State Officials’ Perceptions of the Food and Agriculture Sector Criticality Assessment Tool (FASCAT), Food-system Risk, and Food Defense Funding

Huff Andrew G. (), Kircher Amy, Hodges James S. and Kennedy Shaun
Additional contact information
Huff Andrew G.: National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Kircher Amy: National Center for Food Protection and Defense, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Hodges James S.: Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Kennedy Shaun: Veterinary Population Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 2014, vol. 11, issue 1, 101-116

Abstract: Determining food system criticality is necessary to mitigate risks to the nation’s food supply and prioritize and allocate funding. The Food and Agriculture Sector Criticality Assessment Tool (FASCAT) is a tool used broadly by state governments to determine the criticality of food systems throughout the US State officials (SOs) responsible for food defense (n=32) were surveyed to determine whether FASCAT is of value to food defense and to determine SOs’ security beliefs, values, and practices related to food defense. Results indicated that: (1) SOs believe FASCAT is easier to use than other forms of risk assessment; (2) FASCAT training may have introduced bias into assessment of probability, threat, vulnerability, and consequences; (3) FASCAT is valuable to SOs; (4) SOs do not routinely follow security management best practices; (5) SOs believe that intentional biological threats to the food system are the most probable threats, though without supporting evidence; and (6) SOs believe food defense risk mitigation is not adequately funded by state or federal governments. These findings indicate that even though bias was potentially introduced to FASCAT assessments, SOs believe FASCAT has been useful to them in determining food system criticality. SOs indicate that more funding is needed from state and federal governments to adequately mitigate and manage food defense risks, and that they require more comprehensive training from food defense subject matter experts in threat assessment, risk mitigation, and security management to reduce the possibility of bias from FASCAT training.

Keywords: cognitive bias; criticality assessment; food defense funding; resource allocation; risk perception (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2014
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1515/jhsem-2013-0063 (text/html)
For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bpj:johsem:v:11:y:2014:i:1:p:101-116:n:7

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.degruyter.com/journal/key/jhsem/html

DOI: 10.1515/jhsem-2013-0063

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management is currently edited by Irmak Renda-Tanali

More articles in Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management from De Gruyter
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Peter Golla ().