terrorists laid siege on the $54 billion U.S. beef industry, asked USDA analyst Salvatore R. Bosco at a recent conference on homeland defense organized by the Rand Corporation? "If we were to lose that $54 billion commodity from the marketplace overnight, I think the results would be catastrophic," he says.

That said, terrorists have targeted food and other ingestibles in the past. But quick steps not only contained the problem, they restored public confidence in the affected products, suggesting that the long-term effects of such attacks might be less serious than many believe. In 1984, members of an Oregon religious cult allegedly contaminated restaurant salad bars with salmonella, resulting in 751 illnesses, none of them serious. The incident has since been forgotten. More recently, unintentional outbreaks of e-coli bacteria in fast food restaurants haven't dissuaded people from visiting the drive-through.

An earlier terrorist incident generated far more concern across America. But again, smart actions minimized the long-term damage. In 1982, seven people -- three of them from the same family -- were killed in the Chicago area after taking Tylenol capsules filled with cyanide. When police identified the contaminated Tylenol as the cause, no efforts were spared to warn the public. Warnings poured from TV and radio stations. Patrol cars with loudspeakers hit the streets. And millions of Tylenol products were hastily removed from store shelves.

Meanwhile, executives at Tylenol's parent, Johnson & Johnson, struggled to save their company's most profitable brand. Tylenol accounted for 37 percent of the over-the-counter pain reliever market. But its survival remained very much in doubt. "I don't think they can ever sell another product under that name," popular ad guru Jerry Della Femina reportedly told the NY Times.

Undaunted, J&J executives devised a plan that is considered a classic in the annals of marketing. Nationwide, the company ordered $100 million worth of Tylenol products pulled from stores. People who had already purchased Tylenol capsules were offered tablets in exchange. Product ads were likewise pulled, and J&J sent warnings to health officials. The company also actively assisted investigations by Chicago law enforcement, the FBI and the FDA, offering -- among other things -- a $100,000 reward for the suspect's capture.

Next, company officials planned a comeback phase for their product. They created triple-sealed packaging and offered $2.50-off coupons in newspapers. Incentives to retailers helped regain lost shelf space. And J&J executives made presentations to doctors about their upgraded safety standards. "What Johnson & Johnson executives have done is communicate the message that the company is candid, contrite, compassionate, and committed to solving the murders and protecting the public," the Washington Post wrote.

Tragically, the suspect was never caught, and Tylenol products were again tampered with in 1986. Yet, as a result of J&J's efforts, Tylenol remains one of the world's most powerful global brands. Last year, in fact, Johnson & Johnson ranked first in a Wall Street Journal survey of America's most trusted corporations.
COPYRIGHT 2002 Doane Information Service
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2002, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Comment:Rehearsing the unthinkable: agrimarketers plan for bioterrorism threats. (Cover Story).
Author:Ingebretsen, Mark
Publication:Agri Marketing
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jan 1, 2002
Previous Article:After the anthrax attacks: direct marketing in agriculture. (Direct Relationship Marketing).
Next Article:Agriculture's response: food chain heightens biosecurity measures since 9-11.

Related Articles
Prognosis: Unknown; insurers' liability for losses caused by bioterrorism or the threat of bioterrorism is too new to be clear cut....
Straddling the great divide: farm broadcasters work to overcome the rural/urban gap. (Farm Broadcast Update).
Playing for keeps: a bioterrorism war game teaches professionals from the insurance, health-care, pharmaceutical and government sectors what they...
Fate of farm magazines: service, new tools rank as keys to success in print media. (Agricultural Publications Summit, LLC).
Bioterrorism Response Suite. (News and Products).
Disaster preparedness and the risky future. (Learning from Experience).
Better plan needed to protect U.S. agriculture from Bioterrorism. (Update).
Selling to commercial producers successfully: it's based on what we know and what we do with it!
FDA issues recordkeeping rule.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters