Report Warns of Threat to Milk Supply

About a third of an ounce of botulism toxin poured by bioterrorists into
a milk truck en route from a dairy farm to a processing plant could
cause hundreds of thousands of deaths and billions of dollars in
economic losses, according to a scientific analysis that was published
yesterday despite efforts by federal officials to keep the details secret.

The analysis by researchers at Stanford University, posted yesterday on
the Web site of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
seeks to quantify security weaknesses in the nation's milk-supply chain
and makes recommendations for closing those gaps.

Although some suggested changes are underway, federal officials felt the
material had enough potential for misuse to warrant a last-minute effort
to halt publication. That effort, which delayed the report's release by
a month but ultimately did not keep it from becoming public, proved to
be as contentious as the publication itself. It has assured the report's
place in the scientific canon as one of the first test cases of how to
balance scientific freedom and national security in the post-Sept. 11 era.

Study leader Lawrence M. Wein, whose previous research had forecast the
likely effects of terrorist attacks involving anthrax and smallpox, said
he was surprised by the government's push to block publication, which
involved a flurry of phone calls and meetings with officers of the
National Academies. The organization advises the federal government on
matters of science and publishes the journal.

Last fall, Wein said, he briefed high-ranking officials of the
departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services, along
with dairy industry representatives, on his work.

"It was clear the dairy people were nervous about this paper coming
out," Wein said. But when federal officials did not follow up, he said,
he assumed they had concluded -- as had every reviewer at the National
Academies -- that the information in the article was publicly available
and easily obtained through a Google search.

Bill Hall, a spokesman for HHS, said yesterday that his department still
opposes publication but was not in a position to block release of the
data, which are not classified.

"We don't see eye to eye on this," Hall said. "If this ends up being the
wrong decision down the road, the consequences could be quite severe and
HHS will have to deal with it, not the National Academies."

The analysis by Wein and graduate student Yifan Liu considered what
might happen if terrorists poured into a milk tanker truck a couple of
gallons of concentrated sludge containing as much as 10 grams of
botulinum toxin, a potent bacterial nerve poison now popular in low
doses as a wrinkle eraser.

Because milk from many sources is combined in huge tanks holding
hundreds of thousands of gallons, the toxin would get widely distributed
in low, but potentially lethal, concentrations and within days be
consumed by about 568,000 people, the report concludes.

The researchers acknowledge that their numbers are very rough. But
depending on how thoroughly the milk was pasteurized (which partially
inactivates toxins) and how promptly the outbreak was detected and
supplies recalled, about 400,000 people would be likely to fall ill,
they conclude.

Symptoms of botulism food poisoning arise within hours and progress from
cramps, nausea and vision problems to paralysis and death by
asphyxiation. Although only 6 percent of victims would generally be
expected to die, the death rate could easily hit 60 percent, they
conclude, because there would not be nearly enough mechanical
ventilators or doses of antitoxin to treat so many victims.

Children could be hit first and hardest, because milk goes directly from
processing plants to schools, avoiding the grocery-distribution system.

"They'd be the canaries," Wein said.

The report concludes that the most efficient ways to reduce such risks
are to insist that latches on tanker trucks have locks; improve
pasteurization processes; and develop tests that can detect
contamination before milk is delivered to outlets -- changes, the team
concludes, that are likely to cost just a few pennies per gallon.

Publication was scheduled for the week of May 30, but was abruptly
postponed days before that date when HHS officials contacted the
National Academies with concerns that the paper might inadvertently aid
terrorists, according to an accompanying editorial written by Bruce
Alberts, president of the Academies.

Those concerns were discussed in detail on June 7, after which the
Academies decided to publish. By then, a preprint of the article had
been widely distributed to journalists as part of the journal's standard
procedures, and the New York Times had published a summary by Wein in an
opinion piece.

Barry R. Bloom, dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, who oversaw
an independent review of the paper earlier this spring, said he is
convinced that the report did more good than harm by quantifying the
risks posed at each point in the milk-delivery system -- a difficult job
that now allows the industry and regulators to concentrate security
efforts where they are most needed.

"This paper didn't just slip in with no one thinking about it," Bloom
said. "But science depends on openness and the free exchange of ideas.
And being aware of threats gives us a better chance of protecting
against them than not being aware of them and having only the terrorists
aware of them."

A national security directive signed by President Ronald Reagan and
still in force demands that fundamental scientific information remain
openly accessible unless it is formally classified.

Chris Galen, a spokesman for the National Milk Producers Federation in
Arlington, criticized the Academies' decision, saying the information
"could inform someone with malicious designs on food safety, even just
as a prank."

The need for improved pasteurization "is something that has already been
addressed" by the industry, he said, as has the need to keep locks on
truck latches.

He acknowledged, however, that those improvements, encouraged by the
Food and Drug Administration in recent years, are not mandatory. And
although he said the newer standards are being "widely followed," he
conceded he had no data to indicate what proportion of dairies and milk
processors are adhering to the tougher recommendations.






I think if you want to eat more meat you should kill it yourself and eat it raw so that you are not blinded by the hypocrisy of having it processed for you.

Margi Clark